DOCSLIB.ORG

EINSTEIN's OPPONENTS: the Public Controversy About the Theory Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EINSTEIN's OPPONENTS: the Public Controversy About the Theory Of EINSTEIN’S OPPONENTS This detailed account of the controversy surrounding the publication of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity explores the ferocious popular and academic oppos- ition which at one time encircled one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the twentieth century. Based on extensive archival research, this fascinating discourse includes a com- pelling and entertaining examination of the contemporary literature created by Einstein’s detractors. Exploring the arguments and strategies, social contexts, and motivations of Einstein’s detractors, and providing unique insights into the dynamics of scientific controversies, this book is ideal for anyone interested in the history and philosophy of physics, popular science, and the public understanding of science. M ilena Wazeck is a Newton International Fellow at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, and a historian of science interested in the intersection of modern physics and its social context. EINSTEIN’S OPPONENTS The Public Controversy about the Theory of Relativity in the 1920s MILENA WAZECK University of East Anglia Translated by GEOFFREY S. KOBY Kent State University University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107017443 Translation © M. Wazeck 2014 Originally published in Germany as Einsteins Gegner: Die öffentliche Kontroverse um die Relativitätstheorie in den 1920er Jahren by Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt/Main. Copyright © Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt/Main 2009 Cover illustration © 2008 Laurent Taudin This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. The translation of this work was funded by Geisteswissenschaften International – Translation Funding for Work in the Humanities and Social Sciences from Germany, a joint initiative of the Fritz Thyssen Foundation, the German Federal Foreign Office, the collecting society VG WORT and the Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels (German Publishers & Booksellers Association). First published 2014 Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd. Padstow, Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-107-01744-3 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Contents Translator’s preface: making the imaginary accessible – translating Einstein’s Opponents page vii Preface xix Abbreviations xxi Introduction 1 1 The world riddle solvers 15 1.1 The dark side of the popularization of science 15 1.2 The phenomenon of world riddle solving 20 1.3 Contexts of world riddle solving 23 1.4 The world riddle solvers’ conception of science 41 1.5 The anti-academic attitude and dissociation from academic research 58 1.6 Provisional appraisal of world riddle solving 62 2 The confrontation with the theory of relativity 66 2.1 The triumphal march of the theory of relativity in the public sphere 66 2.2 The mental block to reception 76 2.3 The defensive attitude to the “attack” of modern physics 81 3 The debate on the content of the theory of relativity 90 3.1 The criticism of the reorganization of fundamental physical concepts by the theory of relativity 91 3.2 Two conceptions of science 147 3.3 The content-based accusations of plagiarism 157 4 Marginalization and protest: the strategic dispute with the theory of relativity 176 4.1 Marginalization 177 v vi Contents 4.2 Argumentative strategies against marginalization 216 4.3 Network formation and protest organizations of Einstein’s opponents 237 Conclusion 307 References 313 Secondary literature 313 Sources 324 Quoted newspaper and periodical articles 348 Unpublished sources 351 Index 352 Translator’s preface: making the imaginary accessible – translating Einstein’s Opponents geoffrey s. koby For a professional translator and translation scholar, translating a book is a unique opportunity to reflect in practice the knowledge and positions that one has de- veloped by studying theory. Each book is unique in its situation, embedded in one culture yet interesting to another. The translator acts as a cultural mediator, transmitting information and attitudes across the linguistic boundary to make them accessible to target-language readers who would otherwise be unable to access the content. At the same time, every translation is simultaneously an interpretation of the source-language text. In the early nineteenth century, Friedrich Schleiermacher already offered the distinction between a domesticating practice in translation and a foreignizing practice. Similarly, work in recent years by authors such as Lawrence Venuti (2008), Mona Baker (2006), and Susan Bassnett-McGuire (2002), has highlighted the theoretical position that there cannot be only one single, definitive translation. Instead, each translator brings a unique perspective to the translation at hand. At the same time, translators must follow the “translation brief ” (also referred to as translation instructions, see Nord 1991); that is, the particular specifications agreed upon between the translator and publisher – or in this case, between the translator and author. In the following, I will describe my