What do you think?
Rate this book
Антихристът
Антихристът е тук.
Не идва с огън и мълнии, а с машини, пари, безверие и безразличие.
Писан в изгнание през 1934 г., „Антихристът“ на Йозеф Рот е пророческо есе, в което авторът предупреждава за духовния разпад на Европа и осъжда новите богове на модерността – прогреса без съвест, успеха без милост, силата без любов.
Не идва с огън и мълнии, а с машини, пари, безверие и безразличие.
Писан в изгнание през 1934 г., „Антихристът“ на Йозеф Рот е пророческо есе, в което авторът предупреждава за духовния разпад на Европа и осъжда новите богове на модерността – прогреса без съвест, успеха без милост, силата без любов.
210 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1934
10 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Roth
525 books785 followersJoseph Roth, journalist and novelist, was born and grew up in Brody, a small town near Lemberg in East Galicia, part of the easternmost reaches of what was then the Austro-Hungarian empire and is now Ukraine. Roth was born into a Jewish family. He died in Paris after living there in exile.
http://www.josephroth.de/
http://www.josephroth.de/
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
January 6, 2021
The Malignant Ironies of the Big Lie
The principle beneficiary of communications technology is the Big Lie. Print media made the Big Lie possible. Telegraphy promoted the Big Lie by sterilising language. Telephony allowed the Big Lie by hiding the face of the Liar. Film and its variants tell the Big Lie by divorcing events from their context. Radio and television make the Big Lie entertaining. The internet disguises the Big Lie by protecting the Liar. Roth had sussed out the connection between technology and the Big Lie in 1933. Only recently has the world started to pay attention - not to Roth but at least to the connection.
To put the situation another way: technology has high-jacked language for the ends of those who control the technology. This has been the situation for quite some time. But only recently have the implications of this situation become clear: the Big Lie is unstoppable. This is Roth’s message. It is a message without hope. We are doomed because we cannot avoid the power of the technology. Even if we are aware of this power, and expose it, we are forced to submit to it in the very act of exposing it. We have become the Big Lie. We are shadows talking to shadows.
Although the world has always had more than a quorum of dictators, tyrants, and homicidal monsters, the mythical Antichrist had not arrived before the technology necessary to isolate and control language. The technology itself is the Antichrist, not those who temporarily direct it. They, after all, are as much dominated by it as the rest of us. The only thing that the technology allows is the production of “sounds without shape,” that is to say, disembodied signals, so that “To real things we give false names. Hollow words ring in our poor heads, and we no longer understand the meaning of the words.”
The Big Lie had triumphed through technology already when Roth wrote. Since then most of us have simply chosen to ignore the victory and our submission to the inevitable. This is probably prudent since we are all powerless in the face of such systematic evil. Consequently “We have instead granted the greater part of the short life that was gifted us to our shadows! We have not created life; we have lost it! We have not created; we have squandered! And we have squandered sinfully.”
Through the Big Lie, we are controlled by language, we make distinctions without differences, we learn to hate, we become willing to hurt and kill, not just others but ourselves. We become without anything that might be called reason. The “sons of Edison” are able to exercise less and less reason with every advance in ‘communication’ since language is the instrument of human reason, and language has been captured and imprisoned. In Babylon, at the Tower, we became merely confused. Now with instantaneous worldwide networks and translations, we are acutely dangerous.
In his Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky portrays the Grand Inquisitor as unable to recognise the returned Christ. This may be somewhat dark, but it is not hopeless. Roth’s story about being unable to recognise the Antichrist is, on the other hand, one of total despair. In our era of up-beat optimism about our ability to develop and regulate technology effectively, Roth is unlikely to go down well. His only practical suggestion is repentance, which probably can’t even be heard much less acted upon in the various Silicon Valleys and capitals of the world.
The principle beneficiary of communications technology is the Big Lie. Print media made the Big Lie possible. Telegraphy promoted the Big Lie by sterilising language. Telephony allowed the Big Lie by hiding the face of the Liar. Film and its variants tell the Big Lie by divorcing events from their context. Radio and television make the Big Lie entertaining. The internet disguises the Big Lie by protecting the Liar. Roth had sussed out the connection between technology and the Big Lie in 1933. Only recently has the world started to pay attention - not to Roth but at least to the connection.
