(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In an article in Aftenposten on 11 June, Ketil Bjørnstad expressed fear that the war in Ukraine could get out of control and develop into a new world war. The views were substantiated with quotes from the book The world of yesterday (1942/1993) by the Austrian writer Stefan Zweig (1881–1942).
In one of the quotes, we hear about the euphoric situation in Zweig's native Austria on the eve of the First World War, when the authorities called for general mobilisation. People cheered. At that time, few people had experienced anything other than peace – the idea that people had of war as something glorious and honorable, they had from art and literature, not from reality. In his heyday, Zweig was Europe's most translated author, with more than 40 books – novels, short stories, biographies and plays.
Thorbjørn Jagland saw the need to read the international crises of our time in the light of the Austrian author's pacifist autobiography.
Although he is probably less read today, he is clearly not forgotten, as the debate in the wake of Bjørnstad's chronicle has clearly shown. In the weeks that followed, one after another appeared with statements and reader posts, for or against Bjørnstad. One of them was Thorbjørn Jagland, who in a contribution in Samtiden in July could say that several months ago he saw the need to read the international crises of our time in the light of the Austrian author's pacifist autobiography, although not, like Bjørnstad, with an eye on Ukraine. What Jagland was most interested in was Zweig's meeting with the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, and what this can tell us about another of our times' conflicts, namely that between Israel og Palestine.
Although Jagland's perspective on Zweig was different from Bjørnstad's, he shared the view that negotiations were important, and the sentence that "any attempt to look 'differently' at what happened is met with Neville Chamberlain as proof" was unambiguously directed against Bjørnstad's foremost critic, fellow writer Erik Fosnes Hansen. With reference to the last part of The world of yesterday, where we hear about the British's futile attempts to reach an agreement with Hitler, Fosnes Hansen even claimed that Bjørnstad had not read Zweig properly.
With Zweig (as with Arnulf Øverland), Fosnes Hansen claimed to find support for a theory that it was the naive belief in progress and peace that made Hitler unstoppable. Apparently this fits reasonably well The world of yesterday where Zweig told how the illusion of progress and cooperation in Europe after a period of peace was drowned when the First World War broke out. But who was actually carrying this illusion? Wasn't it Zweig himself? We are here at the core of Zweig's autobiographical work, namely the question of how a world that cultivated art, culture, thought and science could choose war and destruction over truth.
The anti-war theme
Zweig himself was among those who believed in peace. If such a belief is an illusion, the doubt that Fosnes Hansen believes must be found in it The world of yesterday primarily be a self-criticism. It would of course be entirely possible for Zweig to complete a complete reversal, considering that earlier, at the start of the First World War, he had expressed uncertainty in the choice between patriotism and pacifism.
However, there is little indication that Zweig abandoned the pacifism that pervades much of his writing in the interwar period. Zweig's posthumously published autobiography is probably his best-known work, but the anti-war theme was developed much earlier. An example is the short story "Der Zwang" (1918), about the young couple Ferdinand and Paula who, during the First World War, flee their homeland and seek refuge in neutral Switzerland to avoid military service. One day, Ferdinand receives a registered letter telling him to appear at the German consulate in Zurich. He understands that it is about a call-up to the military. From here we follow the moral anguish of a pacifist who is unable to act in accordance with his own convictions because he is bound by obedience.
Zweig's writing colleagues on the eve of the First World War allowed themselves to be seduced by the unrealistic rhetoric.
It is no coincidence that the protagonist of "Der Zwang» is an artist. Through Ferdinand, Zweig can say something about how he envisioned the artist's role in society – he is someone who travels, experiences and recognizes other cultures, makes friends and works for peace. To his great surprise, Zweig discovered that several of his fellow writers had allowed themselves to be seduced by unrealistic rhetoric in the run-up to the First World War, and that some had even allowed themselves to be used in the service of propaganda.
Lev Tolstoy
Zweig himself went in the opposite direction and joined the international pacifist movement. There were several reasons for that. One was the inspiration from other writers, and in particular the unconditional distance from violence he found in Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), who believed that patriotism was the cause of war and enmity between nations. In contrast to narrow patriotism, Tolstoy sought an element that could rally people around respect for human dignity in a religion without dogmas.
