# Altertümlichkeit



## Löwenfrau

Does Altertümlichkeit mean _Ancient times_ just like _Altertum_, or is it "the quality of what belongs to Ancient times"? 

"Es möchte einer noch skeptischer sein wollen als ich und einwerfen: das alles legst du in deinen Meister Eckhart nur hinein und liebst ihn, weil zufällig wieder die Sehnsuchtszeit da ist, weil die Sprache Eckharts zufällig an der Grenze steht, wo die Altertümlichkeit noch ästhetisch berührt, ohne das Verständnis zu erschweren" Mauthner


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Forgive me the word: _archaicity (altertümlich - archaic)_
_
... where the archaicity/archaic nature of his language still touches us __aesthetically, __without making his language difficult to understand._


----------



## Löwenfrau

That's very good, thank you! But it could also be _archaism_, couldn't it?

P.S.: Did you deliberately drop _zufällig_ out of your translation? I was thinking in "happens to..."


----------



## Schimmelreiter

The problem with





Löwenfrau said:


> _archaism_


is its ungradability. Mauthner means to say,

_... where the degree of archaicity of Eckhart's language __still touches us aesthetically, without making his language difficult to understand._




Löwenfrau said:


> Did you deliberately drop _zufällig_ out of your translation? I was thinking in "happens to..."


I didn't translate the part before _wo/where. _





_Somebody might even want to be more sceptical than I am, pointing out to me, "You're only reading all of this into your Master Eckhart, loving him for the simple reason that nostalgia happens to be back again, with Eckhat's language sitting astride the border where it's not yet too archaic for us to be touched aesthetically nor too difficult for us to understand."_


----------



## Löwenfrau

I see, but there are two "zufällig":



> weil zufällig wieder die Sehnsuchtszeit da ist, weil die Sprache Eckharts zufällig an der Grenze steht, wo...


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Schimmelreiter said:


> _Somebody might even want to be more sceptical than I am, pointing out to me, "You're only reading all of this into your Master Eckhart, loving him for the simple reason that nostalgia happens to be back again, with Eckhat's language happening to sit astride the border where it's not yet too archaic for us to be touched aesthetically nor too difficult for us to understand."_


----------



## Löwenfrau

Thanks a lot, Schimmelreiter.


----------



## wandle

I would take _Sprache_ away from _Eckhart_ and use it in rendering _Altertümlichkeit_:

Someone more sceptically inclined than I might interpose with: 'You are reading all that into Meister Eckhart yourself and you only like him because nostalgia is back in fashion; because Eckhart happens to stand on the borderline where his archaic language is still aesthetically appealing, without impeding comprehension'.


----------



## Löwenfrau

wandle said:


> I would take _Sprache_ away from _Eckhart_ and use it in rendering _Altertümlichkeit_:
> 
> Someone more sceptically inclined than I might interpose with: 'You are reading all that into Meister Eckhart yourself and you only like him because nostalgia is back in fashion; because Eckhart happens to stand on the borderline where his archaic language is still aesthetically appealing, without impeding comprehension'.



that's beautiful too!


----------



## berndf

I am wondering if atavistic doesn't capture the connotations of altertümlich better than archaic. Not sure really.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> atavistic


means _regressing to old _(literally: _grandfather's_) _time. _That's when *I* use MHG. Eckhart lived at the time, he didn't regress anywhere, his language is _really _​old.


----------



## berndf

The sentence is written from the perspective of us modern readers who regress to his, Meister Eckhart's, time when reading his language.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> The sentence is written from the perspective of us modern readers who regress to his, Meister Eckhart's, time when reading his language.


You are, methinks, turning the definition of _atavistic_ upside down. 

_atavistic_ means _regressive from the perspective of the observed_, not _from the perspective of the observer._

When I say of somebody they're using atavistic language, I'm saying they're using language from a time older than _​themselves._


----------



## wandle

Schimmelreiter said:


> _atavistic_ means _regressive from the perspective of the observed_


It is also, outside biological usage, a word with negative connotations. In left-wing politics, it is a stronger term of abuse than 'reactionary'.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Could Mauthner, considering his time, have used "atavistisch"?

Anyway, SR's sugestion is just perfect, I don't see why to change it. 





> _ the degree of archaicity of Eckhart's language_


 "Atavistic" is much too pejorative, I think, while "archaicity" is just as pejorative as the context requires. Note that, once it is said that 





> weil die Sprache Eckharts zufällig an der Grenze steht, wo die Altertümlichkeit noch ästhetisch berührt, ohne das Verständnis zu erschweren


, one can assume that Eckhart's archaicity is not being called so inadequate and atavistic.


----------



## berndf

Maybe atavistic is too pejorative but archaic is not pejorative enough, that why I was in search for another word... and I still am.


----------



## Löwenfrau

Outdated, old-fashioned, antiquated?


_Archaism_, I think, sounds more pejorative than _archaicity_, because of the ending -ism, which can be understood as expressing a vicious attitude. (not necessarily, but it _can_). And the context by itself _does_ give a strong clue that it means to be pejorative. I just think we shouldn't push too hard.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

Löwenfrau said:


> And the context by itself _does_ give a strong clue that it means to be pejorative.


Obviously what I know about the broader context is less than a fraction of what you do. 

