Reputation
Top tag
Next privilege 250 Rep.
View close votes
Badges
1 7
Newest
 Scholar
Impact
~401 people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 1 helpful flag
  • 6 votes cast
May
23
comment When did “eitel” switch from “vergänglich” (fading) to “eingebildet” (smug)?
@Matthias: Interesting, also concerning Hubert's answer, from the Wikipedia article: Der dargestellten äußeren Form entspricht der inhaltliche Aufbau. Das vorliegende Sonett ist ein argumentativer Text. In Vers 1 stellt der Dichter eine These auf, die die gleiche Aussage enthält, wie der Titel des Sonetts: Auf dieser Welt ist Alles nur Eitelkeit, hier steht Eitelkeit in seiner alten Bedeutung Vergänglichkeit. So I guess It is not so uncommon to understand "eitel" as "vergänglich".
May
23
comment When did “eitel” switch from “vergänglich” (fading) to “eingebildet” (smug)?
@HubertSchölnast Do you have a reference for your statement that Gryphius cited Luther?
May
23
comment When did “eitel” switch from “vergänglich” (fading) to “eingebildet” (smug)?
I guess "nichtig" works fine in the poem of Gryphius. Although "nichtig" is more of a judgement than "vergänglich" which sounds more descriptive to me. In that sense it matters how one should understand "eitel" here.
May
23
comment When did “eitel” switch from “vergänglich” (fading) to “eingebildet” (smug)?
Do you say that Gryphius made a reference to Luther then? I never came about such a statement before.