Herman Bernstein: Nations Must Check the Spread of Hate Declares Noted Austrian, 17. 9. 1922

Nations Must Check the Spread of Hate Declares Noted Austrian Schnitzler, Leader of Viennese Dramatists
»What Is Becoming of Europe?« Asks Master Mind – »We See More Hate Than Before the War« – The Terror of Old Battles and Slaughter is Lost in the Vistas of Time – World has Grown Careless of Human Life.
By Herman Bernstein
What Henryk Ibsen was to the Norwegian drama, August Strindberg to the Swedish, Anton Chekhov to the Russian, what Gerhardt Hauptmann is to the German drama, Bernard Shaw to the English and Maurice Maeterlinck to the French, Arthur Schnitzler is to the Austrian drama to-day. Keen and penetrating, brilliant and subtle, a master of irony and satire, yet sincere and full of optimism, this master builder of the modern Austrian drama, this Viennese man of letters has impressed himself profoundly upon the literature of Austria in the face of innumerable difficulties.
By the sheer force of his art, as it manifested itself in his works, in masterpiece after masterpiece, Dr. Arthur Schnitzler, a Jew, has won distinction in Vienna, the very hotbed of anti-semitism. He has surmounted many obstacles, combating prejudice calmly, yet with firm determination.
The following interview was had in the study of this brilliant writer in Vienna:
»What is becoming of Europe?« said Schnitzler. »The hate which has been intensified by the war is growing and spreading, and the most dreadful feature of it all is that people are talking of new wars in the near future.
»It was the most brutal of all wars, it destroyed more values than any previous war. We see chaos, poverty, ruination everywhere in Europe. And we see more hate than before the war.
Spread of Hate
»To check this spread of hate in various countries, it seems to me that it is urgent for intellectual leaders everywhere to create good will and a better understanding among the nations. A great campaign of education is essential in that direction.
»We have seen that Socialism has failed to meet the problems of war and peace effectively and has not exerted much of an influence either in the war or in the making of peace.
»We must realise, first of all, that man is the worst of all animals – the most cruel of them all. The difference between the human being and other animals is that the human being possesses such traits as joy at another’s misfortune. Animals have no such terrible traits.
»We must also realise that while the human mind may be improved by education the human soul cannot be improved – for it cannot be changed. We may, therefore, hope that human beings will some day become wiser, but they cannot become better. Human beings are born egotists. They do not love one another unselfishly – they hate one another.
»All we may hope for is that the intellectual leaders may succeed in showing the people that they must stop wars because it would be best for them to have no wars – because they would benefit more from peace than from war.
Practical Pacificism
»Pacifism should not be sentimental. That is useless. Pacifists should not say that it is wrong to kill; that it is unethical to destroy human life; that it is immoral to commit such a crime; that other people suffer from such destruction, and that war is terrible on that account.
»Everybody knows that war is terrible; that it leaves dead and maimed in its wake; that it destroys property, and retards what is known as civilization. But such methods of reasoning, such arguments are of no avail. Human beings are not impressed by them. Human beings do not change their nature on that account.
»Instead of sentimental pacifism it is essential to convince them by education that peace would benefit them and save them – that in a roundabout way they themselves or their children may be the victims of war – the wounded, the mutilated, the dead.
The Quality of Love
»It is of very little value to preach love and the brotherhood of man, for it does not help. There are some people who believe that it is enough for them to preach or to listen to sermons on loving one’s neighbor as themselves – and that by this they have already discharged all their duties to their fellow-men.
»The quality of unselfish love is not inherent in human beings – and it is useless to demand of human beings to change that which cannot be changed. Besides, it is not necessary at all. I do not want people to love me. I do not want their kisses. I don’t think it necessary that there should be too much love among the nations.
»The important thing is that people should realize that they must not wrong one another – that they must not hurt or injure one another. The important thing is that people should have the opportunity to work, undisturbed, in peace; that they should not interfere with others; that they should not destroy others; that they should not rob others. They must learn to realise that war will affect them directly in some way or other just as they believe war would affect their enemy, their neighbor.
