# einen schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn



## Löwenfrau

_Bürgerlich_ is being associated with _schlicht_, I'm not sure why:


"Und auch für den psychologischen Zustand der Mystik selbst hat Eckhart (für _ekstasis_) das malende deutsche Wort geprägt. Das griechische Wort hatte natürlich einen schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn gehabt: die Entfernung, _amotio_ oder _emotio_ (wo wir unser internationales _Emotion_ herhaben, ist ganz genau gar noch nicht aufgeklärt), auch die _amotio mentis_ konnte es bedeuten, die _Verrückung_ des Geistes oder Verrücktheit; oder auch die Ausartung." Mauthner

Does_ bürgerlich_ mean _mundane_ here? _schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn = a simple, mundane meaning/sense_?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

My guess: _​common_


----------



## Löwenfrau

Schimmelreiter said:


> My guess: _​common_



Wouldn't _ordinary_ or_ trivial_ be a little bit more appropriate? I feel a slightly pejorative undertone, and _common_ is not necessarily pejorative. Or am I misreading it?


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I don't think _bürgerlich _is pejorative: _as commonly perceived, as perceived by common Greek citizens_


----------



## manfy

The whole thing was quite unclear for me, so I browsed a bit and here's my conclusions:

* "der psychologische Zustand der Mystik" = ekstasis (or the modern German word for it: Ekstase)
* Eckhart coined the term "Verzückung / Entzückung" according to this Wiki stub.
* according to Grimm the term Verzückung takes on the meaning of Entzückung and Ekstase in the 18th century (hence clearly differentiating it from "Verzuckung")

Since Mauthner is not specifically mentioning the terms "Verzückung / Entzückung" but only the Greek ekstasis, it appears as if he's referring to the modern term Ekstase when he talks about "das malende deutsche Wort". This word has a much stronger sexual connotation than "Verzückung / Entzückung".

Viewed from this angle, the contrast with "schlicht und bürgerlich" makes sense and I'd see its meaning as simple, modest and bourgeois or conventional.
For me the word Ekstase with its sexual connotations is quite the opposite because it stimulates imagination, it practically forces you to paint an image in your mind (which, of course, is different for every person depending on experience). Maybe that's what Mauthner meant with "malende" ?

Of course, I have no idea whether Mauthner was really thinking along those lines - as usual, his writing is mystifyingly vague.


----------



## bearded

> manfy
> conventional


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> I feel a slightly pejorative undertone, and _common_ is not necessarily pejorative. Or am I misreading it?


It just dawned on me why you're saying that. You're probably thinking of "kleinbürgerlich". This word has clearly a pejorative undertone with the meaning of "engstirnig/spießig" (short-sighted).
"Bürgerlich" can be used in a similar but softer way but it can also have a very neutral or even positive meaning.
In our context, I think, "schlicht and bürgerlich" is used as the opposite of - or at least as a contrast to - extravagant, flamboyant, an attribute that Mauthner apparently attaches to his "das malende deutsche Wort" (be it Ekstase or Entzücken, I'm still not sure).

PS: I'm sure now that Eckhart did not use the germanized Ekstase because according to Pfeifer's etymology that word appeared only in the 16th century:_"[...] Spätlat. (bes. kirchenlat.) ecstasis, auch ex(s)tasis [...] erscheint im 16. Jh. im Dt. Der Gebrauch mit eingedeutschter Endung und in verallgemeinerter Bedeutung setzt im 17. Jh. unter Einfluß von frz. extase ‘Ent-, Verzückung’ ein, wird aber erst Ende des 18. Jhs. geläufig."
_​.
Kluge, one of the leading dictionaries for German etymology, confirms this. Sorry, I don't have an online link for one of the later issues and the early editions don't show that word.

Nevertheless, I still feel that Mauthner might have had Ekstase in mind when he wrote those lines.


