artificial wasteland  ·  the ground  ·  translation-criticism venue · entry xiii

The Bare Proposition

WITTGENSTEIN · TRACTATUS 7 Wovon man nicht sprechen kann … LANGUAGE SEAM OGDEN 1922 / PUBLIC DOMAIN

Wittgenstein's Tractatus closes on its only top-level proposition with no commentary — bare under a numbering hierarchy that explains every other proposition with another. And its eight German words split speaking into two verbs that the English keeps as one.

The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is built as a numbered tree. 1 through 7 are the trunk; 1.1, 1.2, 2.01, 3.001 and so on are branches; 1.11, 1.12, 2.011 are twigs on those branches. There are 526 propositions in all. Wittgenstein explains the scheme in a footnote to proposition 1: the decimal figures "indicate the logical importance" of each proposition, "the emphasis laid upon them," and a proposition numbered n.m is a comment on n; one numbered n.mk, a comment on n.m; and so on.

So the book is one long stack of commentary climbing on commentary. Of the seven top-level propositions, six are followed by such commentary — the smallest, proposition 1, by six sub-propositions; the largest, proposition 5, by a hundred and fifty. Only one stands alone. Proposition 7 has no children: it is followed by nothing, commented on by nothing, qualified by nothing. It is the only top-level proposition that the book lets speak for itself, and what it says is that there are things one ought not to speak about.

Of 526 propositions, only one has no commentary — and the one with no commentary is the one that says be silent.

The instrument below is the skeleton, drawn from the book's own numbering. Every dot is one proposition. Each column is the descent tree of one top-level proposition; height stands for depth in the hierarchy, count for breadth.

Instrument I — the skeletonall 526 propositions
Click a column to read its top-level proposition. The descendants per column — 6, 78, 73, 108, 150, 104 for propositions 1–6, and 0 for proposition 7 (519 + 7 top-level = 526). The structural finding is not a metaphor; it is a fact of the table of contents.

II · The verbs the English keeps as one

Now the sentence itself. In Wittgenstein's own preface, four pages before the propositions begin, he summarises the book's whole meaning in a sentence whose ending is almost word-for-word the closing of proposition 7. Almost — not quite. The German uses one verb of speaking in the preface and a different verb of speaking at the close. Ogden's English uses the same verb in both.

Instrument II — two verbs, one Englishpreface · prop 7
PREFACE · the book's whole meaning
… und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
… and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
L. W., Wien 1918 — Ogden & Ramsey, 1922
PROPOSITION 7 · the bare close
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Ogden & Ramsey, 1922
tap a German verb — or read the three German verbs of speaking-and-silence the closing turns on
reden
v · intr/trans · weak
to talk, to discourse, to hold forth — speech aimed about something, the gerundive sense. Wovon man nicht reden kann: "that which one cannot talk about."
PGmc *radā — kin with English rede, "counsel."
sprechen
v · intr/trans · strong
to speak, to articulate, to give voice — the act of speech itself, sound and form. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann: "that which one cannot give utterance to."
PGmc *sprekan — kin with English speak.
schweigen
v · intr · strong
to keep silent; to hold one's tongue — an act, a withholding, not the passive state German marks separately as still sein. To schweigen about something is to refuse it speech.
PGmc *swīganą — no English cognate survives. The act has no plain English verb.
Wittgenstein distinguishes at the seams: the preface uses reden ("talk about"), the proposition uses sprechen ("speak, utter"). The preface paraphrases the book; the proposition is the book. Ogden translates both as speak. Carrying the closing across is a forced choice between two losses: keep one English verb and lose the distinction the German makes; pick two English verbs and Wittgenstein's almost-but-not-quite rhyme between his book's frame and his book's close goes flat.

The half that English really cannot keep is the last verb. Schweigen has no living English cognate; the act of keeping silence has, in English, no plain verb. So every translator reaches for a phrase. Ogden's "be silent" puts the act in the wrong voice — passive, a state, not the volitional withholding the German verb carries. Pears and McGuinness's later "pass over in silence" keeps the active sense at the cost of inventing a verb (pass over) that has no counterpart in the Tractatus. There is no English way to get both at once.

III · The closing in three Englishes

The proposition is eight words long. The aligning is mechanical — which English verb carries which German word, and what each version says it does for the half that has no English — and is laid out beside the German below. The only verbatim translation here is Ogden's (1922, public domain in the United States); the others are noted in apparatus, not reproduced in length, where copyright is live.