Rejoicing in Death
»Yesterday, while my daughter was packing to go to the country, we found a batch of old newspapers published during the war. I looked at the headlines. ›The Battle of – .‹ ›We Captured 50,000 men. Tens of Thousands Slain.‹ And the jubilation over each victory! I remember how our people rejoiced when they heard that thousands of Russians were drowned in swamps.
»I was filled with terror as I recalled all this. Of course, the other side did exactly the same. They too, rejoiced when hundreds of thousands of our people were slaughtered. And I recalled with horror the indifference with which people afterwards read about those battles.
»When, for instance, they read that fifty thousand men had been slain, and on the following morning the revised figures showed that instead of fifty thousand there really were sixty thousand casualties, did that difference disturb the people’s sleep, or did it affect their appetites? Not in the least. They went on eating, drinking and smoking their cigars.
»In fact, the men at the front hated the ›enemy‹ less than the people in the rear – we know that at the front the men often fraternized with the ›enemy,‹ while the people in the rear hated the ›enemy‹ intensely – and this hate is continuing. And in certain places it is even encouraged deliberately – fanned and spread artificially.
Careless of Life
»I recall a simple, quite unimportant incident, but it is so characteristic that I will tell it to you. Some years ago my wife had scarlet fever. We had a nurse who attended her. The nurse was very correct, devoted, efficient and intelligent.
»When my wife recovered and the nurse was to leave, she had to wait about a quarter of an hour for an ambulance which was to fumigate her clothes in order that she may not infect other people.
»When I went out of the house a few minutes later, I noticed to my great amazement that the nurse entered a crowded street car, without having waited for the ambulance. She had no patience to wait fifteen minutes, and she went home by car without having taken the necessary precaution. She probably infected a number of people in that car with scarlet fever.
»Here was a nurse who knew well the dangers of such contagion. She was intelligent and it was her profession to look after patients, and be careful. But that did not matter to her. She went into the crowded street car because the passengers were just ordinary people whom she did not know. They were strangers to her, and she did not care.
»But if, for instance, she were to learn that someone was infected in that car by her, and that such person carried the disease to a child who happened to be a schoolmate of her own child, and in that way infected her own child – and her own child died as a result, of her recklessness and neglect, then she would think and act differently in the future.
Benefits of Peace
»Of course, if such a thing happened, people would say that it was an unusual case, a rare coincidence. But if people were to figure things out logically they would find that the wrong they do to others in some way or other necessarily reacts on themselves – they would understand that, and would stop wronging others. As I have said before, human beings may become wiser, but they will never grow better.
»It is therefore the important task of intellectual leaders everywhere to organise themselves and start a campaign to enlighten the people that peace is in their own interests – that war will ruin them, while peace will benefit them.«
Our conversation turned to his dramatic works. Suddenly he asked:
»How would you account for the fact that some of my plays which were written twenty or twenty-five years ago are being produced only now? They seem to attract more attention now than when I wrote them.«
»Your works were at least a quarter of a century ahead of their time,« I answered, »Only now people are beginning to understand and appreciate them fully.«
When I mentioned »Reigen,« his sex play which created a sensation last year in Berlin and Vienna and which was at first suppressed by the German censor, Schnitzler remarked modestly:
»›Reigen‹ is an ordinary play. The dialogues were written more than twenty-five years-ago. When this play of mine will long have been forgotten, the record of the Berlin trial connected with ›Reigen‹ will live. The stenographic report of the testimony at that trial is the most amazing satire of our time. The four or five figures that revealed themselves in that extraordinary document are types of hypocrisy that the greatest of satirists could hardly have invented or improved upon.«

