Talk:Stefan Zweig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Suicide note[edit]

The quote towards the end of the Biography section I think it better to conclude in good time and in erect bearing a life in which intellectual labour meant the purest joy and personal freedom the highest good on Earth has been flagged requiring citation. The original suicide letter can now be found in multiple places (notably here:, with retranscription on wikisource: a translation is offered here: Not being a native German speaker, I can't vouch for the quality of the translation. The line referred to in particular is slightly different, here's another one that's closer: In any case could a native-level German speaker check that the quote reflects the original text and cite (or attach) the original note? Thibaut Lienart (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Older comments[edit]

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)

What is the copyright status of this image?[edit]

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. 10:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits from last May[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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. 00:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
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. 15:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC) (same user!)
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. 07:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (same user again!)

It's Verzeichnüß NOT Verzeichnis (or anything-ss)[edit]

(ancient and outdated comments removed by their author)

DBaK (talk) has held the line on this subject for while now, against a neverending onslaught of letter changers. We understand it hurts any eye trained in German spelling, but Mozart wrote in the 18th century, well before the unification of spelling, so here it is:

What Mozart wrote on the front of his book, and this is what should be quoted, was not "Verzeichnis" but "Verzeichnüß".
The ß is still an official letter in the German language, so I think we can use it.

Generally I think it helps to put ancient spellings in quotes.
This is better than an internal comment, and will keep half the German native speakers off your back.

I will thus add/change the part in question to the following:
One particularly precious item is Mozart's "Verzeichnüß aller meiner Werke"[ref] - that is, the composer's own handwritten thematic catalogue of his works.

The item seems to have moved to:
(To zoom in on the spelling use the Silverlight Plugin) And as it is "particularly precious" it deserves a reference.
--Christian.benesch (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the earlier versions of these comments, which are now outdated by Christian's excellent change, which I am happy to support. It's now more correct than it was, and I hope editors will continue to, er, respect the difference. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nikolaus Unger[edit]

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. -- 02:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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. 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
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 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

now available in English under the title The Struggle with the Daemon, tr. Eden and Cedar Paul, London, Pushkin Press, 2012

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

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

- 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? 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Das Haus am Meer[edit]

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)

I will try to find out. 10:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- and then I keep forgetting! Sorry, I will try again to check. 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
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. 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
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: 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! :) 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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. (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A question of neighbourhood ...[edit]

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. :) 10:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


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 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sternstunden der Menschheit[edit]

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: [[1]] Arved Deecke 15:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

List of countries under "Work" - getting unwieldy?[edit]

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 12:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Citation needed - help appreciated[edit]

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:

- 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 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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. (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I have corrected it to include the previously-missing "s", as the BL have now corrected their Zweig page. (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Literature" instead of "Books on Stefan Zweig"[edit]

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. (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply - a bit longer and it would have been a year! I haven't looked at this article much recently. With the greatest respect, I don't this is a good idea. The English term "Literature" is so broad - it could be above ALL the publications listed, indeed by some definitions it means "anything on a bit of paper"! So no, I would not support that change: the heading as it is seems to me to encompass quite well the necessary meaning. It does, as I read it, already include biographies, and indeed as soon as I have looked up the one which you helpfully recommended I am going to add it! Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the suggestion of the first poster. 'Books on' is broader than 'literature', which has a specialised, possibly authoratative sense, which 'books on' doesn't, also 'books on' is clumsy English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed a sentence[edit]

I removed this sentence: "Stephen Zweig is mentioned in Simon Gray's book 'Coda' as giving him some escape from thinking about having cancer." I hope the editor doesn't mind but it strikes me as inappropriate to start listing people who mentioned Zweig, of whom there must be many hundreds or thousands. Surely a better home for this sentence, if it needs to be in the encyclopaedia, would be in the Simon Gray article where it would seem much more reasonable to list people who'd been important, influential, etc to him? Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories - excess of?[edit]

