Talk:Hugo Salus

POV

The only views represented in this article are the anti-Zionest views. Surely such an intelligent person had more then one view?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

that is simply not true and you are always free to find sources and add information that you feel is lacking. nableezy - 07:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This section is odd, just sitting there without context. It should be expanded or removed.

In the circle of his fellow Jewish circle of intellectuals, he was regarded as an unadulterated ‘assimilationist’ , ‘a militant protagonist of German liberalism and Jewish assimilation’ and his attachment to Zionism was considered as little more than a matter of embracing a fashionable trend (Mode-Zionismus).. For both he and his rival H. G. Adler, ‘their Jewishness existed in name only.’

First of all it needs proofing. We do not know what the author means by "militant". Was his "attachment to Zionism" really a "little more than a matter of embracing a fashionable trend," or is this only the opinion of one critic? Salus isn't notable for his "trendiness" and if he was an "unadulterated assimilationist" as suggested, why would he have an attachment to Zionism in the first place, trendy or otherwise? In fact the paragraph calls him an "intellectual," as such would it be likely he was a "follower of trendy fashion?" Does Salus say his Jewishness existed in name only" or does Mailloux? What was the political climate of the times (1880's-1930's) that the issues of assimilation, German liberalism and Zionism were important to Salus and others in "the circle of his fellow Jewish .... intellectuals"? Too many questions raised by this that are not answered. I notice that it is left out in the German WP article. Stellarkid (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I proofed it somewhat. Now with respect to Hugo Salus' so-called "rival"... as in this sentence: "For both him and his rival H. G. Adler, ‘their Jewishness existed in name only.'" I have a really hard time understanding this, after reading and investigating H. G Adler. In what way were these two rivals? After all, considering the birth and death dates HS - 1866-1929 & AHA 1910-1988, Salus was 44 when Adler was born, Adler was 19 years old when Salus died. How do you get rivals out of that? Adler was a Holocaust survivor, losing 18 members of his family to the Holocaust. Even if he was not a practising or devout Jew, certainly one would be hard pressed to say that "his Jewishness existed in name only?" I would hope the author of this sentence and the others above would clarify and expand on this, or consider removing it without some further support by other RS. Stellarkid (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Adler's work it looks as if none was published prior to 1950. So "rivals" seems a bit rich. Stellarkid (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, to get rid of the conspiratorial mindset (a) I needed a stub to de-redink an article on Franz Steiner I, Nableezy and JGGardiner wrote up rapidly, and we did so collegially. (b) I only knew Salus by name so (c) I looked at several sources, and cited or translated what little they said of him (d) all sources dealing with Jews at that period alomost invariably note the relation to the rising Zionist movement, since it began to define part of Jewish identity (e) I put in exactly what the sources said

Move two. (a) One of those who keep the jihadi faktion's activities under close surveillance raised queries about 'Zionism' (b) As I have a perma-ban I have no intention of playing games to get dragged into this crap (c) if anyone is dissatisfied, build the stub (d) it is not a right of editors in Wiki to question sources that are cited verbatim. If 'militant' is used by a reliable secondary source, 'militant' stays, and this is true for the rest of the verbatim quotes (e) 'their Jewishness existed in name only' is questioned by Stellarkid, as is 'rival' when this is merely reportage of what the reliable secondary source (Peter Mailloux) writes. For your information, Stellarkid, it is a fundamental rule of wikipedia that editors cannot question what reliable sources say, but only contest whether a source qualifies as reliable or not. Your critique is a blatant abuse and infraction of WP:OR (f)if you dislike my paraphrase of the German original about Mode-Zionismus, provide your own solution.(g) kibitzers do well to remember that anyone can sit round whinging after scanning a text for a few minutes, but wiki is built by people who spend a few hours reading sources (h) Stellarkid is confused, and the confusion shows that he is commenting on an area he knows nothing of, since the 'Adler' in the text is Jeremy Adler's father. Jeremy Adler was born in 1947 so obviously none of his work was pubolished before 1950, when he was three. His father H.G.Adler was a pretty competent German poet, much better by all accounts than Hugo Salus, and his work was published before 1950 (g) it is indeed a bit rich to track editors only to comment on politics, instead of improving articles. So if brewcrewer and stellarkid are serious, they can sit down, go to a library, read up on Bohemian Jewish intellectuals and their milieu, and improve the text. Of course, the lazy simply resolve these issues by referring it to an AfD committee.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, ok. The text links to H. G. Adler as a "rival" of Salus. One of your accessible links [1] points to this book: Jews between Czechs and Germans: linguistic and cultural ...etc by Marek Nekula, Walter Koschmal which references H. G. Adler a few times in a different context, but also refers specifically to Friedrich Adler, who was a co-generationalist with Salus. In fact there are at least a half dozen times the book ties Friedrich Adler to Salus, specifically. I suspect your article should link to him and not H.G. I don't have the Mailloux book so I can't check it myself. Stellarkid (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, if the article should indeed point to Friedrich Adler, and not Holocaust survivor H. G. Adler, the comment that Adler, along with Salus, was "Jewish in name only" would be incorrect. This needs to be either corrected or clarified. Stellarkid (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FROM: The Nightmare of Reason: A Life of Franz Kafka Ernst Pawel

