Talk:Stefan Zweig

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Older comments

Blimey! Well done 203.198.23.27 , what a great update!

Hey, that was me, I had been logged out - User:Olivier

Yep! :)

Thanks Patrick and an anon IP address for sorting out the Schachnovelle bit. Wikipedia co-operation at its best! Nevilley 12:09 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

wrt this:

"published in German as Marie Stuart and in English as (The) Queen of Scots or Mary, Queen of Scotland and the Isles."

- these are just the ones that came easily, there may be others. I thought it had been published as Mary, Queen of Scots but have not yet found evidence for this. It seems to have been a matter of author's/editor's/publisher's whim the exact way the titles done in foreign language editions. Nevilley 13:32 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

With regard to German/English titles, I don't think that there is one hard and fast rule which can be easily applied here, and I have reverted the last attempt to do so. I have been giving this matter a lot of thought this afternoon and I still don't have a rule, except to say that I beleive that an attempt to simply decide All One Language is doomed to failure. This is an English-language encyclopedia and I think we should use the terms that work well in English. But this doesn;t mean a rule, it means a one-by-one decicion about what sounds right. For example The Royal Game is published under that title in English, in fact I think you can still buy it at a bookshop! But Die schweigsame Frau is very often referred to in German, as are plenty of Strauss' works. We do NOT translate Rosenkavalier: we only rarely translate "Also Sprach Z" - most people who know these at all know them by the German names. So, I'm sorry if it annoys anyone who likes things cut and dried, but I am going to continue to use the version that I think works best in each case, and not apply one rule to all cases. Thanks. Nevilley 16:18 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Your arguments are strange for us non English speakers - but we'll get used. I am not familiar in full with the relations between German and English, but, for instance, in my language we almost never use German titles or whatever. But I guess English language 'likes' German in this way. That's a difference, so we, who do not speak English as a native language, have to be a little bit more careful. I know for some such terms which are not translated (e.g. Bildungsroman, flak, ...) and obviously they're quite well for such purposes. In English they work fine, but in others perhaps they don't. So we always translate Rosenkavalier and all such German terms. Best regards.

Mmmm! It's distinctly odd when I think about it. Thank you for your tolerance of my thinking out loud, here and in the Strauss. There isn't a rule I can think of - I was trying to think of what you would normally say, what you could ask for in a record shop, etc. I would always say Rite of Spring not Sacre de Printemps, though people would understand the latter. But if I translated Fledermaus into English people would think I had gone! Strange isn't it!? Thanks, Nevilley 19:50 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

Yep, Verzeichnüss is correct. I assume that it is old German rather than Mozart messing around as I think (hope) he would have taken this seriously - but who knows? My source is the BL's exhibition notes for "75 Musical and Literary Autographs from the Stefan Zweig Collection", 9 May to 19 June, 1986. It's used twice in this spelling. Nevilley 08:13 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Maria not Marie

Yes, the change from Marie Stuart to Maria Stuart was correct, I checked. I don't know how the error got in. Tsk tsk! :)

Actually, I do now - it was published as Marie in France. 82.45.248.177 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright status of this image?

I very much like the inclusion of the photo, but is it OK copyright-wise? There's no copyright info with it and while it's feasible that it's PD, it's not guaranteed by the dates. I would be a lot happier with some clarification of this, thanks. 138.37.188.109 10:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits from last May

I'm concerned about this anonymous edit from last May. What makes me suspicious is the idea that the fall of Singapore would make Zweig think Nazism was going to spread all over the world. I'd certainly like a citation for that claim. By association then, because they come from the same person, I'm suspicious of the claims that his wife's birth name was Charlotte E. Altmann and that they committed suicidie with veronal. Can anyone substantiate any of these? -- Angr (tɔk) 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Angr: Those are interesting questions. This is the first time I have looked at the English Wikipedia article on Zweig. There is a story that Zweig and his second wife decided to commit suicide after hearing a woman talking of the inevitability of the Nazis gaining control of Brazil. This was said to have occurred at a party. Zweig was writing positive articles on Brazil. I wonder personally how sure anyone is that it was suicide. There were Nazis in Brazil who did not want Zweig there and who did not want refugees coming there. (the Vargas government appears to have welcomed the idea of the refugees.) Zweig's first wife is one of those who dismissed any doubts concerning the suicide that were made public. She said he always had an interest in the idea of committing suicide. I personally don't think the suicide should have been accepted that readily. The note was peculiar..and there are ways to make it appear that a house is locked. oldcitycat 05:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also some question in my mind as to whether Zweig would have wanted his second wife to join him in suicide. She was much younger, I believe, had been and/or was still his secretary. oldcitycat 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotte was Zweig's secretary originally. Yes she was younger, but very dedicated to Zweig. The Altmann family was and is in no doubt that it was suicide and that the public face of the story is the truth. If it were otherwise, you'd have heard it by now. I don't think that personal speculation, with the greatest respect, will get you anywhere here. Gonegonegone 23:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Gonegonegone:"If it were otherwise, you'd have heard it by now." I very much doubt that. There isn't that much interest in the question. Families also have a way of accepting what they shouldn't accept.I take it the Altmann family survived WWII.oldcitycat 16:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you doubt it or not - it is a fact. Sorry but I have had enough of this now. You're just speculating. Gonegonegone 22:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I:Lotte's maiden name was definitely Altmann. I can't comment on the Charlotte E. or the veronal. 138.37.199.199 11:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotte was Charlotte Elisabeth Altmann. I've corrected the article (and removed the unused link - I am not sure that a separate article on her will ever be required). I don't yet have answers to Angr's other queries, well not yet anyway. 82.45.245.15 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops wrong - she was CE not EC. Sorry - corrected it again. Still unclear whether she should have an S or a Z but trying to check. 172.216.11.102 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC) (same user!)[reply]

I've now corrected it in the bold text above (which I also wrote) to minimize confusion. I had originally written that she was Elisabeth Charlotte Altmann but that order is certainly wrong and she was definitely CE. I am still not sure about the S or Z but I think S is more likely. 138.37.199.206 07:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (same user again!)[reply]

It's Verzeichnüss NOT Verzeichniss

It really is Verzeichnüss NOT Verzeichniss. I wish people would check and/or think before they edit. With the greatest of respect, it is not a question of what the correct German is, or even was: it is a question of what Mozart wrote in the front of his book. And what he wrote was Verzeichnüss. There's an edit up there discusses this: in addition, to verify it, all you have to do is go to the British Library and see the book on display. :) Or check here: [1] 138.37.199.199 11:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an HTML comment to the article in the hope of attracting the attention of future editors to this issue. 82.45.248.177 08:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaus Unger

The recently-added paragraph by an anonymous user on the work of Nikolaus Unger, whom a google search has revealed to be a doctoral student, smells rather suspicious. Unger is not a prominent figure in intellectual history, yet we read "Foremost among them is Nikolaus Unger," "the ambitioius Unger," "It is hoped that Unger's ground breaking work," and even excessive praise for this student's earlier work: "achieved widespread critical acclaim most notably in the Cinncinnati College Undergraduate Journal of Intellectual History." The context of the article seems inappropriate for this praise, and its statements are unsupported.

This paragraph tells me virtually nothing about Zweig and instead focuses on praising the obscure Unger, contributing little to an understanding of Zweig's "Life and Work," the section into which this paragraph was haphazardously thrown. In light of this, I am reverting to a previous version. --68.40.15.19 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. This paragraph was, at best, not entirely appropriate. 138.37.199.199 08:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the information concerning Nikolaus Unger is both partially incorrect and out of place. Mr. Unger is currently a doctoral student at the University of Warwick (Coventry, UK), working on a project focused on Zweig. He has published two recent scholarly articles based on his work:

Nikolaus Unger, 'Remembering Identity in Die Welt von Gestern. Stefan Zweig, Austrian German Identity Construction and the First World War', Focus on German Studies, 12 (2005), 95-116.

Nikolaus Unger, 'Two "Good Europeans": Nietzschean innovation in the late-Habsburg thought of Hermann Bahr and Stefan Zweig', Trans: Internet-Zeitschrift fuer Kulturwissenschaften, Nummer 16., Mai 2006

Hölderlin, Kleist, Nietzsche

Just to point out that I am not sure Zweig's Nietzsche bio mentioned in the article is not included in the three-part work Der Kampf mit dem Damon, which also includes Friedrich Hölderlin and Kleist. This might be a necessary update.

I will try to check sometime. 82.45.248.177 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was a mistake on my behalf, Nietzche is not an individual book of Zweig, but part of Der Kampf mit dem Damon (translated to something like "struggle against the demon"). Good thing it seems corrected now though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.57.71 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Castellio - The Right to Heresy, or how John Calvin killed a Conscience

I took out the link from that title to this site:

http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_toc.htm

- on these grounds

1. not sure if the external site's use of the full text is legal

2. the external site has seemingly signed SZ up to support a particular religious viewpoint. I am not sure that this is what his work was meant for. If the fulltext is legal, and the wiki could link to a neutral presentation of it, then fine, but to link to a site which has an axe to grind seems to me a little odd.

What do you think? 82.45.248.177 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Das Haus am Meer

Does any of you know the English name of the play "Das Haus am Meer"?

