Re: [OPE-L] Grundrisse. Help

From: Christopher Arthur (arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Sun Jul 23 2006 - 16:56:29 EDT

Thanks to those who responded.
On Jerry's point. Notwithstanding the Verwertung problem Nicolaus is I
think better than CW. One problem with CW 28/29 is that the two bits
were translated by different people with inconsistencies. ALso CW 29
209 has reified instead of objectified which is quite a bad mistake.
But I will have to compare systematically
On 22 Jul 2006, at 16:10, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:

>> Once a translation has been made, it is
>> usually easy to improve it (e.g. the Pelican translation of Capital is
>> superior to previous ones), and personally, if I would do that (which
>> I am
>> not about to), I would try to make the Grundrisse text more readable
>> using
>> the information we now have about the totality of his project, and
>> add an
>> analytical index.
> Hi Jurriaan:
> The _Collected Works_ edition of the manuscripts has an analytical
> index.  It can take some time, but if a passage is sufficiently
> interesting, I like to compare the Penguin/Vintage edition with the
> CW edition.  But, is the CW edition a _better_ translation?  I don't
> know.  It is also organized differently and seeks in this to be
> more in keeping with the order of the manuscripts.  Were they
> successful in that endeavor and is this an improvement?
> Of course, the Penguin edition is cheaper and more available and is the
> one which most English readers are most familiar with.  But, is the CW
> qualitatively better and should we get into the practice of citing
> that rather than the Penguin edition?
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT