Re: DIE SCHERE #29 - Translation

[Gary Kern <gkern@alumni.Princeton.EDU>]

Wahe@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Ernst Juenger, Die Schere
> 
> > 29
> >
> >  Der Vorschauer nahm also zwei Mal an seinem Begräbnis teil: zunächst in
> >  der Schau, als er am Fenster stand, dann in der Wirklichkeit. Das
> >  Verhältnis hat sich verschränkt: die Schere der Atropos, vorerst in der
> >  Potenz gesehen, wirkte nun in actu—sie schnitt zu. Doch das tut dem
> >  Vorschauer nicht mehr weh.
> >
> 
> 29
> The pre-visionary thus attended twice his own funeral, once while standing at
> the window, then in reality. The  relation has interlocked, the scissors of
> Atropos, at first seen in its potential, then took effect in actu - the
> scissors cut. But the visionary is hurt no more.
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Greetings
> 
> Walter
***********************
It is nice to have two versions of #29 all of a sudden.  I was just
going to post my own, now not needed.  But the slight differences in the
two we have raise the question whether we can agree on the same
translation for certain key words into English.

At beginning of this enterprise we discussed whether die Schere meant
scissors or shears.  As I recall (and could find, if pressed) the
winning idea was that since the Greeks did not have scissors as such,
and the images of Atropos cutting the thread of life show rather large
cutting tools, the word "shears" best suited our purpose.

I like here that Walter retains the Latin phrase "in actu."  When the
author of a text uses a foreign word or phrase, it is usually best to
carry that phrase over into the translated text.  Especially with
classical languages.  If you were translating from a Swedish author and
he quoted something in Norwegian, then you would probably translate both
into English, adding an explanatory word in the text.

We have in the last few sections of DIE SCHERE three words that are all
being translated as "vision":  die Schau, die Vorschau and der Gesicht.
Is Jünger using them all the same way?  I think the first could be
translated "vision," the second--"preview" or "presentiment," the
third--"sight" especially in "second sight," or perhaps "sighting" when
referring to a vision.

The tricky phrase here, as in #28, is "Das Verhältnis hat sich
verschränkt."  Previously it was translated as "the relationship is
crossed."  I think EJ is indicating something like a Moebius strip:  the
vision of the future is seen in the present, but when it occurs in the
future looks back at its preview and completes it, thus interlocking or
doubling back on itself.  So "the situation doubles back on itself."

And the meaning?  Again I think EJ is in difficulty, because the seer
cannot really know the truth of his vision until it becomes real, and
then when it does he can only say, "I foresaw this!"  His memory might
change in the process, the vague presentiment shaping itself distinctly
into what has just occurred.

People will hardly believe the seer at either end: either the present
("X is going to happen") or the future ("I foresaw that X would
happen").  In the case of his own funeral, the seer cannot complete the
loop except to himself.  When he dies, he cannot say to the world, "I
knew this would happen!"  And if he perceives anything of his funeral,
he has to keep quiet about it. So Jünger is only theorizing that such
things do happen, even though they can't be demonstrated.

Since I am no different from anyone else, in that I think I have certain
presentiments of things, I have to go along with him.  My experience has
almost always been that the vision or preview presents itself as
something trivial, a flash, a stray thought.  Then when the thing
happens it is recalled as something significant, even monumental. But
that means that possibly there were a whole lot of other trivial, stray
images that never led to anything, were not recalled and vanished in
oblivion.  So was the vision a preview, or a lucky hit?

GK