With his Russian role model, Zweig shared an almost fanatical distance from any form of violence. Admittedly, not all aspects of Tolstoy's pacifism were equally appealing to Zweig. As an alternative to the Christian emphasis on sin (which probably seemed foreign to someone with a Jewish background), Zweig sought a humanistic justification for his pacifism – a humanism in continuous dialogue with the religions, mind you.
Erasmus of Rotterdam
On this point, the encounter with the theology of Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466?–1536) was decisive. In Zweig's biography of the famous Renaissance humanist, one work in particular was central, namely Complaints of the Peace (The Lament of Peace) from 1517. Central to Erasmus was the view of man, who, unlike most animals, is born defenseless and therefore, for his own protection, must seek community. Weapons would therefore be redundant. However, this is not the case in reality. Man's innate defenselessness and mutual dependence stand in stark contrast to how states act towards each other. Hostile attitudes are also found in the church, which supports warlords and lacks commitment to peace. This led Erasmus to the radical proposal to forbid war in favor of an eternal and worldwide peace.
Bertha von Suttner
Another important reason why Zweig joined pacifism was Bertha von Suttner's (1843–1914) novel Lay Down Your Arms (Down with the weapons) from 1889. (In 1905, von Suttner was the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.) In one place, Zweig refers to von Suttner as our modern-day Kassandra – a tragic figure from Greek mythology who made predictions about the future that no one would listen to. Was this an acknowledgment of the pacifist's role in society? The meeting with von Suttner must have been decisive for one of Zweig's most famous works, the drama Jeremias (1918). The drama is based on the fate of the prophet Jeremias, who in the Old Testament had a role somewhat similar to Kassandra's: one who warns of war and destruction without being heard.
Fascism and Nazism
What could be the reason why Zweig was so preoccupied with ancient prophets and 'heralds'? Could it be that he saw himself as our own age's harbingers of war and doom? The answer to this question is probably yes, which brings Zweig's warnings against Nazism to a close The world of yesterday in a certain light. He wanted Hitler to be stopped, of course, but his voice was not heard because, as he said, "in 1939 any declaration by a writer or poet was completely without effect." It must have been a disappointment, but it also confirmed his own role as a writer – he was a new Jeremias or Kassandra.
"In 1939 any declaration by a writer or poet was completely without effect."
Zweig says nothing about how to win a conflict once war has broken out, but he had clear ideas about how to resolve it before it came to open confrontation. First of all, one must find the causes of fanaticism. It was in particular the political chaos of the interwar period, with hyperinflation and poverty, that provided fertile ground for fascism and Nazism. In addition, he believed in international cooperation and expressed on several occasions a strong desire that the interwar League of Nations, with Woodrow Wilson at the head, should be given real power to settle conflicts.
The core of Zweig's autobiography The world of yesterday is the question of how a world that cultivated art, culture, thought and science could choose war and destruction.
Predominant patriotism
As I see it, Bjørnstad is in line with Zweig on several points. It concerns the hope of resolving conflicts through negotiation, as well as the view of human suffering in a war. Bjørnstad asks if the war is worth the murders, bombs, mutilations and suffering. IN The world of yesterday Zweig explains his pacifism by referring to the fact that he never allowed himself to be seduced by the prevailing patriotism, and that a war won at great cost can never justify the enormous suffering it inflicts on people.
Zweig's pacifism was of the radical variety, for which he received criticism, even from people in his circle of acquaintances who shared his commitment to peace in Europe. The beauty of it The world of yesterday is that it also allows other people to speak. Among these was Zweig's good friend, the French writer Romain Rolland, who believed that armed resistance could be accepted as self-defense. Those who say they disagree with Bjørnstad are unlikely to agree with Zweig either, but it is conceivable that they find like-minded people among Zweig's acquaintances. In that case, just throw yourself into the book.
Lasse Hodne is professor of art history at NTNU.