----------



## Glockenblume

Ich kenne die portugiesische Sprache nicht, aber da Portugisisch eine romanische Sprache ist wie das Französische, möchte ich etwas zur französischen Verwendungsweise der entsprechenden Wörter anmerken, vielleicht treffen meine Bemekungen auch aufs Portugiesische zu:

Zwischen dem deutschen Begriff Bürgertum und dem französischen Bourgeoisie besteht ein gewaltiger Unterschied.
Zwar kann man in beiden Sprachen den soziologischen Begriff in _Kleinbürgertum_, _mittleres Bürgertum _und_ Großbürgertum_ unterteilen. Aber wenn man diese genaueren Angaben weglässt, dann bezieht sich der deutsche Begriff _bürgerlich_ eher auf die Mittelschicht, während der französische Begriff _bourgeois _eher auf das Großbürgertum bezieht, im niedrigsten Falle auf den Übergang von Mittel- zu Oberschicht.

Mit _bürgerlich_ im Deutschen assoziiert man : gut integriert in die Gesellschaft mit all ihren Normen; solide berufliche und finanzielle Situation, aber kein übertriebener Luxus. Die Mentalität des Bürgertums hat ihre Wurzeln in der Tradition der mittelalterlichen Handwerksmeister: Man grenzt sich ab von der typischen Landbevölkerung, vom Arbeiterstand, vom Künstlervolk, von den Reichen, von den Adeligen.


----------



## Löwenfrau

> Since Mauthner is not specifically mentioning the terms "Verzückung / Entzückung" but only the Greek ekstasis...


No manfy, he does! See (I thought it was too much to a single thread):


"Und auch für den psychologischen Zustand der Mystik selbst hat Eckhart (für _ekstasis_) das malende deutsche Wort geprägt. Das griechische Wort hatte natürlich einen schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn gehabt: die Entfernung, _amotio_ oder _emotio_ (wo wir unser internationales _Emotion_ herhaben, ist ganz genau gar noch nicht aufgeklärt), auch die _amotio mentis_ konnte es bedeuten, die _Verrückung_ des Geistes oder Verrücktheit; oder auch die Ausartung. Schon im Neuen Testament ist aber _ekstasis_ zu finden, nicht ganz als terminus technicus, aber doch als häufige Bezeichnung des Zustandes der *Entzückung*. Die Vorstellung der uralten Welt, daß die _Seele_ da vorübergehend dem Körper _entrückt _werde, spielte gewiß mit. (Man vergleiche besonders II. Kor, 12, 2 und 3; Paulus rühmt sich, in den dritten Himmel und ins Paradies entrückt worden zu sein, er sagt zweimal _harpazein_ und will nicht genau wissen, ob das Wunder _ektos tou sômatos_ geschehen sei.) Augustinus kennt den Zustand dieser _alienatio_, er, der auch in der mystischen Gnadenlehre der Schüler von Paulus gewesen ist. Das Christentum, das ja Mystik ist in seinem Besten und es hätte bleiben sollen zu seinem Besten, ist voll von ekstatischen Männern und Frauen, von seinem Stifter (den man mit Unrecht von dem Vorwurfe reinigen wollte, ein Ekstatiker gewesen zu sein) bis auf den heutigen Tag. Schlimm genug für den Protestantismus, daß Luther und Melanchthon, die Politiker, keinen Sinn hatten für den_Enthusiasmus (in-Gott-sein)_, die Exzesse _(excessus =_ _ekstasis_) der Schwarmgeister _(schwärmerisch_ seither = _ekstatisch)_. Ekstase ist so christlich, daß ein rechter Christ ohne Ekstase nicht ganz Christ ist. Und dieser Begriff ist erst von dem falschen Dionysios zum Terminus gemacht worden; von Gott selbst wagt Dionysios zu sagen, daß er in seiner Alliebe _exô heautou ginetai_. Auch diesen Terminus der mönchischen und nönnischen Kontemplation hat Eckhart durch einfädle Übersetzung neu belebt; wir haben seitdem die beliebten Worte *Entzücken* und *Verzückung*."

