 
                         20060624.00

     In Die Glut, Henrik himself admits that he does not know
the truth. Ich will sie ihm wegnehmen, he says, which is
mistranslated as I will get it from him, instead of I will
get it away from him. The implication being that truth is an
object owned by one person to be tranfered to another, which
strikes me as an example of pathological thinking.

     Another is the issue of Henrik's state of mind at the
time of the hunt. Had the thought of killing Konrad crossed
_his_ mind? If, as he says he did not know Konrad's reason
for leaving at the time, that unknown reason could not have
been the cause for Henrik's abandoning of Krisztina.  It
seems rather more plausible that spiritually Konrad's
presence was somehow an active ingredient, a catalyst, and
adhesive in Henrik's relationship to Krisztina.  a
relationship that disintegrated upon Konrad's departure.

     The Last Supper as an accounting, as Abrechnung. That
Last Supper also as Zuruecknahme, as a taking back of the
friendship, as a deliberate rupture, as an untying of the
knot. That Last Supper also has somewhat of the atmosphere or
resignation: Hingehen will ich, vielleicht seh ich in langer
Zeit, Diotima dich hier, aber verblutet ist dann das Sehnen,
und friedlich gleich den Himmlischen fremd sind wir.

     Nini, furtherfore has quite entered Konrad's frame of
reference.  In the context of his admitted uncertainty as to
what happened 41 years ago, she says affirmatively; You know
what happened, you know the facts. Significantly what is
denominated as "facts" in the translation is "Wirklichkeit"
in the pseudo-original.  Since Marai studied philosophy, it
might be important to know what he wrote, since for Goethe at
least facts were distinctly unreal. The truth (Wahrheit)
which Henrik proposes to wrest from Konrad is a transcendent
apperception of cogency and reliability which unites
subjective and objective (experience).

                      * * * * *
Copyright 2006, Ernst Jochen Meyer