By the time Kafka edged toward its margins, the literary scene, like elsewhere in Prague, had split into hostile camps, essentially the sons versus the fathers once again, but more formally categorized as Young Prague versus the Old Guard. The Old Guard [had been] effectively reduced by then to two masters bereft of disciples. Moreover, these two--Hugo Salus and Friedrich Adler--cordially detested each other, for reasons they themselves could no longer remember. p153

Salus was the acknowledged pope of the establishment. p153

Though born a Jew and never converted, he nonetheless considered himself a German first, last, and always, ultraconservative in his views and rabid in his defense of continued German cultural and political dominance. Typical of his feelings, if not his talent, is a doggerel he saw fit to publish when, for the first time, the Prague Zionists entered their own slate in the municipal elections, thereby threatening to siphon off some votes from the German bloc: Heute gibt es nur Deutcshe/Wer nicht deutsch wahlt, verdient die Peitsche. (Today there are only Germans. He who does not vote German deserves the whip) He died in 1929. 154

The cardinal and second-in-command was another super assimilated Jew, Friedrich Adler, who in spite of the perennial bad feelings between them shared Salus's Teutonic fervor as well as his sedate literary tastes. 154.

I would definitely say that you are addled over the Adlers. As we say in the States, "Sorry, Charlie." Stellarkid (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is most useful, since it shows we were both addled over the Adlers, and now, to make a pun, the Eagle has landed. All you need do now is to disambiguate the link to Friedrich Adler, which, despite its simplicity of resolution, you have failed to do. As to your questioning Mailloux, his point is the same as Pawel's. These two were ultra-assimilated Jewish Germans, 'who had amicably hated each other for years' (p.121). 'Adler was as staunchly German nationalistic as Salus and as thoroughly assimilated. For both, their Jewishness existed in name only'. (Mailloux p.121).

This is what Pawel's 'super-assimilated Jew' means, and therefore my original objection to your attempt to interfere with secondary sources stands. One writes according to sources, not according to one's beliefs about a subject. Keep reading. I look forward to you building the article up further. Careful of your German though, or what you call Deutcshe. When you transcribe German ä as in wählen, if you lack the proper keyboard or software, write ae, i.e. 'waehlt' not wahlt, ('Wer Hilter wählt, wählt den Krieg', the graffito written up on German walls before the decisive 1932 elections, is transcribed 'Wer Hitler waelht, waehlt den Krieg'). As the Germans would say, im Adlerauge sollen wichtige kleine Details zusammengefasst werden, die sonst leicht übersehen werden könnten. To nitpick to advantage, while failing to use one's lynx or eagle eye (Adlerauge) to scrutinize one's own human penchant for errors, does not make for the best of impressions.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And so I have disambiguated the link, which despite being so simple, I had failed to do. This error demonstrates that even if secondary sources say something, it is quite possible that the interpretation or application of those sources to a particular subject can be mistaken, as it turned out in the case of H. G. Adler. Consequently my questioning (my "interference," as you put it) was appropriate. There are other logical inconsistencies in the article which should be repaired or expanded upon, but all in due course. With respect to my German, it is rudimentary at best. I don't have German characters on my keyboard, and the print I transcribed from was very tiny, so I did the best I could, retaining the author's (English) translation. I would appreciate it however, just as a point of courtesy or sensitivity to your fellow Jewish editors, if you would refrain from using "Hitler" in such a gratuitous way, as in your example above. Thank you, Stellarkid (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the elections that Salus was referring to when he said, famously "Today there are only Germans. He who does not vote German deserves the whip" were municipal elections in Prague. Salus died in 1929, so the 1932 elections are not at all relevant to this article. Salus' ardent assimilationism (what Jews sometimes referred to as "Being more German than the Germans") proved itself to be a vain enterprise. Assimilated German Jews, some who fought for Germany in WWI and were war heroes, were sent to the gas chambers just as readily as orthodox or Zionist Jews. Stellarkid (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally I tend to appraise paranoid readings positively, being of a Freudian cast of mind. But my citation of the slogan about Hitler was purely philological, and had no connection, conscious or otherwise, with historical context of the use of the German verb in Salus' verse. Of course the 1932 elections have nothing to do with this article. The phrase about Hitler came spontaneously to mind simply because of the few idioms in German I associate with wählen, that historic graffito happens to be one. There was nothing gratuitous about it.

