To be more specific, both 'Imperialismo pagano' and 'Heidnischer
Imperialismus' have five chapters, of which four bear the same
title :
I. 'We, anti-Europeans'
II 'Conditions for Empire'
III. 'The democratic Mistake'
IV. 'The Roots of European Evil'
In 'Heidnischer Imperialismus', the fifth chapter of 'Imperialismo
pagano', 'Heathen values and Christian values', is called 'Our
European Symbol'. Beyond this, there are major differences between
both texts, and most readers agree that the German version is far
more accomplished than the Italian one.
Are you sure that 'H.I.' was designed to fit with the German
mentality? Rather, wasn't it designed to capture the mind of the best
elements in the German hierarchy of that time in the name of a
synthesis between the German eagle and the Roman eagle?
If 'veggenza', a word which Evola seldom used, doesn't only have
occultist connotations in that excerpt from 'H.I.', what kind of
other connotations does it have, then, according to you? Before
speculating and worrying about the connotation(s) of a word,
shouldn't we start with focusing on its denotation?
--- In
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "vandermok" <vandermok@l...>
wrote:
>
> I believe, Tony, you did not intend to stir up a nest of hornets;
anyway just a little addition.
>
>
>
> The whole chapter has a series of plural verbs: affermiamo,
sosteniamo, etc. because Evola normally uses the "pluralis
maiestatis" like Guénon, so doubts cannot exist.
>
> We see the German version has "la fede dell'uomo occidentale" (the
faith of the western man) instead of the Italian "l'eresia cristiana"
(Christian heresy), an adaptation to the German mentality, while
evidently the term "veggenza" did not require such a change, in spite
of what Evola wrote on the northern race in 'Il Mito del sangue'
(objective, realistic, cold, and so on). Then the word cannot have
only an occultist connotation, but voices something more.
>
>
>
> Sometimes also the best gentlemen can suffer of claustrophobia.
>
>
>
> 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.]
>