The more narrow context you're providing here does not, however, lead me to assume Mauthner means it to be pejorative. Why so? Because there's the word _zufällig. _It just so happens that, in wandle's very beautiful words, Eckhart


wandle said:


> stand[s] on the borderline where his archaic language is still aesthetically appealing, without impeding comprehension



In the *given* context I can't discern a trace of an indication that Mauthner means to say that Eckhart purposely used language from before his time. On the contrary, we modern people can deem ourselves lucky to still find Eckhart's old/archaic language of centuries ago





wandle said:


> aesthetically appealing


and at the same time not old/archaic enough to be





wandle said:


> impeding comprehension


----------



## Löwenfrau

It's not Mauthner who is saying that, actually (sorry, I should have mentioned that earlier!); he speaks as a person who doesn't agree with the respect and admiration that _he_ has for Eckhart (Mauthner in blue, not Mauthner in red):

"Es möchte einer noch skeptischer sein wollen als ich und einwerfen: das alles legst du in deinen Meister Eckhart nur hinein und liebst ihn, weil zufällig wieder die Sehnsuchtszeit da ist, weil die Sprache Eckharts zufällig an der Grenze steht, *wo die Altertümlichkeit noch ästhetisch berührt, ohne das Verständnis zu erschweren*; Notker ist dir zu alt, Böhme ist dir zu neu; Meister Eckhart ist ein Übersetzer wie andere auch und hat sich gar nicht so viel Modernes, so viel Bleibendes dabei gedacht. Aber nein und abernein! Die Zufälligkeiten gebe ich ja alle zu, der Skeptiker hat diese Waffe von mir. Doch darüber hinaus Ist Eckhart _das_ Genie der Mystik; zugleich Verächter des Wortes und Künstler des Worts; niemals Diener am Wort. Er hat auch das Selbstbewußtsein des Genies; er rechnet sich einmal selbst (S. 286, ein bißchen Ironie der Stelle stört mich nicht) zu den »großen Pfaffen«.


----------



## berndf

Schimmelreiter said:


> The more narrow context you're providing here does not, however, lead me to assume Mauthner means it to be pejorative. Why so? Because there's the word _zufällig. _


Simply because the word "altertümlich" is in itself pejorative. He obviously chose a mildly pejorative word to underscore the message that the archaism of the language is only just about still esthetic.


----------



## Löwenfrau

> The more narrow context you're providing here does not, however, lead me to assume Mauthner means it to be pejorative. Why so? Because there's the word _zufällig. _



I read _zufällig_ as referring to the attenuating circumstance "noch ästhetisch berührt, ohne das Verständnis zu erschweren", and not to the pejorative qualification of "Altertümlichkeit". Hence, I thik _zufällig _has here the opposite intention of what you said.


----------



## wandle

In English at least, 'archaic' may have a negative or positive connotation, depending on the user's point of view. For those who prize the King James Bible, the word is not pejorative. For those who regard 17th-century language as a barrier to today's reader, 'archaic' embodies that negative judgement.

In the mouth of Mauthner's imagined objector, _Altertümlichkeit_ in itself seems neutral. _Notker ist dir zu alt, Böhme ist dir zu neu_: Notker is too archaic to be readily comprehensible, Böhme is not archaic enough to deliver the emotional appeal. Eckhart just happens to come between.

'Atavistic', though, is a great deal stronger in negative connotations (outside the biological field, it means 'primitive' or 'savage'). It is true that  the use of abstract terms like _Altertümlichkeit_ provides a direct route to precise statement. I personally find the German preference for abstract statement pleasing, but it is not equally favoured in English, and a direct translation can make the text seem highly artificial.


----------



## berndf

_Altertümlich_ neutral? Certainly not in my ears.


----------



## Schimmelreiter

berndf said:


> _Altertümlich_ neutral? Certainly not in my ears.


_Bedeutung _
_aus alter Zeit stammend; in der Art früherer Zeiten; archaisch_
_Beispiel_
_eine altertümliche Schrift, Lampe_

Duden


----------



## wandle

The word _Altertümlichkeit_ is put in the mouth of an objector with whom the author strongly disagrees. Perhaps one way in which Mauthner intends to discredit that view is by making the objector use the term ambivalently.
If we rephrase _Notker ist dir zu alt, Böhme ist dir zu neu_, the view which Mauthner is attacking might be expressed as: _Notker zeigt zu viel an Altertümlichkeit, Böhme allzuwenig_.


----------



## Löwenfrau

wandle said:


> The word _Altertümlichkeit_ is put in the mouth of an objector with whom the author strongly disagrees. Perhaps one way in which Mauthner intends to discredit that view is by making the objector use the term ambivalently.
> If we rephrase _Notker ist dir zu alt, Böhme ist dir zu neu_, the view which Mauthner is attacking might be expressed as: _Notker zeigt zu viel an Altertümlichkeit, Böhme allzuwenig_.




I like that interpretation.

But I think in this case I would expect a different order: wouldn't he (the opponent) state his remark on Notker and Böhme before stating the remark on Eckhart?


----------



## wandle

Why a different order? The one formula is just a substitute for the other, making the same point in different words, and therefore belongs to the same stage of the argument.

The word _dir_ of course is significant: the opponent says 'to you', 'in your eyes': in other words, Mauthner imagines the opponent saying that Mauthner would see _Altertümlichkeit_ in this light. Thus if there is anything in the idea that it is a deliberate stretching or even misuse of the term, we may conclude that Mauthner is rejecting that usage along with the substantive point about Eckhart.

Post 24, however, seems to show that such usage is standard.


----------