Besides, I ask myself why would _Ekstase_ be a "bildhaft", a pictorial word in German, since it is directly derived from the Greek, and you don't expect from a German native that he _pictures_ the image associated with a Greek word. _Entzückung_ and _Verzückung_ I can see as "bildhaft" for a German native. But it is indeed odd that Mauthner doesn't mention the words at the expected place.

yes, 





> conventional


 is just perfect!


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Linguistically, _conventional meaning_ is not appropriate since any meaning is based on convention.

_civilis, civicus, *communis*_
DWB

Hence my





Schimmelreiter said:


> _common_


----------



## bearded

How many people think of 'convention' when they say _conventional_ (except linguists, of course)? In my opinion, if I say _this is the conventional meaning of the word_ it corresponds to 'the usually/traditionally accepted meaning of the word', at least in everyday English (and other languages: e.g. we say _il significato convenzionale)._


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Yes, but Mauthner is a philosopher of language, much of what he presents is linguistics. I don't think the equation of _bürgerlich_ and _conventional _stands the test of either philosophy or linguistics.


----------



## Löwenfrau

_Current _is another possibility, don't you think? _simple and current_...


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I used to think I was an advocate of not-too-literal translations. You guys are taking it to an extreme. We're translating _bürgerlich_, i.e. the kind of meaning common Greek citizens, as distinguished from philosophers, used to use the word _ekstasis _in in their native Greek: _Entfernung/removal_, e.g. removing an old sofa from the house, putting it on the dump outside the house. I don't know, though, whether they had sofas then. 

The German word for that is _allgemeinsprachliche _(as opposed to _fachsprachliche_) _Bedeutung_, I believe. Might _[simple] general meaning _work now that you've decided you don't like _[simple] c__ommon meaning_?


----------



## Löwenfrau

> I used to think I was an advocate of not-too-literal translations. You guys are taking it to an extreme.



I guess the reason for that is that people get stubborn sometimes   ...

P.S.: I was reading _Entfernung_ as _distance_. It can mean both _distance_ and _removal_? (Actually, I wasn't thinking in _distance_, but in something that work well in Portuguese: _distanciamento_ ["distanciating", "to get/take distance"])


----------



## Schimmelreiter

I apologise if I appear stubborn. But when normal Greek people used _ekstasis_ one way and philosophers used it in another, making it a specific term in their specialised lingo, I don't think one was current and the other one was not. _conventional _looked brilliant to me but then I asked myself how Mauthner, the linguistic pedant, might have liked it and my fear was he might have said what I wrote, i.e. that any meaning was based on convention.


----------



## Löwenfrau

> I apologise if I appear stubborn.



Please, don't!!! I was talking about myself! 

I understand your caution.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> _distance_


_ekstasis_ seems to imply the transitive verb meaning _to place outside_, hence my weird sofa example: _Man ist von sich selbst entfernt/sich selbst entrückt/entzückt = entzogen/alieniert = entfremdet._


----------



## Löwenfrau

That's an important observation indeed: Mauthner is stressing the spatial reference of all these words. Which is not so evident in my own language, so a footnote is welcome.


----------



## manfy

Löwenfrau said:


> "Und auch für den psychologischen Zustand der Mystik selbst hat Eckhart (für _ekstasis_) das malende deutsche Wort geprägt. [....] die beliebten Worte *Entzücken* und *Verzückung*."


In my opinion this is an odd writing style and the paragraph is a bit too long to call it an obvious connection. But well, it's Mauthner! 
So, in light of this, I guess it's safe to assume that "das malende deutsche Wort" = "*Entzücken* or *Verzückung*" (the middle high german version of Entzücken is "_inzucke_" and that's the actual word that Eckhart coined, as you will see from the original mhd. quote that follows the paragraph).



Löwenfrau said:


> Besides, I ask myself why would _Ekstase_ be a "bildhaft", a pictorial word in German, since it is directly derived from the Greek, and you don't expect from a German native that he _pictures_ the image associated with a Greek word. _Entzückung_ and _Verzückung_ I can see as "bildhaft" for a German native.