perspective on the translation and the decisions that were reached, often in consultation with the author, to create what we defined as the translation brief: standing squarely and intentionally in the fluent, “domesticating” tradition of English language translation, this work is intended to be an accessible, readable, and factually accurate translation that simultaneously reflects the spirit of the German original.1 1 The text has been slightly revised in English by the author in interaction with the translator, where the initial translation made it apparent that either clarification was necessary, or that some point needed to be expanded. In addition, the references have been updated to some extent and English sources have been used as appropriate. vii viii Translator’s preface As discussed above, every source text is subject to a range of possible inter- pretations. This leads to the question of what constitutes an “accurate” transla- tion – a question that can only be understood within the boundaries of a particular genre of translation. Although Venuti (2008,p.2)assertsthatfiction is “the most translated genre worldwide,” I would argue that this statement needs to be modified; fiction may be the most translated genre that appears in traditional publishing venues, but non-fiction in its many varieties is much more likely to be the most translated genre. This includes both self-published documents (e.g. corporate reports and technical specifications), and documents such as contracts or training materials used internally in a large variety of multilingual organiza- tions, along with literally any kind of document that may need to be translated for legal purposes (e.g. lawsuits). The size of the membership of professional transla- tion associations indicates that professional translation extends far beyond non- fiction: the American Translators Association alone counts more than 11,000 members in 2013. My conception of accuracy in non-fiction, then, can be explained using a metaphorical image of a coaxial cable (see figure). From the center outward, a coaxial cable is composed of a center core wire, a dielectric insulator, a metallic shield, and a plastic jacket. Let us assume that the message of the source text, as embodied in its wording, is represented by the central wire at the core of the cable. This original message is the guiding line that each translator follows in creating his or her translation. Given that multiple interpretations are possible for any source text, there is a range of solutions or renderings of any source text passage that would be considered by the community of professional transla- tors to be acceptable or congruent with the intent of the source text author as embodied in the wording. The American Translators Association Certification Program recognizes four broad levels of translation accuracy in its Rubric (American Translators Association 2011): Strong, Acceptable, Deficient, and Minimal. Strong and Acceptable translations represent interpretations that contain few or no deviations or incongruities from the source text’s factual information. A deficient translation is considered to deviate sufficiently far from the range of plausible interpretations of the source text to require editing by another translator. A minimal translation deviates so strongly from the range of interpretations considered acceptable by the majority of translators that the amount of effort required to edit the translation to an acceptable level of congruity might be more than that required to simply retranslate from the begin- ning. Translator’s preface ix The Source Text “Acceptable” translation The original that the Translated text transfers meaning in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy Sunday, July 8, 2018 12:01 PM
    Philosophy Sunday, July 8, 2018 12:01 PM Western Pre-Socratics Fanon Heraclitus- Greek 535-475 Bayle Panta rhei Marshall Mcluhan • "Everything flows" Roman Jakobson • "No man ever steps in the same river twice" Saussure • Doctrine of flux Butler Logos Harris • "Reason" or "Argument" • "All entities come to be in accordance with the Logos" Dike eris • "Strife is justice" • Oppositional process of dissolving and generating known as strife "The Obscure" and "The Weeping Philosopher" "The path up and down are one and the same" • Theory about unity of opposites • Bow and lyre Native of Ephesus "Follow the common" "Character is fate" "Lighting steers the universe" Neitzshce said he was "eternally right" for "declaring that Being was an empty illusion" and embracing "becoming" Subject of Heideggar and Eugen Fink's lecture Fire was the origin of everything Influenced the Stoics Protagoras- Greek 490-420 BCE Most influential of the Sophists • Derided by Plato and Socrates for being mere rhetoricians "Man is the measure of all things" • Found many things to be unknowable • What is true for one person is not for another Could "make the worse case better" • Focused on persuasiveness of an argument Names a Socratic dialogue about whether virtue can be taught Pythagoras of Samos- Greek 570-495 BCE Metempsychosis • "Transmigration of souls" • Every soul is immortal and upon death enters a new body Pythagorean Theorem Pythagorean Tuning • System of musical tuning where frequency rations are on intervals based on ration 3:2 • "Pure" perfect fifth • Inspired