History, though one cannot understand it without the aftermath in mind, indeed that is the way we almost invariably do read it, much to the grief of a real historicist imagination, must be understood nonetheless with our sense of the aftermath suspended, if we are to understand how people in a given time and place understood themselves and their choices. Many highly assimilated Jews did not live in Germany, assimilation in the United States, where half the population lives, is not a vain enterprise but characteristic of Jews as it is of nearly all the ethnoi in that melting pot, and the fact that the huge machinery of Nazi thuggery wiped them out with contempt for their war records, their genius and civil distinction, is no argument against assimilation per se. One should not allow the travails of Zionism to retrospectively inform one's judgement of these issues, especially since emigration to Palestine was historically less favoured than emigration to the New World. Assimilation was one option. Personally I am a dissassimilationist, in the sense that I don't see anything positive in being assimilated to any group, let alone that one chance has genetically and culturally thrown me into for taxonomic purposes. Growing up means, to me, growing out of one's past, in both senses of the idiom. Eric Hobsbawm's autobiography, the opening chapters, is highly illuminating on this. But this is not germane to our article of course.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have said, and meant, that for assimilated German, Czech, Austrian, Hungarian, Polish, French (etc) Jews of that era, their assimilation into the local culture of which they were (perhaps) a citizen, turned out to be a vain enterprise with respect to their lives. American Jews obviously were on the more fortunate side of Jewish history. The issue of assimilation with regard to this article is germane, as this was a much argued question at the time. After centuries of persecution, many Jews were trying to assimilate into the local culture in hopes of having a comfortable life as a Pole, a German ...anything but a Jew. The younger generation of Eastern European Jews, on the other hand, were beginning to feel that only by cohesion, and (for some) Zionism, would they manage to survive. Thus the "Old Guard" and "New Guard" in Prague at the time of Salus. The younger generation turned out to be more prescient. I would argue that the Jews of WWII were murdered, not merely by the "huge machinery of Nazi thuggery", but with the help and willing participation of non-Jews throughout Eastern Europe. This is not a statement of victimhood, but a statement of historical fact.

With respect to your belief that growing up means growing out of one's past, I would counter that we are made of our pasts, and growing out of it could be seen as forgetting, or failing to learn from our experience, both historically and personally. "Whereof what’s past is prologue, what to come In yours and my discharge." I would have to say that for me, growing up means more accepting the past, trying to understand it, and using the lessons of yesterday to help make a more positive world tomorrow. Stellarkid (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A huge number of Jews contemporary with Salus made a successful transition within Europe to an embracive identity with their native countries's cultures. Freud, Einstein, Adorno were perfectly assimilated Jews, not attached to their nations, but to the world they themselves helped mould, Europe. The younger generation wasn't (apart from Kafka) noticeably more prescient, unfortunately. They simply lived in a period of profound and disconcerting upheavel of a kind unimaginable to their forefathers, who throughout the 19th to the early 20th century embraced a general, nigh universal sense that change was positive, that progress was the dominant aegis of the age. As to growing out, I did write 'in both senses of the idiom'. One grows out, in the sense that one abandons one's past, and yet, one grows out of one's past just as a rose grows out of its root-stock, and, in blossoming forth achieves the entelechy instinct in its germinal origins. That duality is why I think the most intensely Jewish people I have had the good fortune to learn from were so totally assimilated that I never thought of them as Jewish. I remember introducing a Japanese woman friend to Ernest Gellner, and at the end of the evening, she said, 'What a perfect English gentleman he is!' True, and quintessentially 'Jewish', as well as Czech, Mitteleuropean, etc., etc. These people were assimilated to several cultures, and never allowed their mere ethnic origin to trump the glorious promiscuity of their cultural lives. But this is not germane to the page.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD)You say that Freud, Einstein, Adorno were "perfectly assimilated Jews." How can one be "perfectly assimilated" if one is not accepted in the environment into which they attempt to assimilate? It seems a logical absurdity.