I am somewhat baffled by the plethora of categories at the bottom of this article. I've two questions - (1) are they all correct and (2) of those which are correct, do we need them all? I'm concerned about the claim that he was Brazilian, for a start - I didn't think he had Brazilian citizenship but feel free to prove me wrong. And how about all those multiple categories of Jewishness and descent and profession - are they all right, do we need them all? Seems excessive to me, but what do you think? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I've made a start (please see the page's edit history and correct me if I was wrong) but I still find it hard to believe that we need all of Categories: 1881 births | 1942 deaths | Young Vienna | Austrian novelists | Austrian writers | Jewish writers | Austrian journalists | Austrian dramatists and playwrights | Austrian biographers | Austro-Hungarian Jews | Czech-Austrian Jews | Austrians of German descent | People from Vienna | Austrian exiles | Austrian refugees | People who emigrated to escape Nazism | Writers who committed suicide | Drug-related suicides in Brazil - do we?? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ermmmm helloooooooo? Anyone? Or is it just me overreacting and there's actually no problem with millions of categories? (Though there is a perhaps-separate issue of whether they are all actually correct?) Maybe it really is OK (if accurate) and I should just accept that all information is good. My instinct is that it looks excessive, but I have barked up the wrong tree plenty of times before and no doubt will again. What do you think? I honestly would love to know. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree that drug-related suicides in Brazil is quite an extravagant category. Especially seeing as it only contains two members!Lcohalan (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's one useful response but my broader concern still remains - please see below. DBaK (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: we still have, er, 21 categories here. Is this a record? Is it a Good Thing? Does it matter? Yours, bemused, DBaK (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Update October 2010[edit]

Another update: well I haven't quite been deafened by the chorus of comments on this yet. :) I did take the issue to Bencherlite, an experienced editor who seems to be a bit of a whizz with categories and I got an interesting and comprehensive reply. I won't reproduce the whole thing here but if you want to read it, it is in my Talk archive. The main things I learnt from talking to Bencherlite are that

  • no, it's not a de facto Bad Thing to have lots of categories; indeed it may well be a Good Thing. Churchill has or had 82! So fine, I have stopped worrying about this question;
  • on the other hand, 'one standard point is that categories ought to be supported by material in the article, per WP:CAT: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."'

So what I am hoping to do is to look at the categories and try to make sure that they are appropriate and meet that criterion. I'm quite happy with that distinction about verifiable information in the article; it seems to cut down on the potential for what sometimes seems to be drive-by categorization, which I don't think is helpful.

I'm not going to do a huge edit but will look at things one at a time and try to explain what I've done. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

See also[edit]

I can just about live with the "don't get him mixed up with Stefanie Zweig" bit (I mean yeah, it must happen all the time???) but do we really need the "See Also Zweig" one? Notice I'm not just dashing off and zapping it, because maybe we do, and you can always argue that no information is bad (see category moan above!) and all information should be preserved and presented ... I'm just not sure, genuinely. What do you think? I am honestly keen to know. Are there policies on this stuff?? Cheers, a slightly confused DBaK (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Might people need to differentiate between him and Arnold Zweig? --Lazer Stein (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it's going to get ridiculous if we go on adding people named Zweig at the top - we've already got two and Arnold would make it three. How about if we just put in one link to Zweig and then all these confused people who may or may not want all or any of them can take their pick? :) How does that sound? Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Update: I've done that, and added to the Zweig page the Stefan Jerzy Zweig link rescued from here. What do you think? I quite like it as it deals with the issue without causing a proliferation of links along the top. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I like it! --Lazer Stein (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! :) DBaK (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL! It seems Goebbels and Hitler as well needed to differentiate between the two: Arnold was the "dirty emigrant" who went to Palestine! --Lazer Stein (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sure you're right but I can't see where it's referred to in the link you give. It may just be me being stupid and/or missing the point (wouldn't be the first time for either). Please advise. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 07:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Book photo?[edit]

Would a photo of a Zweig book be good or interesting for the article? I am assuming that if it was of a first edition of an early work it would be out of copyright (erm ... 75 years???) and that it would only be of value if it could somehow be a bit more meaningful than just "red book on table" or whatever ... but if it could be somehow more interesting, would it be welcome, do you think? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

erm ... don't all shout at once. :) DBaK (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