Well, I guess that's hard to generalize because both words describe mental or spiritual concepts and not physical objects. Even though all native speakers will have a similar idea about the meaning of each word, the actual, personal emotion and mental image it stirs up might be very different for different people!





Löwenfrau said:


> "[...] Auch diesen Terminus der mönchischen und nönnischen Kontemplation hat Eckhart durch *einfädle* Übersetzung neu belebt; wir haben seitdem die beliebten Worte *Entzücken* und *Verzückung*."


Just a side note: "einfädle" is an OCR error! The scanned page on Zeno shows that it should read "*einfache* Übersetzung".


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, the discussion is already long.

I think that in "einen schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn" the comma is essential.
"Schlicht" could have a pejorative submeaning, but I think, it doesn't here.

"Schlicht" is "einfach", and I think both words "schlicht" and "bürgerlich" explain each other here and show different aspects.

einen "einfachen und normalen, der allgemeinen bürgerlichen Bildung entsprechenden"

I think it is the analogon to "gesunder Menschenverstand". 

That is why I agree to "common" for "bürgerlich".

A simple, a common meaning/sense


----------



## wandle

Why, I wonder, does Mauthner say that _Entzücken_ is the vivid German word contrasted with the plain, suburban Greek word _ekstasis_?

Suburban middle-class plainness doubtless existed in the Greek world, especially the Hellenistic world, but the ecstatic rites of Dionysus and the Eleusinian mysteries were rather different from that. Heine was closer to the mark when he said of Aristophanes:


> _sein Publikum zu Athen hatte zwar eine klassische Erziehung genossen, wusste aber wenig von Sittlichkeit._


It seems to me that _Entzücken_, charm, or rapture, is a good deal closer to the homely world of the middle class than the ecstasy of the Maenads.
Christianity had to compete with pre-existing religions which claimed to provide an ecstatic experience that brought you closer to the gods and that may be why the term _ekstasis_ was used.

Note: the above was written and originally posted in another thread, before I had seen this thread. If _bürgerliche_ means 'common' rather than 'middle-class' or 'suburban', my question remains. _Ekstasis_ in a religious context would surely have been understood in terms of the ecstatic cults long known in the Hellenistic world. _Entzücken_, unless it has a force I am unaware of, seems the less vivid, less striking term of the two.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> It seems to me that _Entzücken_, charm, or rapture, is a good deal closer to the homely world of the middle class than the ecstasy of the Maenads.
> Christianity had to compete with pre-existing religions which claimed to provide an ecstatic experience that brought you closer to the gods and that may be why the term _ekstasis_ was used.


You shouldn't get distracted by common courtesy expressions like _Ich bin entzückt ihre Bekanntschaft zu machen_ or _Sie haben aber eine entzückende Tochter_. Placed in a context where the _Entzücken _is to be understood literally, the word describes indeed an ecstatic state of mind.


----------



## Löwenfrau

I was rendering_ Entzücken _[in brackets, of course] as _rapture_ too, which indeed also is a state of mind. Actually, the Portuguese word is _arrebatamento_. I think it is close to _Entzücken_ because it has the connotation of ecstasy and it also has a spacial reference: to be "taken away" in ecstasy. And for _Verzücken_ I was thinking in another word that means the same, but it has no cognate in English: _enlevo_. In the end both words - Entzücken/Verzücken - mean the same, don't they?


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> Placed in a context where the _Entzücken _is to be understood literally, the word describes indeed an ecstatic state of mind.


That seems to make the two terms equivalent, then, in the sense that each has a common meaning and an additional one to denote an ecstatic state.
Mauthner himself says:


> Schon im Neuen Testament ist aber _ekstasis_ zu finden, nicht ganz als terminus technicus, aber doch als häufige Bezeichnung des Zustandes der *Entzückung*. Die Vorstellung der uralten Welt, daß die _Seele_ da vorübergehend dem Körper _entrückt _werde, *spielte gewiß mit*.


