I enjoyed the helpful review. Two quick questions. First, which version of On War are you citing? The original in German, one of the Paret (or Howard/Paret) editions, or something else? This directly relates to my second question: is there a useful (read: well-regarded) study comparing the different translations of On War through the past century or so?
For example, these are different sentences:
1) "We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means."
2) "...war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means."
3) "We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means."
Sources: 1) Howard/Paret (1989), 2) Otto Jolles (1943), 3) Col. J.J. Graham (1918)
For my own writing, sources that cite the Prussian are – based on my assumptions, which are subject to change – likely based on the 1943 translation. That said, a 1961 report by ICAF (130p edited volume, apparently for the Joint Chiefs of Staff) put it this way: "War is nothing else than the continuation of state policy by different means." I'm assuming the ICAF report had some academic rigor. Others at the time and earlier offered the same quote (in quotes), but I'm not sure if they were citing each other or their source, other than their saying it was Clausewitz. I'm wary of using a Paret interpretation when the person (and argument) I'm discussing relied on a different set of nouns and verbs. Any guidance or thoughts? Thanks.
I only use Graham because it is the most literal translation of the German. The exception to that is the civil-military stuff because both Graham and Jolles were working on a copy edited by his brother-in-law after his death (unbeknowst to them, the editing was discovered later). Howard and Paret worked from the good version but also made many changes to make it more readable in modern English, for instance changing the every instance of the word information to intelligence (which drastically changes the reading of his thoughts on information/intelligence). I know some people who think Jolles better captured the spirit of the words even if he wasn't as literal a translator as Graham.
So, the casual reader is probably fine with Howard/Paret but scholars should have a copy of each and consult each of them until a new modern translation is available. I've heard that one is in the works but I don't know by whom.
Thanks for the response. Your comment that Howard and Paret changed every instance of information to intelligence went straight to the heart and cause of my question. I wasn't aware of their global find/replace, so to speak.
“…my hypothesis is that the Royal Navy and Royal Army developed an…”
Royal Army???
I enjoyed the helpful review. Two quick questions. First, which version of On War are you citing? The original in German, one of the Paret (or Howard/Paret) editions, or something else? This directly relates to my second question: is there a useful (read: well-regarded) study comparing the different translations of On War through the past century or so?
For example, these are different sentences:
1) "We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means."
2) "...war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means."
3) "We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means."
Sources: 1) Howard/Paret (1989), 2) Otto Jolles (1943), 3) Col. J.J. Graham (1918)
For my own writing, sources that cite the Prussian are – based on my assumptions, which are subject to change – likely based on the 1943 translation. That said, a 1961 report by ICAF (130p edited volume, apparently for the Joint Chiefs of Staff) put it this way: "War is nothing else than the continuation of state policy by different means." I'm assuming the ICAF report had some academic rigor. Others at the time and earlier offered the same quote (in quotes), but I'm not sure if they were citing each other or their source, other than their saying it was Clausewitz. I'm wary of using a Paret interpretation when the person (and argument) I'm discussing relied on a different set of nouns and verbs. Any guidance or thoughts? Thanks.
I only use Graham because it is the most literal translation of the German. The exception to that is the civil-military stuff because both Graham and Jolles were working on a copy edited by his brother-in-law after his death (unbeknowst to them, the editing was discovered later). Howard and Paret worked from the good version but also made many changes to make it more readable in modern English, for instance changing the every instance of the word information to intelligence (which drastically changes the reading of his thoughts on information/intelligence). I know some people who think Jolles better captured the spirit of the words even if he wasn't as literal a translator as Graham.
So, the casual reader is probably fine with Howard/Paret but scholars should have a copy of each and consult each of them until a new modern translation is available. I've heard that one is in the works but I don't know by whom.
Thanks for the response. Your comment that Howard and Paret changed every instance of information to intelligence went straight to the heart and cause of my question. I wasn't aware of their global find/replace, so to speak.
Excellent exercise!