70 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2022
    1. He sometimes pasted newsprint cuttings to present a statistical chart or inserted

      a photograph.

      Deutsch's zettelkasten has a variety of patterns including cuttings from newspapers, photos, excerpts, some were handwritten while others were typed, (and some showing many of these all at once!).

    2. Deutsch himself pointed to criticswho called him a ‘chiffonier’ or historical rag-picker, though he defended his ‘incon-venient though undeniable facts’ (Deutsch, 1916). A number of contemporaries recog-nized the limits of his interest in individual facts. ‘I get the impression’, one figure put it,‘that the charm of the facts of history, was so great for Deutsch, he lost himself socompletely . . . in the study of them, that he was never altogether able to say he is throughwith studying them and that he is ready for writing’ (Schulman, 1922). One review ofDeutsch’s Scrolls (1917), which collected some of his scattered articles, reflected thatthe articles lacked organization. ‘In order to obtain value,’ the reviewer insisted, ‘factsmust be organized . . . Isolate a fact as one isolates a germ in the laboratory, such a factbecomes worthless for historical purposes’ (Leiber, 1917).

      Just as people chided Niklas Luhmann for his obtuseness in writing based on his zettelkasten, Gotthard Deutsch's critics felt he didn't write enough using his.

    3. his oft-stated motto ‘de minimis curat historicus’.

      Translation: 'The historian cares about the smallest things.'

    4. If in 1908 itcontained 10,000 cards, by 1917 it had ballooned in size to 50,000 items, reaching60,000 in 1919 and nearly 70,000 at the time of Deutsch’s death in 1921 (Deutsch,1908b, 1917b; Brown, 1919: 69). It seems that Deutsch consistently produced 5,000cards per year (about 20 per workday) for the final 13 years of his life.

      Look up these references to confirm scope of numbers.

    5. e called on his fellow rabbis to submitnotecards with details from their readings. He proposed that a central office gathermaterial into a ‘system’ of information about Jewish history, and he suggested theypublish the notes in the CCAR’s Yearbook.

      This sounds similar to the variety of calls to do collaborative card indexes for scientific efforts, particularly those found in the fall of 1899 in the journal Science.

      This is also very similar to Mortimer J. Adler et al's group collaboration to produce The Syntopicon as well as his work on Propædia and Encyclopædia Britannica.

      link to: https://hypothes.is/a/nvWZnuApEeuKR--5AeBv8w

    6. Lamenting that ‘I have only two eyes, and, unfortunately cannot use themso as to read two books at the same time’,
    7. Deutsch was not especially innovative. When he wrote that ‘first we must know, andafterward we may reason’, he channeled Johann Gustav Droysen’s distinction betweenKritik (source criticism) and Darstellung (historical narration) (Droysen, 1858).
    8. Deutsch wrote often of history’s ‘scientific’ nature and inductive approach, leading toan almost positivistic method. ‘From individual facts’, he wrote, ‘one ascends to prin-ciples’, continuing: ‘Facts have to be arranged in a systematic manner . . . First we mustknow, and afterward we may reason’. This ‘systematic’ arrangement, he believed, sepa-rated the historian from the mere annalist or chronicler (Deutsch, 1900b: 166).

      This scientific viewpoint of history was not unique to the time and can be seen ensconced in popular books on historical method of the time, including Bernheim and Langlois/Seignobos.

    9. Deutsch created his index in the context of a range of encyclopedic activities. In 1897,the Central Conference of American Rabbis asked Deutsch to create a two-volume ency-clopedia, and he soon joined a similar effort by Funk and Wagnalls under the direction ofIsidore Singer. As the main editor for historical topics, Deutsch helped publish 12 volumesof the Jewish Encyclopedia from 1901 to 1906. In these same years, Deutsch produced acalendar of Jewish anniversaries in the monthly Die Deborah (1901), reprinted in 1904 inthe Hebrew Union College Annual (as the ‘Encyclopedic Department’) and as a standalonevolume (Deutsch, 1904a, 1904b).

      Deutsch's encyclopedia work here sounds similar to that of Mortimer J. Adler who used a card index in much the same way.