This still leaves me unclear as to why Mauthner says one term is more vivid or striking than the other.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> _Ekstasis_ in a religious context would surely have been understood in terms of the ecstatic cults long known in the Hellenistic world. _Entzücken_, unless it has a force I am unaware of, seems the less vivid, less striking term of the two.


For those who spoke Greek or Latin, of course, _ekstasis_ would have been understood. But for a German-only speaker the word had no tangible meaning at the time of its introduction. Even if it had been germanized by Eckhart in the 13th century as _Ekstase_, it would have made no difference at that point in time.
_Verzückung/Entzücken_, on the other hand, develops from _zucken_ (to twitch) via verzucken (meaning verzerren, verrücken, entrücken [to distort, move, remove]) into the actual _verzücken/entzücken_ and their nouns. Now, 700 years later the connection between _zucken, verzücken/entzücken_ and _Ekstase_ might not be strikingly obvious but all the little steps in the evolution of the words seem quite clear and logical. (at least more logical than creating a brandnew word, like Ekstase, and attaching a seemingly freely created definition for it)

But anyways, I would not waste too much thought about why Mauthner went out of his way to find excessive praises for Eckhart. For one reason or the other Mauthner was simply infatuated with Eckhart's language. Maybe that was an in-thing around 1900 !?? After all, Eckhart was practically forgotten up until mid 19th century, when Pfeiffer translated and published some of his sermons in new high german and end of 19th century the same was done for Eckhart's Latin sermons.

I read a number of passages from Eckhart in middle high german over the past weeks (primarily because I was intrigued about how easily understandable his mhd. actually was without having to look up every other word in a dictionary) and all I can say is: Yes, it's coherent church talk in an old version of German. But I seriously fail to see any obvious reason for Mauthner's euphoria!


----------



## wandle

manfy said:


> For those who spoke Greek or Latin, of course, _ekstasis_ would have been understood. But for a German-only speaker the word had no tangible meaning at the time of its introduction.


Mauthner's point, though, is not that ancient Greek was a dead language to most medieval Germans. He is not saying that _ekstasis_ was meaningless or obscure: but that its meaning was less vivid or pictorial than that of _Entzücken_.

Mauthner is talking about the meaning of _ekstasis_ for the Greek-speaking world of the first century. He uses the pluperfect tense (_Das griechische Wort *hatte* natürlich einen schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn *gehabt*_) and then proceeds to discuss its meaning in the New Testament, as understood by Paul and later Augustine.
He is thus claiming that for them and the Greek-speaking world of the first century, _ekstasis_ had a plain and simple meaning, whereas in the middle ages _das malende Deutsche Wort Entzücken_ painted a picture and was supposedly more vivid or emotional.

However, the discussion here indicates that each term had, for the native speakers of its day, both a common meaning and a mystical one which suggested the vivid image of an out-of-body experience. Mauthner himself points to double meaning in the Greek term.

The question then is why he wants to claim something more for the German term. Is it just national sentiment? There may be more to it than that.
His evident enthusiasm for Eckhart may mean that he strongly shares Eckhart's belief. In that case, the extra element he sees in Eckhart's chosen terms may be their specific Christian connotations: which the Greek or Latin words, stemming as they did from the pagan world, did not and could not initially convey. If that is the explanation, then it seems to me anachronistic.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> The question then is why he wants to claim something more for the German term. Is it just national sentiment? There may be more to it than that.
> His evident enthusiasm for Eckhart may mean that he strongly shares Eckhart's belief. In that case, the extra element he sees in Eckhart's chosen terms may be their specific Christian connotations: which the Greek or Latin words, stemming as they did from the pagan world, did not and could not initially convey. If that is the explanation, then it seems to me anachronistic.



