SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS PWN c c Warsaw 7/11/1961
c c c Miodowa 10, tel. 622-91, 671-61
c c c c c c c c c c c telegr.: PEWUEN Warszawa
c c Dear and Honorable Professor,
c c with thanks I confirm the receipt of the letter from the 11/4. I am staying in Warsaw until August 15 – then I will be going to the sea for 2 weeks. Myzia is in Szybka with Ms. Wojciechowska, with a bunch of other children – and I work here as much as I can, so that in a month I can leave with a clear conscience.
c Regarding the quotes in the dissertation on Bergson, please kindly follow your judgment; these few places can of course be translated (i.e. a translation can be provided in the footnotes).
c I have reviewed the paper on Brentana. Of course, it is worth publishing – you only need to consider whether to do so in its current form – and then XXX indicate that it is a transcript of a university lecture – or edit it as an essay. – In both cases, however, you will need to translate Brentana’s theses that are numerous in the course of the lecture, otherwise a reader who does not know German will understand little (maybe it would even be enough – where it is not about the terms, but the reasoning – to provide the quotes only in Polish along with the page number from the German work in the footnotes). – I am sending the typescript back as I do not need it.
c As for the criticism of neopositivists, maybe we could submit the lecture from Prague, with XXX notes based on the article in Phil. Rev.?
c With this letter – in addition to the paper on Brentana (á pro pos – should I not decline the name, as Professor does in general in a written lecture, or should I do so, as we do in conversation: Brentany, acc. Brentana, dat. Brentana, etc [transl. note – reference to Polish declensions of the name]; I am not sure myself how it should be according to the rules and according to the linguistic practice) – I attach three odd typescript sheets. This is the attachment (copy) to my letter to prof. Czerny, which I sent yesterday. And the circumstances are as follows: the Editorial Office sent prof. Czerny a proof of Croce’s “The essence of aesthetics”. He sent it back (done superficially) with a very rude letter in which he expressed dissatisfaction that “far-reaching corrections have changed Croce’s style”, introduced “foreign words” and that if the criticism were make any accusation of errors therein, he reserves “the right to present the state of affairs”. – So I wrote back – not very nicely, but politely – and I attached a dozen or so examples to the letter of what the translation he provided was and what those places look like today. – I am sending a copy of these examples to Professor, for review. I do not know if in the event of a tougher disagreement with prof. C. Professor would stand on my side, as I am not a successful colleague from Alma Mater Cracoviensis – maybe there will be no further arguments – but I would like for Professor to see it. – The examples are not selected maliciously – they could be multiplied until the entire translation is rewritten.