Alfred Amonn, Schlußwort (1924)

Alfred Amonn’s Schlußwort is a brief journal rejoinder defending his criticism of Raditz’s translation and interpretation of Walras. Organized as replies to numbered objections, it moves through monetary concepts, philology, translation, mathematical terminology, and the responsibilities of a reviewer. Its central contention is that distinctions Raditz dismisses as pedantic are necessary for representing Walras accurately. Amonn closes the exchange by defending particular corrections while refusing the obligation to produce an exhaustive inventory of translation errors.

The opening objection concerns the difference between what determines money’s value and what functions money performs:

Walras spricht davon, daß der Geldwert von der Tauschfunktion und der Gebrauchsfunktion des Geldstoffes bestimmt wird, also von der Bedeutung der Funktionen des Geldstoffes für den Geldwert.

English translation: Walras speaks of the value of money being determined by the exchange function and the use function of the monetary material, thus of the significance of the monetary material’s functions for the value of money.

Amonn contrasts this explanation with Raditz’s reference to money as a medium of exchange and a measure of value. Raditz has, on Amonn’s account, changed both the object under discussion—from the monetary material to money—and one of the functions, substituting measurement of value for use. The point is therefore conceptual rather than merely verbal: naming monetary functions does not answer a claim about the determination of monetary value.

The replies to objections 2 and 8 shift to linguistic authority. Amonn refers the dispute over the roots of German tör and French tort to specialist philologists, whose judgment he places above Raditz’s unsupported assertion. He likewise invites readers to test the rendering of numéraire as Zahlungsmittel against the original and a dictionary. These appeals make his criticism answerable to identifiable evidence, although the rejoinder does not itself reproduce a full philological demonstration.

Addressing objections 3 and 6, Amonn says there is nothing to add where Raditz sets the correct translation beside his own errors. He nevertheless supplies a previously omitted correction for a phrase about commodities contributing to the determination of an average. His proposed German alternatives range from competing to participating or acting together. The passage shows that his objection need not depend on one uniquely acceptable wording: several formulations can preserve the relevant relationship.

The mathematical dispute turns on the same demand to distinguish different operations:

In Wirklichkeit hat W. wohl die Zeichnung des Koordinatensystems umgekehrt, aber nicht die Bezeichnung der Achsen, was ebenfalls zwei ganz verschiedene Dinge sind.

English translation: In fact, W. did reverse the drawing of the coordinate system, but not the naming of the axes, which are likewise two entirely different things.

Amonn maintains that Walras identifies the y-axis as the ordinate axis. Reversing the diagram’s arrangement therefore does not establish Raditz’s claim that Walras reverses the customary axis names. This repeats the rejoinder’s governing move: an apparent rebuttal fails if it substitutes a neighboring but distinct issue.

The conclusion separates criticism from comprehensive editorial correction:

Die eigenartige Zumutung aber, eine vollständige Liste aller Uebersetzungsfehler aufzustellen, muß ich nochmals zurückweisen. Das gehört nicht zum Amt oder zu den Pflichten eines Kritikers.

English translation: But I must once again reject the peculiar demand that I draw up a complete list of all translation errors. That is not part of a critic’s office or duties.

The rejoinder’s significance lies in linking precision of translation with precision of economic interpretation. Amonn defends the substantive force of selected corrections without accepting that a reviewer must undertake a complete revision of the translation.