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution
    Theory and Experiment in the Quantum-Relativity Revolution expanded version of lecture presented at American Physical Society meeting, 2/14/10 (Abraham Pais History of Physics Prize for 2009) by Stephen G. Brush* Abstract Does new scientific knowledge come from theory (whose predictions are confirmed by experiment) or from experiment (whose results are explained by theory)? Either can happen, depending on whether theory is ahead of experiment or experiment is ahead of theory at a particular time. In the first case, new theoretical hypotheses are made and their predictions are tested by experiments. But even when the predictions are successful, we can’t be sure that some other hypothesis might not have produced the same prediction. In the second case, as in a detective story, there are already enough facts, but several theories have failed to explain them. When a new hypothesis plausibly explains all of the facts, it may be quickly accepted before any further experiments are done. In the quantum-relativity revolution there are examples of both situations. Because of the two-stage development of both relativity (“special,” then “general”) and quantum theory (“old,” then “quantum mechanics”) in the period 1905-1930, we can make a double comparison of acceptance by prediction and by explanation. A curious anti- symmetry is revealed and discussed. _____________ *Distinguished University Professor (Emeritus) of the History of Science, University of Maryland. Home address: 108 Meadowlark Terrace, Glen Mills, PA 19342. Comments welcome. 1 “Science walks forward on two feet, namely theory and experiment. ... Sometimes it is only one foot which is put forward first, sometimes the other, but continuous progress is only made by the use of both – by theorizing and then testing, or by finding new relations in the process of experimenting and then bringing the theoretical foot up and pushing it on beyond, and so on in unending alterations.” Robert A.
    [Show full text]
  • Nietzsche's Dialogic Ethic After Illusion: Rhetoric and Difference John Prellwitz
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Fall 2006 Nietzsche's Dialogic Ethic After Illusion: Rhetoric and Difference John Prellwitz Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Prellwitz, J. (2006). Nietzsche's Dialogic Ethic After Illusion: Rhetoric and Difference (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/1062 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Nietzsche’s Dialogic Ethic After Illusion: Rhetoric and Difference A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by John H. Prellwitz November 20, 2006 Chair: Ronald C. Arnett, Ph.D. Reader: Richard H. Thames, Ph.D. Reader: Kathleen Glenister Roberts, Ph.D. Copyright ii Preface Acknowledgements The thanks I mention here merely begin to describe the debts I owe to those who helped to enable my completion of the Ph.D. Program in Rhetoric at Duquesne University: I wish to thank Cindy Burke and Jane Gardner for all their kindness, understanding and support. Duquesne University for the funding of my graduate assistantship that allowed me to complete my studies at a University campus, graduate college, and in a department committed to education for the mind, heart, and spirit. To my many colleagues whose conversations and questions sparked illumination and offered guidance in innumerable ways, thank you.
    [Show full text]
  • David E. Rowe Einstein's Allies and Enemies: Debating
    DAVID E. ROWE EINSTEIN’S ALLIES AND ENEMIES: DEBATING RELATIVITY IN GERMANY, 1916-1920 In recent years historians of mathematics have been increasingly inclined to study developments beyond the traditional disciplinary boundaries of mathe- matical knowledge.1 Even so, most of us are accustomed to thinking of the relativity revolution as belonging to the history of physics, not the history of mathematics. In my opinion, both of these categories are too narrow to cap- ture the full scope of the phenomena involved, though interactions between the disciplines of physics and mathematics played an enormously important part in this story.2 A truly contextualized history of the relativity revolu- tion surely must take due account of all three scientific aspects of the story – physical, philosophical, and mathematical – recognizing that from the be- ginning Einstein’s theory cut across these disciplinary boundaries. Still, one cannot overlook the deep impact of the First World War and its aftermath as a cauldron for the events connected with his revolutionary approach to gravitation, the general theory of relativity.3 Historians of physics have, however, largely ignored the reception and development of general relativity, which had remarkably little impact on the physics community as a whole. Hermann Weyl raised a similar issue in 1949 when he wrote: “There is hardly any doubt that for physics special relativity theory is of much greater consequence than the general theory. The reverse situation prevails with respect to mathematics: there special relativity theory had comparatively little, general relativity theory very considerable, influ- ence, above all upon the development of a general scheme for differential geometry” (Weyl, 1949, 536–537).