    10. Colleagues made a similarmove by calling Deutsch a ‘bor sud she-’eino me-’abed t.ippah’, a ‘cistern that neverloses a drop’. This oft-repeated designation simultaneously linked him to the

      first-century rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (Mishnah Avot 2:9) and alluded to what some termed on other occasions his ‘marvelous memory for detail’, ‘encyclopedic mind’, or ‘inexhaustible stores of memory’ that allowed him to furnish his ‘convincing array of facts’ 5 (Heller, 1916; L. F., 1919; Mendelsohn, 1916; Schulman, 1922; Stolz, 1921). However, it was perhaps not Deutsch himself who was a ‘cistern’ but instead his card catalogue where he stored drops of data growing to a sea of erudition and which served as a prosthesis for his legendary recall (see Figure 1).

      While the practice with his zettelkasten may have been helpful, it's quite likely that given these quotes about his memory that they're evidence of the use of the major system which would have been quite popular and well known at his time, but which isn't now.

      The author is going to need to provide evidence one way or another, but I suspect they're not aware of the mnemonic traditions of the time to make the opposite case.

    11. And the boys at the college [sic] call him Dr. Dates’.

      Given the late 1880's time and German and US locations, it's quite likely that Gotthard Deutsch practiced mnemonics and in particular the major mnemonic system.

      This quote is tangential evidence of this.

    12. Max Raisin (1881–1957),reflected that lessons often devolved into ‘reading several events with dates out of alittle notebook’ (Raisin, 1952: 147; Hertzman, 1985: 83-8).

      Max Raisin indicated that Gotthard Deutsch read several events with dates out of a little notebook during lectures. Was this really a notebook or possibly a small stack/deck of index cards? The could certainly be easily mistaken....

      Check these references

    13. ‘He knows everything that’s happened fromB’reshis [Genesis] to today’, it went, ‘and it really isn’t work to him – it’s merely play’,a sentiment later expressed when one colleague wrote of Deutsch’s ‘game of cards’(Margolis, 1921).3

      Apparently a colleague wrote about Deutsch's "game of cards" as a description of hit use of a zettelkasten. The play here is reminiscent of the joy Ahrens talks about when doing research/reading/writing (2017).

    14. The index frames a figure who may at first glanceseem a curious or even comedic caricature of a certain positivist historical tradition, butone who also imparted to his students a sense of the magnitude of Jewish history, andwho straddled a mechanical pursuit of individual ‘facts’ with a certain attention to novelmethods and visions of comprehensively encyclopedic information.

      From where did Deutsch learn his zettelkasten method? And when? Bernheim's influential Lehrbuch der historischen Methode (1889) was published long after Deutsch entered seminary in October 1876 and 9 years before he received his Ph.D. in history in1881.

      One must potentially posit that the zettelkasten method was being passed along in (at least history circles) long before Bernheim's publication.

      I'm hoping that Lustig isn't referring to zettelkasten when he says "novel methods", as they weren't novel, even at that time. Deutsch certainly wasn't the first to have comprehensive encyclopedic visions, as Zettelkasten practitioner Konrad Gessner preceded him by several centuries.

      I'm starting to severely question Lustig's familiarity with these particular traditions....

    15. In one instance, Deutsch bound interleaving pages in HeinrichGraetz’s Geschichte der Juden – the masterful eleven-volume work published from1854 to 1876 by Deutsch’s onetime teacher at Breslau’s Ju ̈disch-Theologisches Seminar– so he could fill it with errata and supplementary notes.
    16. Lustig, Jason. “‘Mere Chips from His Workshop’: Gotthard Deutsch’s Monumental Card Index of Jewish History.” History of the Human Sciences, vol. 32, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 49–75. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695119830900

      Cross reference preliminary notes from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0952695119830900

    1. Cross reference notes on article: urn:x-pdf:6053dd751da0fa870cad9a71a28882ba


    2. It may seem a curious relic of positivistic history, but closer examination allows us to interrogate the materiality of scholarly labor.

      Given the time period (1859-1921), what was the potential influence, if any, on Deutsch and his methods by historical methods writers and the evolution of the science of history by Ernst Bernheim or Seignobos/Langlois from that same period?

    3. Indeed, Deutsch’s index is massive but middling, especially when placed alongside those of Niklas Luhmann, Paul Otlet, or Gershom Scholem.

      Curious how Deutsch's 70,000 facts would be middling compared to Luhmann's 90,000? - How many years did Deutsch maintain and collect his version?<br /> - How many publications did he contribute to? - Was his also used for teaching?

      Otlet didn't create his collection alone did he? Wasn't it a massive group effort?

      Check into Gershom Scholem's collection and use. I've not come across his work in this space.