Thanks JP Jp.martin-flatin 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find out. 138.37.199.206 10:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- and then I keep forgetting! Sorry, I will try again to check. 138.37.199.206 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've (same as above on ...206) had a look. It is starting to appear that perhaps this work was not issued in English. (It was after all early in Zweig's career that it was published. I hope this may be made definitively clear some time but that is how it looks now. At the same time, I removed a perhaps-joke "translation" which rendered it as "The House in Meer": I think I'd like to see a citation for that one before it reappears! :) So at the moment it just has the German title. It would be great if anyone can help nail this for sure. 82.45.248.177 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking further, it now seems terribly unlikely to me that it never appeared in English. He may not have been that well-known in 1912 but he was later and I would have thought his publisher(s) would have been keen to translate the whole catalogue. I'll keep looking. In the meantime, this site: http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=5470 has it as "The House by the Sea". This is certainly not an unreasonable translation but I am not sure if it's saying definitively that it was published under that title, or merely that this is an English translation of the title. Hmmm! I thought this would be so easy to answer! :) 82.45.248.177 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Klawitter, Stefan Zweig: An international Bibliography and Addendum I (1999), "Das Haus am Meer" was only translated into Georgian, Russian and Serbo-Croat. As the bibliography seems to be complete it is highly unlikely that an English translation exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.206.224 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah - interesting. After my last edit I had a good look through a pretty comprehensive (i.e. theoretically complete) collection of Zweig's works in many languages, assisted by his heir. It doesn't appear to be there, so this seems to chime well with the Klawitter book. Thank you. 82.45.248.177 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question of neighbourhood ...

Do we really need to tell people that the British Library is in England and that the State University of New York at Fredonia is in the United States? Firstly I think people probably know what British Library implies, and similarly they know where New York is... and if they do not, they can click the links. Secondly, "British Library in England" is especially dubious. If you want to say where it is in terms of its role, then it's the "British Library in Britain" which is a really a painful construction to behold. If you want to tell people where it is really, then it's in London! I'd prefer to just say British Library and let people sort the rest of it out with one easy click. :) 138.37.199.206 10:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spellings

In an edit in August which I felt was otherwise useful, several spellings got changed from UK to US variants. As I understand it these changes were not justified by wp policies. Indeed certain of them grate somewhat given other issues (catalogues at the BL etc). I did raise this with the editor but there's been no reply. I am now changing these back which I think is probably in line with policy. At the same time I am dealing with the London and New York question I raised above, please see previous topic. Thanks 138.37.199.206 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sternstunden der Menschheit

I noticed that probably his most important book Great Moments for Humanity was not mentioned. I opened the title "Bibliographies" to include historical texts and listed the Book. The German Article on Stefan Zweig seems to have a much more complete bibliography. Maybe someone can include some of his other works listed there: [[2]] Arved Deecke 15:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries under "Work" - getting unwieldy?

Please have a look at the subhead Work which now says:

Stefan Zweig was a very well-known writer in the 1920s and 1930s. He is still famous in many countries, including Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland, Dominican Republic, and Russia. However, his work has become less familiar to the English-reading public. ...

Way back when, this used to read more like:

Zweig was an extremely well-known writer in the 1930s and 1940s. In more recent times he is not generally well-known.

- now, that is clearly Anglocentric and not appropriate to or up to the standard of the current article, but it did have the advantage that it's fairly clear and indeed quite easily verifiable from the point of view of being in print in English. The problem with the current version is that only its first and last sentences are straightforward. The middle sentence has become "List of Countries in which Zweig is still Well-Known" and is added to from time to time with no verification supplied and none easily accessible. I could for example check quite easily on what extent he is in print in, say, Germany, but I'd be in a bit of trouble checking on Russia and the Dominican Republic. As we all know, wiki-lists of this sort eventually implode - currently, it doesn't really constitute much more than an invitation to add your own country if you have read Zweig, or heard of him, or just like adding to lists, or whatever. I mean, the Guardian this morning tells me there are 193 countries in the world - surely we will be needing San Marino and Eire and Denmark and China and Vietnam adding or checking ... you get my drift?

I do think that the paragraph is important. He was very popular and is still known in many countries but much less in the English-speaking world than before his death. Since this is an English-language wiki it is important to mention this. I also think, if it is verifiable, that his remaining better-known elsewhere is important/interesting too, but this is difficult to measure and prove. I do feel that the current countries list is in danger of getting out of hand and becoming silly.

Can anyone offer a way forward with this to keep the paragraph informative and focussed? I feel a bit stuck with it and have been editing this article too long to take a dispassionate view. Best wishes from long-dead ex-user 82.45.248.177 12:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Mick Gold for sorting this out! Thanks. 138.37.199.206 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed - help appreciated

I added this, about the collection at the BL:

"It has been described as "one of the world's greatest collection[s] of autograph manuscripts"."

Which is from here:

http://www.bl.uk/collections/music/musiczweig.html

- and I know that it would be better to cite it properly, but I had a quick look at the relevant pages and felt an immediate need for a couple of paracetamol and a nice lie-down in a darkened room. If you know how to do this and it is not too much trouble, please consider adding the citation as an act of charity to the elderly. If not, I might get round to it one day, but please don't hold your breath. Same long-dead ex-user 138.37.199.206 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a go. It is not right, but better than nothing in that at least the reference is there with the quote. If you can make it a proper wiki-type ref please do. 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I have corrected it to include the previously-missing "s", as the BL have now corrected their Zweig page. 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Literature" instead of "Books on Stefan Zweig"

I suggest to change the headline "Books on Stefan Zweig" into "Literature". This will correspond to the German version. It will also allow to include Bibliographies like Randolph J. Klawiter: Stefan Zweig. An International Bibliography Ariadne Press, Riverside 1991. 84.2.206.224 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]