    [Show full text]
  • Janoušek and Rollinger, the Prague School, Cleaned Up
    The Prague School Hynek Janoušek and Robin Rollinger The name the “Prague school of Brentano” refers to three generations of thinkers who temporarily or permanently lived in Prague, bound together by teacher/student relationships, and who accepted the main views of Franz Brentano’s philosophy. In 1879 Carl Stumpf (see CHAP. 31) arrived in Prague to take up a professorship of philosophy at the Charles-Ferdinand University. In 1880 Stumpf’s close friend and also a student of Brentano, Anton Marty (see CHAP. 30), became a professor in the same department. This marks the beginning of the Prague School. The presence of Stumpf and Marty was in fact a dramatic shift in orientation first and foremost in the domain of psychology, for Prague had previously been an enclave of Herbartian psychology, which Brentano had criticized in various respects throughout his Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (Brentano 1874). In a certain sense their presence even harked back to an earlier time in Prague when Bernard Bolzano was developing a theory of science very much in opposition to the Kantianism of his time. Though Brentano’s philosophy was very different from Bolzano’s in many respects, it was no less anti-Kantian. This was very important at that time, for neo-Kantianism was on the rise in the German-speaking world and even beyond, whereas Stumpf and Marty made efforts to combat this kind of philosophy. Though Stumpf’s sojourn in Prague was considerably shorter-lived than Marty’s, Stumpf published the first volume of his Tone Psychology (Stumpf 1883) during that time.
    [Show full text]
  • Syllabus-PHIL 115.Docx
    Syllabus Code: PHIL 115 Title: Introduction to Philosophy Institute: Business and Social Department: Philosophy Sciences Course Description: Students investigate key issues in philosophy, including the nature of self, knowledge and truth, freedom and determinism, morality, the nature of the universe, the existence of God, death and afterlife, meaning and purpose. Emphasis will be given to clarifying students’ own thinking on these issues through reading, reflection, and discussion. Prerequisites: READ 092, READ 095 or passing score Accuplacer test. Corequisites: Prerequisites or Corequisites: Credits: 3 Lecture Hours: 3 Lab/Studio Hours: Required Textbook/Materials: Philosophy: An Introduction to the Art of Wondering, James L. Christian, (Belmont, CA: Cengage/Wadsworth, 2016), 11th ed. N.B. For students taking the Distance Education (online) or Honors section, see the course addenda for those sections, obtainable from the Philosophy Department or instructor. Additional Time Requirements: For information on Brookdale’s policy on credit hour requirements and outside class student work refer to Academic Credit Hour Policy. See course/instructor section addendum. Course Learning Outcomes: Upon successful completion of this course, as demonstrated through the writing of essay test questions and a summary/analysis report on primary source readings, the student will be able to: • describe and analyze the basic problems of philosophy in the areas of epistemology, metaphysics and ethics (HU) (E) • summarize philosophers’ solutions to the problems of philosophy in the areas of epistemology, metaphysics and ethics (HU) (E) • summarize the arguments of and critically analyze opposing views on a philosophical issue (HU) (E) • develop and defend their own opinions on basic philosophical issues (HU) (E) Learning Outcome(s) support the following General Education Knowledge Areas: • (HU) Humanities • (E) Ethical Reasoning and Action Spring 2020 Syllabus What is philosophy? Philosophy is the love of wisdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright © 2014 John Daniel Mcdonald
    Copyright © 2014 John Daniel McDonald All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction. TOWARD A BAPTIST VIEW OF METAPHILOSOPHY: AN ANALYSIS OF E. Y. MULLINS, JOHN NEWPORT, RICHARD CUNNINGHAM, AND L. RUSS BUSH A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by John Daniel McDonald May 2014 APPROVAL SHEET TOWARD A BAPTIST VIEW OF METAPHILOSOPHY: AN ANALYSIS OF E. Y. MULLINS, JOHN NEWPORT, RICHARD CUNNINGHAM, AND L. RUSS BUSH John Daniel McDonald Read and Approved by: ____________________________________________ Theodore J. Cabal (Chair) ____________________________________________ Michael A. G. Haykin ____________________________________________ James Parker III Date________________________________ To Angie McDonald, whose sacrifice and support made this dissertation possible; to Maddie, Libby, and Emma, whose patience and understanding are beyond their years; to Charles and Shelly McDonald, who instilled in me a love of the Lord and of learning; and to Ted Cabal, who first introduced me to philosophy and its value for the service of Christian theology. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... VIII PREFACE ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Print This Article