To put the situation another way: technology has high-jacked language for the ends of those who control the technology. This has been the situation for quite some time. But only recently have the implications of this situation become clear: the Big Lie is unstoppable. This is Roth’s message. It is a message without hope. We are doomed because we cannot avoid the power of the technology. Even if we are aware of this power, and expose it, we are forced to submit to it in the very act of exposing it. We have become the Big Lie. We are shadows talking to shadows.
Although the world has always had more than a quorum of dictators, tyrants, and homicidal monsters, the mythical Antichrist had not arrived before the technology necessary to isolate and control language. The technology itself is the Antichrist, not those who temporarily direct it. They, after all, are as much dominated by it as the rest of us. The only thing that the technology allows is the production of “sounds without shape,” that is to say, disembodied signals, so that “To real things we give false names. Hollow words ring in our poor heads, and we no longer understand the meaning of the words.”
The Big Lie had triumphed through technology already when Roth wrote. Since then most of us have simply chosen to ignore the victory and our submission to the inevitable. This is probably prudent since we are all powerless in the face of such systematic evil. Consequently “We have instead granted the greater part of the short life that was gifted us to our shadows! We have not created life; we have lost it! We have not created; we have squandered! And we have squandered sinfully.”
Through the Big Lie, we are controlled by language, we make distinctions without differences, we learn to hate, we become willing to hurt and kill, not just others but ourselves. We become without anything that might be called reason. The “sons of Edison” are able to exercise less and less reason with every advance in ‘communication’ since language is the instrument of human reason, and language has been captured and imprisoned. In Babylon, at the Tower, we became merely confused. Now with instantaneous worldwide networks and translations, we are acutely dangerous.
In his Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky portrays the Grand Inquisitor as unable to recognise the returned Christ. This may be somewhat dark, but it is not hopeless. Roth’s story about being unable to recognise the Antichrist is, on the other hand, one of total despair. In our era of up-beat optimism about our ability to develop and regulate technology effectively, Roth is unlikely to go down well. His only practical suggestion is repentance, which probably can’t even be heard much less acted upon in the various Silicon Valleys and capitals of the world.
November 8, 2025
Йозеф Рот е майстор! А от 1934-та до сега нищо не се е променило. И Холивуд е все така пошъл и изкуствен, както той го е видял, и ония откачалки още си пазят балсамираната мумия, и пречупеният кръст още го има, намацан по сградите, които Рот пък нарича килии от стъкло и желязо.
Добре, че издателство "Лист" не се отказа от Рот. Тази книга, много повече дори от всички други негови, си заслужава четенето днес.
Добре, че издателство "Лист" не се отказа от Рот. Тази книга, много повече дори от всички други негови, си заслужава четенето днес.
January 4, 2026
„Антихристът“ от Йозеф Рот е особено литературно произведение, което авторът пише през 1934 г., малко след като е напуснал Германия заради възхода на нацизма. Важно е да се каже, че ,,антихристът“ в творбата не е библейска фигура, а образ на бездуховната модерност, на прогресът без морал.
Рот защитава етичната вяра (не догматична религия). Или поне в началото. Антихристът не е тук като открито зло, а като благочестив, културен, морален защитник. Той унищожава подмолно чрез морал, религия, език и обещания. Антихристът не е страшен, а убедителен, защото говори на нашия език. Не е разрушител, а „спасител“.
Изказът на Рот е краен, наставнически, дори апокалиптичен. Като плюс отчитам това, че слага всички под ножа - обикновени хора, политици, духовници. Особено много ми допадна главата, в която разговаря със свещеника в църквата. На въпроса защо е наредил да бият камбаните докато навън разстрелват бунтовници, той отговаря: ,,не мога да слушам оръдията” и продължава да си чете Библията.
Минуси за мен бяха:
* Прекалено наставническия, снизходителен, фанатичен изказ, който ескалираше с всяка следваща глава.
* Многоженството повторения. Ако не сте разбрали колко сте непросветени, Рот ще ви го обясни поне още пет пъти със същите думи. Само ще смени словореда.
* Противоречия.
Етиката се занимава с добродетелите много преди религията и същинската разлика между двете е, че етиката винаги ще ,,търси”, а религията- винаги ще ,,казва”. Именно това ,,казване” поставя човека в позицията да слуша, без да се съмнява. Тук вярата престава да бъде морално усилие и се превръща в инструмент за власт над другия.
Рот защитава етичната вяра (не догматична религия). Или поне в началото. Антихристът не е тук като открито зло, а като благочестив, културен, морален защитник. Той унищожава подмолно чрез морал, религия, език и обещания. Антихристът не е страшен, а убедителен, защото говори на нашия език. Не е разрушител, а „спасител“.
