Anthroposophy and Ecofascism II
Continuing my analysis of the first paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier'sAnthroposophy and Ecofascism.
During the period of the Norway "tour" many of Rudolf Steiner's lectures were attended by as little as 10 to as many as 100 people. By all accounts Steiner's listeners were generally attentive. (Various sources put the audience size at about 70. Whether this constitutes a "large" audience depends on your definition and perspective). I am not sure where Peter Staudenmaier got his information on the audience size; it is not in any of his cited sources, so perhaps he made it up, an "opening device" or "hook" for the Norwegian readers of the article. (Peter Staudenmaier, in an e-mail posting to the Waldorf Critics list: " Writers call this an 'opening device'," and " I"I used [the non-existent lecture] merely for the Norway hook and to introduce Steiner's terminology. ")
The lecture referenced in Staudenmaier's text above cannot be identified with any of the known Steiner lecture texts from this period in Norway, a fact that Peter Staudenmaier has not been able to explain. When challenged on this by Sune Nordwall, he first claimed that his source was the rare 1911 German version. This edition has never been translated into English. Without any actual evidence, he continued to claim that the 1911 version would support his writing. However, a comparison of the 1911 edition with the 1922 edition shows only minor corrections to words and phrases within sentences, and not a wholesale rearrangement of content. Later Staudenmaier admitted, "Everything I wrote in my paragraph was based on secondary sources" but continues to argue that his secondary sources are more accurate than the primary source. Further, a check of the only secondary source mentioned by Staudenmaier- Hans Mändl's Vom Geist des Nordens, page 6 - clearly states that the title refers to the entire series of lectures and not to an individual lecture as Staudenmaier claims. (see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm). It is typical of the quality of his scholarship that Staudenmaier cannot acknowledge an error that obvious, and his attempts to weasel out are quite telling of his relationship to truth. He appears to feel comfortable making things up if he feels that it is unlikely anyone will catch him on it, and cannot face up to his errors when they are pointed out to him.
Paragraph 1 commentary to be continued…
During the period of the Norway "tour" many of Rudolf Steiner's lectures were attended by as little as 10 to as many as 100 people. By all accounts Steiner's listeners were generally attentive. (Various sources put the audience size at about 70. Whether this constitutes a "large" audience depends on your definition and perspective). I am not sure where Peter Staudenmaier got his information on the audience size; it is not in any of his cited sources, so perhaps he made it up, an "opening device" or "hook" for the Norwegian readers of the article. (Peter Staudenmaier, in an e-mail posting to the Waldorf Critics list: " Writers call this an 'opening device'," and " I"I used [the non-existent lecture] merely for the Norway hook and to introduce Steiner's terminology. ")
The lecture referenced in Staudenmaier's text above cannot be identified with any of the known Steiner lecture texts from this period in Norway, a fact that Peter Staudenmaier has not been able to explain. When challenged on this by Sune Nordwall, he first claimed that his source was the rare 1911 German version. This edition has never been translated into English. Without any actual evidence, he continued to claim that the 1911 version would support his writing. However, a comparison of the 1911 edition with the 1922 edition shows only minor corrections to words and phrases within sentences, and not a wholesale rearrangement of content. Later Staudenmaier admitted, "Everything I wrote in my paragraph was based on secondary sources" but continues to argue that his secondary sources are more accurate than the primary source. Further, a check of the only secondary source mentioned by Staudenmaier- Hans Mändl's Vom Geist des Nordens, page 6 - clearly states that the title refers to the entire series of lectures and not to an individual lecture as Staudenmaier claims. (see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-2.htm). It is typical of the quality of his scholarship that Staudenmaier cannot acknowledge an error that obvious, and his attempts to weasel out are quite telling of his relationship to truth. He appears to feel comfortable making things up if he feels that it is unlikely anyone will catch him on it, and cannot face up to his errors when they are pointed out to him.
Paragraph 1 commentary to be continued…
posted by Daniel | 11:05 AM
<< Home