    ISSN 1918-7351 Volume 12 (2020) Landgrebe’s Reading of Marty: On Name and Proper Name Charlotte Gauvry Ludwig Landgrebe wrote prolifically and his work dealt with various fundamental phenomenological issues. However, my paper will only focus on one specific aspect of his analysis. I will pay attention to the thoughtful analysis regarding the philosophy of language, developed in his 1934 habilitation thesis, Nennfunktion und Wortbedeutung. Eine Studie über Martys Sprachphilosophie.1 The dissertation was written in Prague under the supervision of Oskar Kraus, a former student of Anton Marty.2 The first part is devoted to the analysis of Marty’s philosophy of language and furnishes a precious analytical commentary of his 1908 Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie.3 The last two parts of the dissertation are more polemical and raise a number of problems in Marty’s theories. Most of these criticisms are directly influenced by the German psychologist and philosopher of language Karl Bühler,4 who was a reader of Marty too and whose Sprachtheorie was also published in 1934.5 Against this background, it makes sense to consider the young Landgrebe as an “indirect member” of the Brentano 1 Ludwig Landgrebe, Nennfunktion und Wortbedeutung. Eine Studie über Martys Sprachphilosophie (Halle: Akademischer Verlag, 1934). English translation is mine. 2 Anton Marty (1847-1914) is a Swiss-born Austrian philosopher who is considered one of the most faithful students of Franz Brentano (whose teaching he followed in Würzburg). He was especially interested in philosophy of language and applied Brentano’s theory to this new field.
    [Show full text]
  • Things That Talk
    MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science 2003 PREPRINT 233 Lorraine Daston and Anke te Heesen Things that Talk Table of Contents Introduction 3 The Glass Flowers Lorraine Daston 5 News, Papers, Scissors Anke te Heesen 33 Things that Talk – Table of Contents 57 Introduction These two essays were written as part of a working group of historians of art and science on “Things that Talk”, organized under the auspices of the research project “The Common Languages of Art and Science” (2001-3) at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin (Dept. II). The other members of the working group were Peter Galison (Harvard University, USA), Caroline A. Jones (MIT, USA and Wissenschafts- kolleg zu Berlin, Germany), Joseph Koerner (University College London, UK), Antoine Picon (Ecole des Ponts et Chausées, Paris, France), Joel Snyder (University of Chicago, USA), Simon Schaffer (University of Cambridge, UK), and Norton Wise (UCLA, USA). The group met three times in Berlin to discuss various versions of members’ essays and, more generally, the place of material culture in the history of science and the history of art. The nine essays, including the two that appear here as a preprint, will be published as a volume by Zone Books. A complete table of contents is appended to this preprint. The aim of the research project was to go beyond cases of historical interactions between art and science to investigate tools (e.g. drawing) and challenges (e.g. representation) common to both. In the case of the working group on “Things that Talk”, the departure point was a shared perplexity about how to capture the thingness of things in our respective disciplines.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-01744-3 - Einstein's Opponents: The Public Controversy about the Theory of Relativity in the 1920s Milena Wazeck Excerpt More information Introduction Prague, October 1913. Oskar Kraus, an associate professor of philosophy at the German University, sends alarming letters to Ernst Gehrcke, a physicist at the Reich Institute of Physics and Technology in Berlin: People are suffering from extreme fatigue, and an irritability that is due not least to the absurd theories of the relativists. I have a burning desire to see the source of error revealed for all of the absurdities that you yourself, honored sir, have accurately characterized. I also see that you have already revealed internal contradictions and absurd consequences multiple times. But where is the source of error? Because despite my calculation errors, I am still able to recognize the fact that the theory of relativity is false.1 Kraus excuses himself for literally bombarding Gehrcke with letters in the span of only a few days, in which one letter often revokes the statements made in the preceding one, but he confesses in his despair, “[I] would not know […] anyone else but you who as a specialist would not reject the intervention of a philosopher from the start.”2 Oskar Kraus was not an isolated case. A large number of people who were just as disturbed – including some philosophers and physicists, but many more scientific laypersons – turned to Gehrcke, who had taken a position early on as an opponent of the theory of relativity. Gehrcke’s papers include a large number of letters whose authors critically discuss modern physics, which, in addition to the content of the correspondence itself, is also expressed in the pamphlets against the theory of relativity that are often enclosed.3 Two things stand out about these pamphlets and 1 Kraus to Gehrcke, October 11, 1913, GN 72-A-2.