Изказът на Рот е краен, наставнически, дори апокалиптичен. Като плюс отчитам това, че слага всички под ножа - обикновени хора, политици, духовници. Особено много ми допадна главата, в която разговаря със свещеника в църквата. На въпроса защо е наредил да бият камбаните докато навън разстрелват бунтовници, той отговаря: ,,не мога да слушам оръдията” и продължава да си чете Библията.
Минуси за мен бяха:
* Прекалено наставническия, снизходителен, фанатичен изказ, който ескалираше с всяка следваща глава.
* Многоженството повторения. Ако не сте разбрали колко сте непросветени, Рот ще ви го обясни поне още пет пъти със същите думи. Само ще смени словореда.
* Противоречия.
Етиката се занимава с добродетелите много преди религията и същинската разлика между двете е, че етиката винаги ще ,,търси”, а религията- винаги ще ,,казва”. Именно това ,,казване” поставя човека в позицията да слуша, без да се съмнява. Тук вярата престава да бъде морално усилие и се превръща в инструмент за власт над другия.
December 27, 2025
Тези апокалиптични, пропити с алкохолна омая, размишления за абдикацията на Европа пред демоните на Втората световна война, щяха да са по-интересни, ако Рот бе открил и Антихриста в себе си. Разбира се, възможно е просто религиозната проповед да ми е досадила.
January 21, 2011
I knew nothing about Joseph Roth prior to reading a small blurb about this book. On that brief glimpse, I decided it was worth bumping this title to the top of my To-Read queue. I am glad I did.
Composed of equal parts philosophy, cultural observation, autobiographical information, loose theological thought, journalistic essay, and neurosis, this detailed book laments the decline of the modern world. The narrative splits between fiction and non-fiction spanning roughly 30 years in the early 20th century while depicting a large portion of the western world. Of interest were the many reflections on the influence of “the Antichrist” across a wide swath of human endeavor. Whether it be person-to-person relations and issues of honesty, depictions of ourselves in the media and the false sense of immortality they lend, the use of the written word and iconography to further distance ourselves from one another, or the mistaken idolatry (or demonization) of science and technological invention, Roth offers a consistently depressed perspective on humanity. At times he seemed prophetic and prescient when compared to the world in which we live in the early 21st century and for this fact alone it is worth at least a casual perusal.
This is highly recommended for those interested in difficult and tangled processes of thought, an illustration of the troubles of the modern world, and a strident wake up call to the world. 4 stars.
Composed of equal parts philosophy, cultural observation, autobiographical information, loose theological thought, journalistic essay, and neurosis, this detailed book laments the decline of the modern world. The narrative splits between fiction and non-fiction spanning roughly 30 years in the early 20th century while depicting a large portion of the western world. Of interest were the many reflections on the influence of “the Antichrist” across a wide swath of human endeavor. Whether it be person-to-person relations and issues of honesty, depictions of ourselves in the media and the false sense of immortality they lend, the use of the written word and iconography to further distance ourselves from one another, or the mistaken idolatry (or demonization) of science and technological invention, Roth offers a consistently depressed perspective on humanity. At times he seemed prophetic and prescient when compared to the world in which we live in the early 21st century and for this fact alone it is worth at least a casual perusal.
This is highly recommended for those interested in difficult and tangled processes of thought, an illustration of the troubles of the modern world, and a strident wake up call to the world. 4 stars.
August 25, 2012
I like Joseph Roth a lot, but this "novel" is not really a novel, no matter how Roth himself spoke of it. It's instead a fictionalized setting for a jeremiad against the various evils conspiring to destroy the world in 1934: capitalism, communism, anti-semitism, materialism, atheism, false Christianity, Nazism. Roth makes many points I agree with, but the approach moves me not at all, that of a journalist working for, then separating himself from, the "master of a thousand tongues". Roth's fictional self speaking as a believing Christian is also a curious position for a European Jew. Did he, at least mentally, "convert"? Or is his stance simply part of the fiction, to reach a wider audience? Hard to say. Ideally the book would be presented not as an experimental novel, but as a thinly veiled sociological tract, so that readers would know what they were getting their hands on.
