Talk:Glückel of Hameln

Suggest Renaming

I would suggest that the article be renamed to reflect Glikl's actual name according and its Yiddish transliteration, thus: Glikl Bas Leib and not Gluckel of Hameln. The latter is an anachronism (see discussions in Davis and Turniansky). Glikl herself was born in Hamburg, not Hameln, which was the birthplace of her husband.

Transwiki

You wrote: "trans from hebrew wikipedia". Please ad transwikireferences here and there. Mikkalai 09:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

References, discrepancies

A remark in the history says that the original article was translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia, but gives no indication of what its references might be (there seem to be none there).

• I was wondering about the (rather precise) birth and death dates. Sol Liptzin [Liptzin, 1972, 14] gives 1645–1724: that is, he doesn't even agree on the years, let alone the exact dates. Is there a specific source for the dates given in the article?
• Liptzin has her living mainly in Hamburg. According to him, she married a Jew of Hamelin, but lived there only briefly.
• Liptzin mentions quite a bit else, which I will add to the article on his authority, but since these points flat-out contradict what is already there, I thought I'd give someone an opportunity to cite sources before overriding anything.

Jmabel | Talk 06:22, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Now we have Yet another set of conflicting, still unsourced dates. - Jmabel | Talk

Another Translation Exists.

While the Marvin Lowenthal translation was well-intentioned and contributed to the diary's acclaim, the Beth-Zion Abrahams version provides a much clearer window into her life and her writings. Abrahams did not edit out Glickl's quotations of religious stories or tracts and left in her oft-repeated blessings that Lowenthal and other male scholars found "somewhat tiresome." Some feminist scholars see Glikl's theologizing as a particularly female form of midrash. This connection is impossible to see in Lowenthal's terse and rather dry translation of the diary. Lowenthal saw the diary as useful in a historical sense, while Abrahams sought to illuminate the dynamic and lively character of the well-traveled and intensely religious woman who sat down to write a book ostensibly for her children and their children, but also for herself. (anon 12 June 2005)

• Please, feel more than free to add a bibliographical reference. Also, if you can cite someone in an article in some citable place who has this praise for Abrahams' version over Lowenthal's, please cite that too. These would be good additions to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)