In the section Work, The Royal Game and Amok are called novels. Although I have seen The Royal Game published by itself, I believe it is usually presented with other stories, but more importantly considered to be a short story, not a novel. Same for Amok. Furthermore, in the parenthesis another story is said to be published posthumously but was not the Royal Game itself published posthumously? The sentence seems to indicate otherwise. Unless anyone objects I will confirm these hunches with research and change the page in due course. (Lcohalan (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Only Ungeduld (Beware), Rausch (Post Office) and Clarissa are novels (Roman in German). The Royal Game Zweig considered a novella as the original title Schachnovelle indicates. The same applies to Amok which appeared in Amok. Novellen einer Leidenschaft. I've changed the article accordingly. (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple edits[edit]

Sorry about the string of edits and its effect on the history. I have not yet (after only about eight years here) got the knack of rolling edits in together, especially when dealing with named references and their re-use. Apologies. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography section headaches[edit]

Hello. I have just spent a few gruesome minutes trying to sort out the consequences of an earlier editing error which produced two near-identical bibliographies, one collapsible and one not. I also tried to rescue useful bits which had been added to the redundant second copy. As for n-dashes: – well – don't – get – me – started. I think what I have done now is more or less OK, that is, it's where the list would probably have got to had we only been editing one copy of it.

I am not so sure about the whole collapsible thing anyway: it is, after all, an article about an author. But I don't think I feel strongly enough about it to take to the barricades just now. What I do note, though, is that making it collapsible seems to make it vanish from the ToC; on the other hand, giving it a separate section header makes it reappear in the ToC albeit in a slightly useless way – to wit, the Bibliography subheads are visible in the ToC but lead nowhere unless the section is already expanded. If the Bibliography section is collapsed, then only the link to its section header works. I don't know how to sort this out and it's giving me a headache and making me feel 106 years old, so please do chime in here if you have a comment or can help. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Update: well I've taken out "collapsed" so the bibliography is initially visible; at least the ToC works now. Whether the whole effect is now, or was before, desirable is another question, which I currently feel unqualified to debate ... :) DBaK (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Another question: does it really need a header (or navframe title or whateverthehell it technically is) saying Stefan Zweig bibliography or is it ever so slightly stating the obvious? I mean it would be jolly surprising if it claimed it was, say, the W. E. Johns bibliography ... otherwise, I think many of us would expect that, in the middle of an SZ article, that's whose bibliography we might find ... or am I missing the point? chocks away chaps. DBaK (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Strauss and Hitler[edit]

John Fowles notes, in a 1981 introduction to "The Royal Game", that Die schweigsame Frau was banned after two performances. Gonna see if I can verify elsewwere. --Lazer Stein (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


Some history of Zweig, 1939-40 can be found in:

Here are some excerpts:

Zweig came to Bath in July 1939, living at Lansdown Lodge in Lansdown Road.

On September 6 1939 he married his second wife Lotte Altmann at Bath Register Office and they moved to a house of their own, Rosemount on Lyncombe Hill, which they bought from a Mr John Huntley. While in Bath Zweig worked on his autobiographical memoir The World of Yesterday, his biography of Balzac and the manuscript of The Post Office Girl. He found it hard to accept the indignity of being treated as a grade B enemy alien, but by March 1940 he and Lotte became nationalised British subjects. They set off to South America in 1940 – intending to return to Bath – but took their own lives on February 22 1942 in a little house they had rented in Brazil.

John Ryland Huntley, from whom they bought Rosemount, was my grandfather. (David Huntley, — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJHuntley (talkcontribs) 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting stuff David! I am emailing you in, er, Real Life. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Zweig & WW I[edit]

In Howard M. Sachar's A History of the Jews in the Modern World he says "To his intense joy, Zweig was accpted for military service and spent the first half of the war in an artillery regiment." Sachar also quotes some very un-pacifistic lines from Zeig. Al-Nofi (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! I will be fascinated to follow up on this. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)