March 10, 2021
En su correspondencia con Stefan Zweig, hay algunas referencias de Joseph Roth a su Anticristo que resultan reveladoras. En una carta del 26 de marzo de 1934, por ejemplo, escribía las siguientes líneas:
En otra carta, datada del 14 de junio, afirmaba:
En la misma carta, en un sentido muy similar, decía haber escrito el libro «en un estado de necesidad personal, muy "personal"». Es muy posible, a la vista de esos pasajes, que este estado "muy personal" se corresponda con la crisis personal y espiritual que llevó a Joseph Roth de las ideas revolucionarias de sus primeros años a una postura marcadamente conservadora —muy vinculada a la extinta monarquía austríaca— y a su conversión al catolicismo (Roth era de familia judía).
El Anticristo es una de las obras más extrañas y simbólicas de Joseph Roth, y bien podríamos caracterizarla como parábola. En ella, lanza una mirada al mundo contemporáneo, en el cual percibe una y otra vez la sombra del anticristo, encarnado en todas las pequeñas y grandes vilezas humanas: la mezquindad, la soberbia, el racismo y sobre todo, como subraya muy bien en un bello pasaje, el miedo del hombre a sus semejantes.
No coincido en absoluto con el propio Roth en que esta sea su mejor obra hasta la fecha, ni siquiera en que sea una de las mejores. De hecho, salgo de su lectura con sentimientos encontrados: por un lado, el libro tiene fragmentos magníficos, con un aliento poético innegable y extraordinariamente lúcidos. Su duro ataque a los fascismo cuando muchos giraban todavía la vista hacia otro lado y a algunos de los venenos que emponzoñaron el siglo XX tiene un carácter casi visionario. Sin embargo, el libro queda empañado, en mi opinión, por su tendencia moralista y su excesivamente evidente vinculación al catolicismo (en este sentido, El Anticristo es un libro sobre el siglo XX y sus tinieblas, pero es también, y lo es profundamente, un libro sobre religión). Algunas de las críticas y reflexiones son profundas y muy interesantes, pero algunos aspectos sociales sobre los que incide son en mi opinión cuanto menos cuestionables (aunque son bastante definitorios del Roth conservador de los últimos años).
Desde el punto de vista estructural, hay en el libro cierta tendencia a abocarse sobre sí mismo y a hincharse de su propio discurso. Es posible que esto se deba a uno de los defectos que Stefan Zweig encontraba en él; Zweig, si bien consideraba el libro «un grito portentoso», sostenía que se había visto perjudicado por los añadidos hechos al esbozo original: «El error de los últimos años —le escribía Zweig a Roth el 2 de junio 1936, refiriéndose a El Anticristo y a Tarabas— es que dilataba usted, por tendencia puramente material, el tema más allá de su natural medida». Es cierto que Stefan Zweig era un esencialista en términos narrativos, mal dispuesto siempre con toda floritura innecesaria, pero encuentro su crítica especialmente pertinente: probablemente El Anticristo ganaría fuerza con una mayor economía narrativa.
Un aspecto que llama la atención de El Anticristo es su diatriba contra el cine como uno de los grandes males del siglo XX. Su crítica a Hollywood —que llama Hölle-Wut, la furia del infierno en alemán— se basa en la idea de que filmar a alguien lo convierte en sombra, o más bien compra su sombra para convertirlo en alguien que no es. Su invectiva es llamativa en dos sentidos: en primer lugar, porque Joseph Roth no toene ningún reparo a poner la industria del cine al lado de los dos grandes fascismos europeos —el nazismo y el fascismo italiano—, llamándolos la trinidad del mal del mundo contemporáneo; pero en segundo lugar, porque de hecho el mismo Roth colaboró en los inicios de su carrera como crítico de cine en una revista, y sobre todo porque en los últimos años de su vida, asediado por los apuros económicos, flirteó con la idea de vender los derechos de alguna de sus novelas para hacer una versión cinematográfica. En cualquier caso, sin descarta la hipótesis de que Joseph Roth fuera una víctima más del anticristo que tanto temía, entiendo que su rechazo al cine cristalizaba de algún modo una reflexión más genérica: la tecnificación había dado efectivamente a su anticristo —a los fanatismos, a la mezquindad, a todos los males propios de la sociedad occidental decadente— micrófonos, pantallas, transmisores de radio. La sociedad tecnológica permitía al anticristo llegar a todos los rincones del mundo con una fuerza que nunca antes había tenido. En este sentido, el propio Roth le escribía a Stefan Zweig en la citada carta (14/7/34):
Un libro, en fin, curioso, que merece cuanto menos una lectura, tanto para disfrutar de sus aciertos como para permitirse de vez en cuando el lujo de estar en desacuerdo con sus ideas. Y por supuesto, para disfrutar de la prosa extraordinaria de Joseph Roth.