    4. Does Deutsch’s index constitute a great unwritten work of history, as some have claimed, or are the cards ultimately useless ‘chips from his workshop’?

      From his bibliography, it appears that Deutsch was a prolific writer and teacher, so how will Lustig (or others he mentions) make the case that his card index was useless "chips from his workshop"? Certainly he used them in writing his books, articles, and newspaper articles? He also was listed as a significant contributor to an encyclopedia as well.

      It'd be interesting to look at the record to see if he taught with them the way Roland Barthes was known to have done.

    5. Gotthard Deutsch (1859–1921) taught at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati from 1891 until his death, where he produced a card index of 70,000 ‘facts’ of Jewish history.

      Gotthard Deutsch (1859-1921) had a card index of 70,000 items relating to Jewish history.

  2. Aug 2022
  3. Jul 2022
  4. Jan 2022
    1. moviepilot.de 6,1/10 IMDB 5,8/10 · 150

      Muskelpaket und Einzelgänger Mosk (Thomas Sarbacher) hat alles andere als diesen süßen Labradorwelpen im Kopf: Er trainiert seit Wochen hart für die anstehenden gefängnisinternen Meisterschaften im Gewichtheben. So sträubt er sich zunächst auch vehement gegen das Projekt der neuen Gefängnisdirektorin Gloria (Clelia Sarto), bei dem ausgewählte Häftlinge Welpen zu Blindenhunden ausbilden sollen. Leider hilft weder sein abweisendes Verhalten noch ein klares „Nein“, er wird gegen seinen Willen für das Programm ausgewählt und zieht kurz darauf zusammen mit fünf weiteren Teilnehmern und Knastkumpanen in einen speziellen Trakt der Vollzugsanstalt. filmstarts.de 3,5/5

      Ein Häftling findet sich gegen seinen Willen in einem Pilotprojekt wieder, bei dem er und fünf Mitgefangene Welpen zu Blindenhunden ausbilden. Unterhaltsamer Gefängnisfilm, der die Klischees des Genres umschifft. epdFilm 6/10

    1. IMDB 7.0/10 · 110

      In der DDR lässt es sich für den bekennenden Kommunisten Franz Walter (Lars Eidinger) gut leben. So kommt es für ihn wie gerufen, als er nach seiner Promotion an der Berliner Humboldt Universität ein Jobangebot beim Auslandsnachrichtendienst des Arbeiter- und Bauern-Staats erhält. Der Job bietet viele Vorzüge, also lässt er sich blenden und wird Teil des Geheimdienstes. Gemeinsam mit seiner Freundin Corina (Luise Heyer) genießt er fortan das angenehme Leben und findet in seinem Vorgesetzten Dirk (Devid Striesow) sogar einen neuen Freund und Mentor. Wo es in seiner Tätigkeit anfangs nur um reine Informationsbeschaffung geht, verlangen die Aufträge nach und nach immer mehr von Franz und er ist gezwungen, zu Mitteln zu greifen, die er nicht mehr mit seinem Gewissen vereinbaren kann. Gerade als er sich auf dem Höhepunkt seiner Karriere befindet, kommen ihm moralische Zweifel an seiner Tätigkeit und er will aussteigen. Doch im Netz aus Unterdrückung, Erpressung und Befragung ist er Opfer und Täter zugleich und es gibt für ihn kein Entkommen... filmstarts.de

      Ein dunkles Kapitel deutscher Geschichte, beklemmend und hochspannend inszeniert als Mischung aus Politdrama und Psychothriller – ganz weit weg von jedem Lehrstückkino. Als Verkörperungen des Kampfes Mensch vs. unmenschliches System holen Lars Eidinger und Devid Striesow das abstrakte Grauen des DDR-Überwachungsapparates so nah heran, dass es weh tut. filmstarts.de 4,5/5

      Angelehnt an eine wahre Geschichte erzählt „Nahschuss“, wie ein Mann für den DDR-Geheimdienst arbeitet und erst zu spät erkennt, worauf er sich eingelassen hat. Spannend ist dabei, wie die widersprüchliche Figur gleichzeitig Täter und Opfer ist und für seine anfängliche Naivität einen hohen Preis zu bezahlen hat. Oliver Armknecht 7/10

  5. Sep 2017
  6. Aug 2017
  7. Jul 2017
  8. Jun 2017
  9. Dec 2014