      ZEUGNISSE:

      Schnitzler: Tagebuch, 12. 7. 1922: »Vm. Hr. Hermann Bernstein (Amerika, der Journalist, der mich schon vor 2 J. interviewt hat). Redete drei Stunden, allgemeines und spec. politisches – er wollte durchaus daß ich ihm einen Artikel schreibe – was ich ablehnte. Dann literarisch geschäftliches; Ratschlag mich an die League of authors. America. etc. zu wenden.–«

      Schnitzler an Bernstein, 18. 10. 1922: »Vor allem danke ich Ihnen vielmals für die freundliche Uebersendung Ihres Interviews, das ich vorzüglich finde. Präzis und konzis zugleich.«

      KOMMENTAR:

      What] Bevor es bei beiden mit » ›What is becoming of Europe?‹ « losgeht, wiederholt die Zeitschriftenfassung die ersten beiden Absätze des Interviews aus dem Jahr 1916 () und fügt einen Satz hinzu; die Buchausgabe bringt stattdessen folgende Einleitung: » I met Arthur Schnitzler in his study in Vienna. A fine copy of Mona Lisa was conspicuous among the numerous portraits on the walls, and on his desk stood a statuette of Goethe. The brilliant Viennese dramatist and novelist, whose sixtieth birthday was recently celebrated by his friends and admirers, is youthful despite the gray in his hair and beard, and his kindly smile is as full of charm as ever. During the past few months many eulogies by the foremost dramatists, novelists and critics appeared in various European periodicals and newspapers. / Schnitzler is beloved by all who know him. All agree that his artistic works are marked with a peculiar charm and are of lasting value. He has portrayed men and women as they really are – with their dreams and their passions, their foibles and their follies. / Gerhardt Hauptmann, summing up the achievements of Schnitzler thus far, writes that to have an appreciation of Schnitzler is to have an appreciation of art and culture. Hermann Bahr predicts that Schnitzler will fare better than other writers a hundred years hence, for when future generations will want to study the traits, the modes of life and thought during the years of Austria’s sunset, they will have to go back to Schnitzler who mirrored that sunset most clearly, who reproduced as no one else the last charm of Vienna in the shadows, who was the doctor at her death bed, who loved her more deeply than anyone else, who was the last poet of her agony. / Schnitzler spoke with deep emotion of Austria’s pathetic plight, of the beauty and grandeur of her landscapes and of her still undeveloped opportunities, of the curse of too much politics in Austria, and for that matter in the whole of Europe, and then he pointed to the growth of prejudice and hate after the war. «. Von gesondertem Interesse sind die beiden erwähnten Kunstwerke. Schnitzler dürfte die Kopie der Mona Lisa in Originalgröße noch vor der Popularisierung des Kunstwerks durch einen spektakulären Diebstahl aus dem Louvre 1911 erworben haben. Sie ist noch auf den letzten Fotos seines Arbeitszimmers zu erkennen. (Vgl. A. S. und die bildende Kunst 110–111.) Die Keramikstatue von Powolny ist auch in einem anderen Interview erwähnt, . Die Texte Hauptmanns und Bahrs, auf die Bezug genommen wird, erschienen beide im Schnitzler gewidmeten Heft der Neuen Rundschau vom Mai 1922.

      »It] In der Buchausgabe beginnt der Absatz mit: » ›On August 1, 1914, – on the day of the declaration of war – I wrote a letter to my brother of which I should have been ashamed a little later. I gave him my reasons why it was impossible that such a world war could take place. It was a foolish letter in view of the events that followed so rapidly, and that involved practically the whole world in the war. But only now – after several years of so-called peace, we see clearly that the war was really impossible. «

      any previous war] In der Buchausgabe ist der Satz erweitert um: »and it has left the world in a much worse condition than it was before the war.«

      artificially.] In der Buchausgabe folgt ein weiterer Absatz: » ›If we read about some distant island sinking into the ocean with a population of a half a million human beings we would actually be affected by such news much less than by the natural death of someone on our block. If a fire breaks out in our neighbor’s house, we are upset and worried to the extent that we fear lest the fire should spread to our own house. If a fire breaks out somewhere in our city, we are worried because it may destroy the house of one of our relatives or friends. If we hear of a fire in a distant part of our city where we have no relatives or friends, we go on smoking our cigars undisturbed. «

      nurse ] nicht identifiziert. Die Erkrankung bestand im Dezember 1907.

      benefit them.«] Die Buchausgabe hat hier vier weitere Absätze: » »›Why don’t you develop this idea more elaborately in an article?‹ I suggested. / |›I can’t write articles,‹ replied Dr. Schnitzler. ›I have often been asked to write articles for the Neue Freie Presse. I have often discussed certain subjects with the publisher and editor of that newspaper, and he often said to me: ›Let me have an article on this subject. This is just what I need.‹ I have always declined to write articles. I often wonder why journalists and publicists underestimate their own ability to write articles and believe that novelists or dramatists must necessarily know how to write articles.‹ / ›But in this instance you have advanced the best reasons why you should write something on this theme, particularly when you pointed out that the intellectual leaders should at this juncture do the utmost to make people realize the effects of war and peace on themselves,‹ I said. / ›I am afraid you would be disappointed if I wrote an article on this subject. I really could not do it,‹ he replied.« «

      some of my plays] Das trifft nur auf Reigen zu.

      stenographic report]