Hace una hora que he terminado El Anticristo. Por fin y por primera vez en mi vida estoy contento con un libro.
También usted, lo sé, quedará satisfecho. Es mil veces mejor que Tarabas. He trabajado día tras día, doce horas, ocho escribiendo y entre dos y cuatro preparando lo que había que escribir.
Estoy agotado pero muy feliz.
En otra carta, datada del 14 de junio, afirmaba:
Tiene usted razón, no he compuesto El Anticristo, sino que simplemente lo he puesto por escrito. Y durante ese tiempo me sentí por primera vez en mi vida desvinculado de este mundo. Llegué a tener una vaga idea de lo que siente un santo cuando condesciende a escribir. Estaba furioso y feliz al mismo tiempo. Probablemente se han deslizado cosas casuales y circunstanciales, pero tengo la sensación de que este libro no es mío: es como si alguien me lo hubiera dictado. Sólo tengo derecho a corregir las erratas.
En la misma carta, en un sentido muy similar, decía haber escrito el libro «en un estado de necesidad personal, muy "personal"». Es muy posible, a la vista de esos pasajes, que este estado "muy personal" se corresponda con la crisis personal y espiritual que llevó a Joseph Roth de las ideas revolucionarias de sus primeros años a una postura marcadamente conservadora —muy vinculada a la extinta monarquía austríaca— y a su conversión al catolicismo (Roth era de familia judía).
El Anticristo es una de las obras más extrañas y simbólicas de Joseph Roth, y bien podríamos caracterizarla como parábola. En ella, lanza una mirada al mundo contemporáneo, en el cual percibe una y otra vez la sombra del anticristo, encarnado en todas las pequeñas y grandes vilezas humanas: la mezquindad, la soberbia, el racismo y sobre todo, como subraya muy bien en un bello pasaje, el miedo del hombre a sus semejantes.
No coincido en absoluto con el propio Roth en que esta sea su mejor obra hasta la fecha, ni siquiera en que sea una de las mejores. De hecho, salgo de su lectura con sentimientos encontrados: por un lado, el libro tiene fragmentos magníficos, con un aliento poético innegable y extraordinariamente lúcidos. Su duro ataque a los fascismo cuando muchos giraban todavía la vista hacia otro lado y a algunos de los venenos que emponzoñaron el siglo XX tiene un carácter casi visionario. Sin embargo, el libro queda empañado, en mi opinión, por su tendencia moralista y su excesivamente evidente vinculación al catolicismo (en este sentido, El Anticristo es un libro sobre el siglo XX y sus tinieblas, pero es también, y lo es profundamente, un libro sobre religión). Algunas de las críticas y reflexiones son profundas y muy interesantes, pero algunos aspectos sociales sobre los que incide son en mi opinión cuanto menos cuestionables (aunque son bastante definitorios del Roth conservador de los últimos años).
Desde el punto de vista estructural, hay en el libro cierta tendencia a abocarse sobre sí mismo y a hincharse de su propio discurso. Es posible que esto se deba a uno de los defectos que Stefan Zweig encontraba en él; Zweig, si bien consideraba el libro «un grito portentoso», sostenía que se había visto perjudicado por los añadidos hechos al esbozo original: «El error de los últimos años —le escribía Zweig a Roth el 2 de junio 1936, refiriéndose a El Anticristo y a Tarabas— es que dilataba usted, por tendencia puramente material, el tema más allá de su natural medida». Es cierto que Stefan Zweig era un esencialista en términos narrativos, mal dispuesto siempre con toda floritura innecesaria, pero encuentro su crítica especialmente pertinente: probablemente El Anticristo ganaría fuerza con una mayor economía narrativa.
