It reads "affermiano", but we corrected spontaneously that
typographical mistake in our previous message. In Italian, personal
pronouns are not always necessary. Fortunately, here, "affermiano" is
preceded by its pronoun personal, that is "noi", so that there is no
ambiguity whatsoever as to the form of the verb.
Typographical mistakes are always possible, and, as a matter of fact,
happen, no matter how serious the publisher. Yet, there are limits to
the number of typographical mistakes which can be tolerated in a
book, limits which, when reached, not only give the impression that
the work of edition was dealt with in an offhand manner, but make
some passages obscure, not to say incomprehensible. The fourth
edition of 'Imperialismo pagano', which comprises 'Imperialismo
pagano' and its German version, 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', has
reached those limits, it has even gone far beyond them. In short, it
has beaten records in this respect : typographical mistakes,
misprints, missing words, duplicated paragraphs and sentences, and so
on. This is not so much a problem with 'Imperialismo pagano' , since
you can always check its previous editions. As far as 'Heidnischer
Imperialismus' is concerned, on the contrary, it is impossible,
unless you are lucky enough to come across a second-hand copy of the
first edition of that work, published by Centri Studi Tradizionali,
Trevise, in 1991, and which is currently out-of-print. Of course, the
original, 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', can still be checked, but
Evola made it clear that he was not satisfied with the work of the
German translator who would translate his works into German at that
time, namely Friedrich Bauer.
An Italian member of this forum, who never posts onto it, who has
been reading again and again Evola's works for 40 years, and
according to whom some passages were deliberately removed from some
of Evola's books, especially from his books on race, after his death,
would not hesitate to speak of 'sabotage' in this respect. What is
certain, for instance, is that the comments which Evola made on
Reghini in the second issue of Krur (February 1929) cannot be found
in the various Italian editions of the writings of the 'Ur and Krur'
group, nor can they be found in 'Introduction to Magic'. They shall
be posted onto this list in due time.
While we are at it, it should be stressed that Evola never forbid
expressly and legally the re-publication of 'Imperialismo pagano',
contrary to the assumptions made on the InterNet by some 'Mrs I-know-
everything' on the basis of partial information which they got from
an introduction written to 'Men among the Ruins' by the current
translator of Evola's work in German. The problem is far more complex
than assumed. The man who was in charge of Fondazione Evola for
years, Gianfranco de Turris, who, a few years after having upheld
that debatable thesis in 'Elogio e difesa di Julius Evola', accepted
to be the editor of the fourth edition of 'Imperialismo pagano', has
come to realise it.
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Ciopa"
<hyperborean@b...> wrote:
>
> I never even mentioned the existence of a "rough draft", both
because it
> seemed to me to be a private matter never intended for publication
and also
> because it was accompanied by some unflattering remarks that
revealed more
> about the character of the poster than of the target of the remarks.
> Besides, I did not want to encourage a private dispute that was
made public
> under the pretext of a critique of Evola.
>
>
>
> The draft was posted to the yahoo [evola] group, which I seldom read
> anymore. I stumbled upon the quote, because I was curious about the
cause of
> the sudden drop in quality of some of the recent posts to this
group. I did
> feel the need to correct such a shocking and fundamental
misunderstanding of
> Evola – that is why I brought the issue up; the existence of a
rough draft
> was only incidental.
>
>
>
> My text has a typographical error – it reads "affermiano", which
could be
> taken either as "affermiamo" or "affermano", depending on where the
error
> lies.
>
> So I quickly and mistakenly took it as "the fatti ed opera affirm
[to us]
> …". But if the correct text has "affermiamo", that would make more
sense.
> Thanks for noticing that.
>
> (It does read "affermiamo" in the original Italian edition on page
115.)
>
>
>
> Finally, I wasn't accusing you of the misreading. The misreading
clearly
> originated in the gentleman who instigated this exchange.
>
> [Note that I referred to it as a "misreading", not
a "mistranslation" – the
> translation was clear to anyone who is actually familiar with
Evola.]
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of evola_as_he_is
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:13 AM
> To:
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [evola_as_he_is] Heidnischer Imperialismus
>
>
>
>
> Some people tend to assume that "fatti ed opere dipotenza e di
> veggenza" don't exist and are mere 'fantasies', because those
people
> are devoid of any "potenza" and "veggenza". Once again, it seems
that
> even the mere intellectual understanding of Evola's work is largely
> determined by the presence or not in the reader of a quality which
is
> not based on mere analytic intelligence and discursive reason.
>
> Now, where exactly on earth did you read that first draft of the
> translation of "Noi, per contro, fondandoci su una tradizione ben
piů
> antica ed effetiva di quella che non possa rivendicare la "fede"
> dell'uomo occidentale, su una tradizione non testimoniata su
> dottrine, ma per fatti ed opere di potenza e di veggenza, noi
> affermiamo invece la possibilitŕ e la realtŕ effetiva di cio' che
> abbiamo chiamato Sapienza", which "has been propagated on the
> Internet, and which is "based on a misreading of a passage
> of "Heidnischer Imperialismus""?
>
> Where?
>
> In that first draft, a part is missing, in the first
sentence : "noi
> affermiamo invece la possibilitŕ e la realtŕ effetiva di cio' che
> abbiamo chiamato Sapienza", which would have been reinserted, if
not
> at the first stage, at least at the second stage of proof-reading.
> This being said, 'noi affermiamo' means 'we affirm', 'we assert',
and
> not "they affirm" ('essi/esse affermano').
>
> That misunderstanding is not based on a misreading : both
> translations - yours and the one which has been "propagated on the
> internet" -, convey the same meaning, that of the original,
provided
> that you correct "they" and replace it with 'we'.
>
>
>
>
> --- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Ciopa"
> <hyperborean@b...> wrote:
> >
> > An unfortunate misunderstanding has been propagated on the
Internet
> based on
> > a misreading of a passage of "Heidnischer Imperialismus".
> >
> >
> >
> > On page 252 of the Mediterranee edition, we would like to
translate
> this
> > passage as such:
> >
> >
> >
> > <<We, on the contrary, basing ourselves on a tradition much older
> and more
> > effective than that which the "faith" of Western man can lay
claim
> to, a
> > tradition not proved by doctrines, but by deeds and works of
power
> and
> > vision, they affirm instead the possibility and the concrete
> reality of what
> > we have called "Wisdom".>>
> >
> >
> >
> > This paragraph appears in the context of a discussion of the
> difference
> > between "knowledge" and "Wisdom" -- a distinction that is
absolutely
> > foundational to any understanding of Guénon, Evola, or any other
> traditional
> > metaphysician.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is simply the claim that there is a higher faculty of the mind
> > ("intuition") than mere reason, and that without this faculty,
> metaphysical
> > doctrines simply cannot be understood. The claim to a special
power
> of
> > "seeing" is similarly the claim of the rishis (literally "seers")
> who
> > composed the Vedas.
> >
> >
> >
> > As such, this claim is hardly outrageous … to misunderstand it
> would make
> > the works of Guenon and Evola opaque; to reject it puts one in
the
> rather
> > odd position of accepting their conclusions while rejecting the
> path that
> > led to them.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is more interesting is how, for Evola, this "seeing" took
him
> in a
> > racial direction, whereas in Guenon's case, it seems not to have
> done so.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> * Visit your group "evola_as_he_is
> <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evola_as_he_is> " on the web.
>
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
evola_as_he_is-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:
evola_as_he_is-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> _____
>