Well, we can be quite sure that Mauthner did not share Eckhart's religious beliefs. Mauthner grew up as a Jew, was certainly heavily exposed to Christianity in his environment and as an adult he was a self-proclaimed atheist. In other chapters of his dictionary of philosophy he often uses sarcastic and polemic style to clearly criticise the practices of the church.
I also doubt that it's national sentiment, maybe more a latent search for national identity? He was born in Bohemia, which was part of Austria then, and he later lived in several places in Germany.

I think, his enthusiasm for Eckhart was primarily of linguistic nature (potentially combined with some minor soul-searching regarding his own atheism).
Mauthner did call himself the first serious linguist to offer comprehensive critique of language (or something along these lines). His preference for German words, as opposed to merely germanized ones and the academic Latin and Greek, might stem from the fact that he had strong contempt for academics in general, which in turn might have something to do with the fact that he was practically ostracised from philosophical circles. 
I assume that knowledge of Latin and Greek were still a hallmark for academics in Mauthner's days, hence that might explain a subconsciously less favourable position towards those languages. 

Long story short, in my modern view on language and without having background in Greek or Latin, I wouldn't call "Entzücken" more vivid and emotional than "Ekstase" either. I'd just call it more self-explanatory because it stems from the basic, everyday German core vocabulary. Even though "Ekstase" is a very normal German word nowadays, it still retains the feeling of a _Fremdwort_.


----------



## wandle

manfy said:


> he was a self-proclaimed atheist. In other chapters of his dictionary of philosophy he often uses sarcastic and polemic style to clearly criticise the practices of the church.


That is a new one on me: a sharp-tongued atheist who enthuses over mysticism. Not like Tom Paine, Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins, then, for whom Protestant rejection of mysticism is a step in the right direction (even if not far enough).


> I wouldn't call "Entzücken" more vivid and emotional than "Ekstase" either


If I may refer again to Mauthner's text quoted in post 10, (Das griechische Wort hatte natürlich einen schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn gehabt), we can see that the contrast he is making is not between two German terms but between _ekstasis_ in the first-century Greek of the New Testament and _Entzücken_ in the medieval German of Eckhart. 


> I think, his enthusiasm for Eckhart was primarily of linguistic nature ...
> Mauthner did call himself the first serious linguist to offer comprehensive critique of language


The few comments of his on Eckhart's language that I have seen in these threads leave me in the dark as to why he thinks it more expressive than Greek or Latin: unless it is merely that he finds the German more familiar.


----------



## manfy

wandle said:


> The few comments of his on Eckhart's language that I have seen in these threads leave me in the dark as to why he thinks it more expressive than Greek or Latin: unless it is merely that he finds the German more familiar.



I think it's up to you as the reader to decide whether you agree with Mauthner on that point and whether you make something out of it or not.
My own assessment of Mauthner's dictionary of philosophy, after having read quite a number of chapters, is that it is in fact a Critique of Philosophy by means of pointing out the shortcomings of the German language and mistakes in translation that have been made over the centuries.

Mauthner was not trying to create a coherent new philosophy. Very often he's just pointing out all the mistakes made by certain philosophers without any attempt to suggest a solution. He's leaving that up to the reader.
Because of that, some of his chapters actually sound like endless rambling and endless critcism, without making an actual point.
I have come to the conclusion that this was actually a very smart thing for him to do because:
* Mauthner had no formal education in Philosophy
* I think, he didn't even hold any academic degree because he dropped out from his law studies as soon as his father died

Therefore, if he had tried to officially encroach on the field of Philosophy, he would have been academically crucified and nobody would have taken him seriously. But since he used the backdoor of linguistics, he had considerable success.
From what I read so far, I'd say he knew what he was talking about - even without formal education in philosophy. And more often than not he's making very good points with his criticism. And yet, this doesn't force me or any other reader to blindly agree with every thought he put on paper!

I hope that helps to put Mauthner's opinions into perspective.


----------



## wandle

manfy said:


> I think it's up to you as the reader to decide whether you agree with Mauthner on that point


So far I do not, first because I am inclined to the view that different languages are in general equally expressive, though often in different ways; and secondly because I have not yet understood why Mauthner thinks German more expressive. However, I have only read a little more than the quotations occurring in this forum.