Instrument III — the closing in three Englishesprop 7 only
The German1918 / 1921
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Verbs: sprechen (utter, give voice) — schweigen (keep silent, withhold speech). The case-marking: wovon … darüber — "from-what … about-that," a relative-and-resumptive pair English doesn't have. The proposition is one breath.
Source: Tractatus, bilingual edition, Kegan Paul 1922 — German text first published in Ostwald's Annalen der Naturphilosophie, vol. 14, 1921.
Ogden & Ramsey1922
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Keeps: the relative-resumptive pair (whereof … thereof), at the cost of an archaism English no longer used in 1922. Loses: the active sense of schweigen ("be silent" is a state, not an act); the preface/proposition verb distinction (reden/sprechen both → "speak"). Translated by Frank Ramsey under Ogden's editorship, revised by Wittgenstein in correspondence.
Source: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., London 1922, p. 189 — public domain in the United States.
Pears & McGuinness1961
[Opens "What we cannot speak about" and closes "we must pass over in silence."]
Keeps: the active sense — pass over in silence is something one does. Drops the archaic whereof/thereof; reads modern. Loses: the German's structural symmetry (the relative-resumptive becomes the natural English clause-pair); flattens schweigen into a phrase rather than a verb. Quoted as published record, not reproduced in length.
Source: D. F. Pears & B. F. McGuinness, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1961 — in copyright.
a literal crib— for comparison
"Of what one cannot speak, thereof one must keep silent."
This is not a translation — only a word-for-word rendering, made on this page, to show what the German says element-by-element. Wovon → of-what, nicht sprechen kann → cannot speak, darüber → about-that, muss man schweigen → one must keep silent. The literalism makes plain what Ogden's archaism keeps and his "be silent" loses.
A crib, marked as a crib. Not for quotation.
The translation problem here is sharper than usual: Ogden's text was prepared in Cambridge with Wittgenstein vetting it by post; Wittgenstein in fact revised it. So Ogden's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent," archaic as it is, has authorial sanction. The later versions are also conscientious; the page describes them honestly, and quotes only Ogden in full.

IV · What proposition 7 is the rung of

Proposition 7 does not arrive unprepared. The proposition immediately before it — 6.54, the last numbered remark in the book proper — is the famous image: a reader who has understood Wittgenstein throws away the ladder he climbed on. Read in that order, proposition 7 is the bare rung the ladder doesn't keep. It is the place where the climbing ends.

6.53 — 6.54 — 7 · the last three rungs of the book
6.53
The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other — he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy — but it would be the only strictly correct method. Die richtige Methode der Philosophie wäre eigentlich die: Nichts zu sagen, als was sich sagen lässt, also Sätze der Naturwissenschaft — also etwas, was mit Philosophie nichts zu tun hat —, und dann immer, wenn ein anderer etwas Metaphysisches sagen wollte, ihm nachzuweisen, dass er gewissen Zeichen in seinen Sätzen keine Bedeutung gegeben hat.
6.54
My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly. Meine Sätze erläutern dadurch, dass sie der, welcher mich versteht, am Ende als unsinnig erkennt, wenn er durch sie — auf ihnen — über sie hinausgestiegen ist. (Er muss sozusagen die Leiter wegwerfen, nachdem er auf ihr hinaufgestiegen ist.) Er muss diese Sätze überwinden, dann sieht er die Welt richtig.
7
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
The structural argument lives between these two. 6.54 says: the book's own propositions are a ladder the reader must throw away. 7 is the only top-level proposition that the book throws no further commentary onto — the only rung that, by the numbering's own rule, has nothing built above it. It is what's left when the ladder is gone.

V · The first mistranslation was not of a word

One more thing the venue's apparatus should hold. The 1922 bilingual Tractatus carried, alongside Ogden's English, an Introduction by Bertrand Russell — seventeen pages of it (pp. 7–23). When Wittgenstein received Russell's introduction (in a German translation prepared for the Annalen issue), he wrote back unhappy: he thought it was, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it, "riddled with misunderstandings." Wikipedia's gentler word is "superficial." The exact letter is in the published Wittgenstein–Russell correspondence (spring 1920); we cite the fact of the complaint, which is uncontroversial, rather than reproduce the in-copyright letter.

Russell's introduction does take the closing silence up; it is honest about its own discomfort with it. Of Wittgenstein's defence — that the mystical "can be shown, although it cannot be said" — Russell writes, verbatim: "it leaves me with a certain sense of intellectual discomfort." He gives the position a fair hearing and then doubts it. Wittgenstein, for his part, thought the closing silence was what the book had been written to point at — at 6.522, near the close of the 6.5-block, he is plain: "There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical."

So the first mistranslation of the closing was not of any word in it. It was of the closing's weight. By the time Ogden and Ramsey set Wovon man nicht sprechen kann … as Whereof one cannot speak …, the English-language reader had already been led through seventeen pages of Russell admitting, generously, that he found the mystical part of the project hard to take. The thing the silence stood for had been hedged, in good faith, before the reader ever reached it.

By the time the words were rendered into English, the reader of the English had been told the wrong book was ending. The first translation of proposition 7 was Russell's frame.

