Comments on: Faust pas http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/houghtonmodern/2008/05/20/faust-pas/ Houghton Library, Harvard College Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:07:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/houghtonmodern/2008/05/20/faust-pas/#comment-59 Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:05:25 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/houghtonmodern/2008/05/20/faust-pas/#comment-59 It remains somewhat ironic that one fundamental "primary source" with regard to the Faust translation controversy is Samuel Taylor Coleridge himself who denies it! ["Table Talk", February 16, 1833]. In view of that known denial, the attempt seems to be to almost 'force' the translation onto Coleridge when in fact his alleged authorship of the Faust translation has not been definitively established and remains a matter of continued debate whether such debate is among Coleridge scholars or simply avid readers and ardent admirers of Coleridge. In a piece written by Jennifer Howard ["The Chronicle Review", 3-28-08 and titled, "A Question of Evidence, or a Leap of Faith?"], Professor McKusick [co-author along with Professor Burwick] is quoted as saying, "We would like for this 'hypothesis' [** emphasis mine] to be tested in the fire of literary debate but I think we have the evidence in the end for this to come out that it's by Coleridge." Ahh! Hypothesis! Indeed! And the prerogative of virtually anyone to advance with their supporting evidence but 'still' remaining within the realm of a hypothesis versus a rather clear statement ["translated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge"] of purported definitive fact! There is a difference. A big one! The 2007 Burwick/McKusick book states that the Faust material of Goethe is, in the very title of the tome, "translated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge" but which has NOT been definitively established other than in the 'hypothesis' [read: conjectured opinion] of the authors. Hence the continued controversy on the matter! The translation issue as to author remains an open question and by no means is it "solved" which, I would suggest, the global controversy itself amply attests! Coleridge's own 1833 denial of same notwithstanding. Assorted, shall we say, pro-translator theory internet rhetoric of "he lied" or its diplomatic brother, viz., "Coleridge was quite possibly being less than candid" [read: lying] is not proof, it's rank conjecture! Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo It remains somewhat ironic that one fundamental “primary source” with regard to the Faust translation controversy is Samuel Taylor Coleridge himself who denies it! ["Table Talk", February 16, 1833]. In view of that known denial, the attempt seems to be to almost ‘force’ the translation onto Coleridge when in fact his alleged authorship of the Faust translation has not been definitively established and remains a matter of continued debate whether such debate is among Coleridge scholars or simply avid readers and ardent admirers of Coleridge.

In a piece written by Jennifer Howard ["The Chronicle Review", 3-28-08 and titled, "A Question of Evidence, or a Leap of Faith?"], Professor McKusick [co-author along with Professor Burwick] is quoted as saying, “We would like for this ‘hypothesis’ [** emphasis mine] to be tested in the fire of literary debate but I think we have the evidence in the end for this to come out that it’s by Coleridge.” Ahh! Hypothesis! Indeed! And the prerogative of virtually anyone to advance with their supporting evidence but ’still’ remaining within the realm of a hypothesis versus a rather clear statement ["translated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge"] of purported definitive fact! There is a difference. A big one!

The 2007 Burwick/McKusick book states that the Faust material of Goethe is, in the very title of the tome, “translated by Samuel Taylor Coleridge” but which has NOT been definitively established other than in the ‘hypothesis’ [read: conjectured opinion] of the authors. Hence the continued controversy on the matter! The translation issue as to author remains an open question and by no means is it “solved” which, I would suggest, the global controversy itself amply attests! Coleridge’s own 1833 denial of same notwithstanding. Assorted, shall we say, pro-translator theory internet rhetoric of “he lied” or its diplomatic brother, viz., “Coleridge was quite possibly being less than candid” [read: lying] is not proof, it’s rank conjecture!

Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo

]]>