----------



## Löwenfrau

> I have not yet understood why Mauthner thinks German more expressive



Isn't it simply because _he _is German? He is not saying that one word is in itself more expressive than the other, but from a German native perspective the German word is obviously more expressive than the Greek one. Our own language we know by heart.
He is, after all, talking about Eckhart's creating German words.


----------



## Glockenblume

Löwenfrau said:


> He is not saying that one word is in itself more expressive than the other, but from a German native perspective the German word is obviously more expressive than the Greek one.



In German ears, Greek and Latin words have a connotation of "gelehrt", "gebildet", "abstrakt" but don't speak easily to the heart ...


----------



## wandle

Löwenfrau said:


> Isn't it simply because _he _is German? ... from a German native perspective the German word is obviously more expressive than the Greek one.


One might have expected that, yet Mauthner, in talking about the Greek _ekstasis_, makes clear that he talking about the meaning it had for Paul and the Greek-speaking population of his day, the first century:  Das griechische Wort hatte natürlich einen schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn gehabt (pluperfect tense). He continues:


> Schon im Neuen Testament ist aber ekstasis zu finden, nicht ganz als terminus technicus, aber doch als häufige Bezeichnung des Zustandes der Entzückung. Die Vorstellung der uralten Welt, daß die Seele da vorübergehend dem Körper entrückt werde, spielte gewiß mit. (Man vergleiche besonders II. Kor, 12, 2 und 3; Paulus rühmt sich, in den dritten Himmel und ins Paradies entrückt worden zu sein, er sagt zweimal harpazein und will nicht genau wissen, ob das Wunder ektos tou sômatos geschehen sei.)


This means he is treating _ekstasis_ from the perspective of native speakers of Greek in the first century, while he treats _Entzückung_ from the perspective of native speakers of German in the thirteenth or fourteenth century (both somewhat removed from our own perspective today).

He thus seems to be deliberately excluding any bias due to German being his own language. Yet if that bias is excluded, what other reason is there for his view?


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> So far I do not, first because I am inclined to the view that different languages are in general equally expressive, though often in different ways; and secondly because I have not yet understood why Mauthner thinks German more expressive. However, I have only read a little more than the quotations occurring in this forum.


He doesn't. He only said that the Greek original Greek word had a more banal, every day meaning. It is not uncommon that a loan or foreign word that has a very common meaning in the original language gets a much more extravagant meaning in the destination language, especially if taken from a prestige language. Or, if it doesn't change meaning, it sounds at last much fancier. In cooking, e.g., French is still _the_ prestige language and _Kasserolle _sounds infinitely fancier than _Stieltopf_.


----------



## wandle

Löwenfrau said:


> He is not saying that one word is in itself more expressive than the other


I think he is saying that, though: he calls _Entzücken 'das malende Deutsche Wort'_ and says the Greek word '_hatte einen schlichten, bürgerlichen Sinn gehabt_'.


----------



## wandle

berndf said:


> He only said that the Greek original Greek word had a more banal, every day meaning.


He says rather more than that. In this passage, he says that the Greek _ekstasis_ also had meanings expressing inspiration and an out-of-body experience (see my post 34): thus giving it its full force and imagery. At the same time he says that _Entzücken_ is _das malende Deutsche Wort_, as if that were something different.

 In other passages discussed in earlier threads, he claims that Eckhart's language brought dead Latin or Greek terms to life. That proposition makes sense if you are comparing the impressions which ordinary native speakers of German in the middle ages would have had of the German terms compared with the ancient Latin or Greek. It does not make sense when you are comparing, as Mauthner is, the impressions which native speakers of Paul's day would have had of Greek with those which medieval Germans would have had of German.


----------



## berndf

wandle said:


> It does not make sense when you are comparing, as Mauthner is, the impressions which native speakers of Paul's day would have had of Greek with those which medieval Germans would have had of German.


Probably not.


----------