• Sigmund Freud: "Freud was wrong about the Swiss, but he was right about the danger. After the Anschluss of 1938 he was forced to flee Vienna, .... All four of his sisters who stayed on in Vienna died in concentration camps." [2]

• Theodor W. Adorno: "In 1931, Adorno assumed a teaching position at the University of Frankfurt, but just two years later was forced to resign by the Nazi .regime. He enrolled at Oxford as a means of leaving the country." [3]

• Albert Einstein:"In 1933, during the beginning of the persecution of Jews by Nazi Germany, Einstein flees Europe for the United States." [4] "Following Hitler’s rise to power, Einstein was forced to flee Germany. His physics was rejected in his home country as flawed and 'Jewish'.[5]

"Assimilation" was an illusory concept that did not protect one from the gas chambers. Stellarkid (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Does any of this have anything at all to do with the article? If not, kindly take the conversation elsewhere. Sorry Nishi, but as much as I enjoy reading what you write, this really should not be taking place here. nableezy - 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No apologies needed. If yuou put 'germane' into the search engine, and check the page, you will note I have begged off this as not appropriate to the page twice. I can't stop it if someone insists, but I can desist.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

References

"Arbiter of taste" & "Jewish in name only"

I wanted to comment on this line: "A prolific author, he soon became ‘the acknowledged arbiter of Prague literary taste’." The sentence itself sounds like damning with faint praise, and it is clear that that Mailloux doesn't think much of him.

Mailloux doesn't have much to say about Salus, but from what he does say, he was clearly umimpressed:

Salus, a gynecologist whose novels and poetry had achieved fame in Germany as well as Bohemia, was the acknowledged arbiter of Prague literary taste, and he took his role seriously, never leaving any doubt what he liked and what he didn't. The former included most things German, the latter included most things new, but it also include the works of [Friedrich] Adler, who was actually a far better poet than Salus, even though he was best known for his translations of Czech works. Ironically, despite these translations, Adler was a staunchly German nationalistic as Salus and as thoroughly assimilated. For both, their Jewishness existed in name only.

Kahn and Hook call him "the most respected Bohemian poet writing in German" at that time (page 182).

Salus ....was described by Max Brod as an unqualified assimilationist. While this may be an exaggeration, Salus did hope, all else failing , for full Jewish absorption into the host society. But Salus made use of Jewish folkways and observances in his poety, plays, and occasional fiction. Salus was a highly regarded gynecologist but also, at the turn of the century, the most respected Bohemian poet writing in German.

Here we have a notable, prolific, and influential writer being written up at WP as an "arbiter of...taste." I would like to scrap that condescending line of Mailloux's, and change it to Kahn & Hook's. Thoughts? Stellarkid (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In The Nightmare of Reason: A Life of Franz Kafka [6] Ernst Pawel uses the same line. "For some decades Salus reigned as the arbiter of literary taste." Later on the same page he also asserts that Adler "was the better poet by far." Mailloux 1989, Pawel 1992 Stellarkid (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Jewish in name only" remark also comes from Mailloux, but Kahn and Hook say above that "Salus made use of Jewish folkways and observances in his poety, plays, and occasional fiction." Kahn goes on to say on page 183:

Salus had Jewish perspicacity, respect for religious texts and compassion for past trauma. He prayed that homelessness could finally end. If no other home could be found, then the Jews had to make the best of the situation and mingle with the nations around them.

Also in Kahn's view, in terms of literary criticism by way of comparison with Beer-Hoffman, Salus' work lacks the conciseness of Beer-Hoffman's, but compensates through spontaneity and sincerity. That doesn't seem to jive with the idea that he wore his convictions like a suit of clothes. Stellarkid (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You can add details from other sources. You cannot use other sources to challenge the content or conclusions of RS already cited. Whether they 'jive' or not is not our business. Academic specialists have diverging, often contrary views. We register taking care not to violate WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Was he Czech or German, or we are not sure, or was he in some ways both?

Was he ethnically Czech, German, both or neither? He was not a national of the Czech Republic. He was a national of Austria-Hungary. So any category that intersects occupation and nationality should use Austria-Hungary. However we can also place him in Czech people from Austria-Hungary, assuming there is sourcing that shows he is such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)