    [Show full text]
  • Brentano on Judgment
    Brentano on Judgment Uriah Kriegel ‘Judgment’ is Brentano’s term for any mental state liable to be true or false. This includes not only the products of conceptual thought, such as belief, but also perceptual experiences, such as seeing that the window was left open. ‘Every perception counts as a judgment,’ writes Brentano (1874: II, 50/1973a: 209). Accordingly, his theory of judgment is not exactly a theory of the same phenomenon we today call ‘judgment,’ but of a larger class of phenomena one (perhaps the main) species of which is what we call judgment. Even if we keep this in mind, though, the profound heterodoxy of Brentano’s theory of judgment is still striking. Brentano develops this heterodox theory in some detail already in the Psychology from Empirical Standpoint (Brentano 1874/1973a). But he continued to work out its details, and various aspects of it, until his death.1 Many of the relevant articles, notes, and fragments of relevance have been collected by Oskar Kraus in 1930 and published under the title Truth and Evidence (Brentano 1930/1966b). Kraus prefaces this volume with an elaborate reconstruction, of dubious plausibility, according to which Brentano’s accounts of judgment and truth have gone through four distinct stages. In reality, there is a unified underlying conviction underwriting Brentano’s work both on judgment and on truth (see CHAP. 20 on the latter). Here I present this unified core of this highly original theory of judgment, which can be captured in terms of three main theses. The first is that contrary to appearances, all judgments are existential judgments (§1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche : the First Complete and Authorized English Translation
    THE LIBRARY of VICTORIA UNIVERSITY Toronto THE COMPLETE WORKS OF FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE The First Complete and Authorised English Translation EDITED BY Dr OSCAR LEVY VOLUME TEN THE JOYFUL WISDOM ("LA GAYA SCIENZA") 5 331Z Es U V'iO First Edition, One Thousand Five Hundred Copies, pub- lished September igio Second Reprint of Twelve Hundred and Fifty Copies, reprinted 191 Of the Third Reprint of One Thousand Five Hundred Copies this is 3743 No. FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE THE JOYFUL WISDOM ("LA GAYA SCIENZA") TRANSLATED BY THOMAS COMMON WITH POETRY RENDERED BY PAUL V. COHN AND MAUDE D. PETRE / stay to mine own house confined. Nor graft my wits on alien stock: And mock at every master mind That never at itself could mock. NEW YORK THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1924 First published . September 1910 Reprinted 1914 Reprinted 1924 504-Z7 i&-»-33 {All rights reserved) Printed in Great Britain hy THE EDINBURGH PRESS, EDINBURGH CONTENTS Editorial Note page vii Preface to the Second Edition - - »» i Jest, Ruse, and Revenge : A Prelude in Rhyme „ n Book First „ 29 Book Second „ 93 Book Third - - - - - - „ 149 Book Fourth: Sanctus J anuarius - - „ 211 Book Fifth: We Fearless Ones - „ 273 Free-as-a-Bird Appendix : Songs of Prince „ 355 EDITORIAL NOTE "The Joyful Wisdom," written in 1882, just before " Zarathustra," is rightly judged to be one of Nietzsche's best books. Here the essentially grave and masculine face of the poet-philosopher is seen to light up and suddenly break into a delightful smile. The warmth and kindness that beam from his features will astonish those hasty psychologists who have never divined that behind the destroyer is the creator, and behind the blasphemer the lover of life.
    [Show full text]