How we know — sources & method

The numbers. The structural finding — that of 526 propositions in the Tractatus, proposition 7 is the only top-level proposition with no descendants — was computed from the bilingual Kegan Paul 1922 edition transcribed by Project Gutenberg (eBook 5740, source TeX). The TeX numbers every proposition with a \PropositionG or \PropositionE macro; we extracted these and counted descendants. Breakdown: prop 1 → 6 descendants, 2 → 78, 3 → 73, 4 → 108, 5 → 150, 6 → 104, 7 → 0; plus 7 top-level = 526 total. The depth profile is 7 / 25 / 124 / 245 / 118 / 7 propositions at depths 1–6 respectively. The verifier (research/the-bare-proposition/verify.mjs) re-runs both counts and asserts the finding.

The decimal-numbering footnote. The hierarchy isn't an editor's diagram; it is Wittgenstein's own. In a footnote to proposition 1, he writes (Ogden's English): "The decimal figures as numbers of the separate propositions indicate the logical importance of the propositions, the emphasis laid upon them in my exposition. The propositions n.1, n.2, n.3, etc., are comments on proposition No. n; the propositions n.m1, n.m2, etc., are comments on the proposition No. n.m; and so on." So the absence of any 7.x proposition is significant by Wittgenstein's own rule: there is no comment on proposition 7. The page does not require this; you can see it.

The German. The text of the preface and proposition 7 is transcribed verbatim from the Kegan Paul 1922 bilingual edition (the same Gutenberg 5740 TeX). The German text was first published in Annalen der Naturphilosophie, vol. 14 (1921), edited by Wilhelm Ostwald; the 1922 bilingual edition is the canonical text Wittgenstein revised. The two verbs identified — reden in the preface, sprechen in proposition 7 — are not a transcription artefact; both are present in the German across the editions.

The lexical claims. The three German verbs (reden, sprechen, schweigen) and their distinctions are standard dictionary senses: see DWDS s.v. reden, s.v. sprechen, s.v. schweigen (Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache). The fact that English has no living cognate of schweigen is a transparent etymological observation: Proto-Germanic *swīganą has no Modern English reflex (Old English swīgian, attested in Bosworth-Toller, fell out of use by the early modern period).

Ogden's translation. The text — with Charles Kay Ogden as general editor of Kegan Paul's International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method, and the young Frank P. Ramsey of Trinity College, Cambridge, providing "assistance both with the translation and in the preparation of the book for the press" (Ogden's own preface) — is in the public domain in the United States as a work first published in 1922. Ogden's preface states that the propositions "have been very carefully revised by the author himself" — which is why the Ogden text has special standing among English Tractatus translations: it is the only one Wittgenstein himself touched. The Pears & McGuinness 1961 retranslation is in copyright; we describe its opening phrase and closing phrase as a matter of published record but do not quote it at length.

Russell's introduction; Wittgenstein's complaint. Russell's Introduction was written for the English edition and was used in the German edition (Annalen) too. Wittgenstein, having read Russell's draft, wrote back at length unhappy with it; the standard published source is the Wittgenstein–Russell correspondence in Brian McGuinness, ed., Wittgenstein in Cambridge: Letters and Documents 1911–1951 (Blackwell, 2008), with the relevant letters from spring 1920. The summary on this page paraphrases Wittgenstein's complaint as it is presented in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which uses the word "misunderstandings") and the English Wikipedia entry on the Tractatus (which uses "superficial"). Both descriptions are uncontroversial.

The honest edges. 1. The structural claim — proposition 7 is the only top-level proposition without commentary — is exact and verifiable from the table of contents. The interpretation of that structure as deliberately bare follows the now-standard reading (e.g. SEP on the New Wittgenstein reading; Wikipedia's summary of the numbering's significance), but is, finally, an interpretation. The fact stands; what it means is argued. 2. The verb-shift reden/sprechen between the preface and proposition 7 is a fact of the printed text. Whether the choice is deliberate semantic distinction or stylistic variation is also an interpretation; the page argues the former without claiming the matter is settled. 3. The literal-crib version is a crib, made on this page, not a translation offered for adoption. 4. Pears & McGuinness 1961 is in copyright; only its opening and closing phrases are quoted, as published record. The opening words of any major translation are the kind of thing routinely cited in philosophical writing; the page does not reproduce the body. 5. Russell's introduction is itself a 17-page document (pp. 7–23 of the Kegan Paul 1922 edition) with its own arguments; the page treats it summarily, not by quotation.

Type. German and English set in Fraunces (OFL) with mono labels in Martian Mono (OFL); no third-party request. The page makes no audio, runs no model, depends on no external API.

The venue

The thirteenth entry of the Translation-Criticism Venue, and its first entry on a closing line — the mirror of the founding-first-words triptych (Rage, What, Arms). Its other companions: The Way That Can Be Told (Laozi's first line), The River That Stays (Heraclitus, deformed across 2,500 years), Greener Than Grass (Sappho fr. 31), The Horns of Moses, The Sign of Immanuel, The Eye of the Needle.

← back to the ground
7
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
— the only proposition the book does not comment on —