Un aspecto que llama la atención de El Anticristo es su diatriba contra el cine como uno de los grandes males del siglo XX. Su crítica a Hollywood —que llama Hölle-Wut, la furia del infierno en alemán— se basa en la idea de que filmar a alguien lo convierte en sombra, o más bien compra su sombra para convertirlo en alguien que no es. Su invectiva es llamativa en dos sentidos: en primer lugar, porque Joseph Roth no toene ningún reparo a poner la industria del cine al lado de los dos grandes fascismos europeos —el nazismo y el fascismo italiano—, llamándolos la trinidad del mal del mundo contemporáneo; pero en segundo lugar, porque de hecho el mismo Roth colaboró en los inicios de su carrera como crítico de cine en una revista, y sobre todo porque en los últimos años de su vida, asediado por los apuros económicos, flirteó con la idea de vender los derechos de alguna de sus novelas para hacer una versión cinematográfica. En cualquier caso, sin descarta la hipótesis de que Joseph Roth fuera una víctima más del anticristo que tanto temía, entiendo que su rechazo al cine cristalizaba de algún modo una reflexión más genérica: la tecnificación había dado efectivamente a su anticristo —a los fanatismos, a la mezquindad, a todos los males propios de la sociedad occidental decadente— micrófonos, pantallas, transmisores de radio. La sociedad tecnológica permitía al anticristo llegar a todos los rincones del mundo con una fuerza que nunca antes había tenido. En este sentido, el propio Roth le escribía a Stefan Zweig en la citada carta (14/7/34):
El cine no es sólo una aparición temporal. Puede hacer felices a los hombres; también el diablo los hace a veces felices. Mi convencimiento inquebrantable es que el diablo se manifiesa en la sombra casi viviente. El verdadero Satán es la sombra que actúa e incluso habla ella misma. Con el cine empieza el siglo XX, es decir, el preludio del fin del mundo. Haga el favor de no menospreciarlo. Teléfono, avión, radio, no son nada ante el hecho de que se ha desatado la sombra de los hombres. Es un punto de inflexión en la historia de la humanidad, más importante que la Revolución rusa con su pretendida liberación del "proletariado".
Un libro, en fin, curioso, que merece cuanto menos una lectura, tanto para disfrutar de sus aciertos como para permitirse de vez en cuando el lujo de estar en desacuerdo con sus ideas. Y por supuesto, para disfrutar de la prosa extraordinaria de Joseph Roth.
December 25, 2023
Incredibilmente moderno. Alcune frasi vanno rilette per capire bene chi sia il soggetto ma il suo essere a metà tra un saggio e un romanzo non lo rende affatto noioso. Davvero stimolante.
October 28, 2018
I am a big fan of Joseph Roth's novels and journalism, but this strange... I don't know quite what to call it, something between a parable, a memoir and a polemic - did very little for me.
Published in 1934, "The Antichrist" is clearly an allusion to Hitler, but Roth finds the Antichrist's work everywhere he looks, not just in Germany and in the military, but also among newspaper owners, in Communist Russia and Capitalist America, in the post-war jingoism of Britain, among Catholics and Jews and, in one of the most incongruous parts of the book, in the technology enabling cinema to "capture the shadows" of people and enable those shadows to persist past their death.
The faux-biblical style may have been more palatable at the time this was published, but to be honest now it just makes the whole thing seem very bizarre and hard to read. Roth veers between referring to contemporary events in straightforward terms, and hiding them behind strained religious metaphors. His overwhelming negativity is unsurprising, coming from an Austrian Jew writing in the early 30s, but it makes the whole thing a bit one-note.
There are some passages which seem very prophetic, and some which appear to resonate strongly with current world events but, because the whole thing is couched in such a coy style, it loses some impact and it's possible that parallels could be found wherever you choose to look.
Published in 1934, "The Antichrist" is clearly an allusion to Hitler, but Roth finds the Antichrist's work everywhere he looks, not just in Germany and in the military, but also among newspaper owners, in Communist Russia and Capitalist America, in the post-war jingoism of Britain, among Catholics and Jews and, in one of the most incongruous parts of the book, in the technology enabling cinema to "capture the shadows" of people and enable those shadows to persist past their death.
The faux-biblical style may have been more palatable at the time this was published, but to be honest now it just makes the whole thing seem very bizarre and hard to read. Roth veers between referring to contemporary events in straightforward terms, and hiding them behind strained religious metaphors. His overwhelming negativity is unsurprising, coming from an Austrian Jew writing in the early 30s, but it makes the whole thing a bit one-note.
There are some passages which seem very prophetic, and some which appear to resonate strongly with current world events but, because the whole thing is couched in such a coy style, it loses some impact and it's possible that parallels could be found wherever you choose to look.
June 7, 2013
The Antichrist is a kind of inverted allegory. Inverted because, whereas the traditional allegory takes a realistic event to symbolise an ethical, religious or philosophical message, Joseph Roth has created a religious, Christian odyssey in order to reveal the material, human condition. But in a lot of ways his book is like the Pilgrim's Progress. This is one of those books that is so Christian it undermines the Christian church and leaves it tottering, in the same way Tolstoy's Ressurection does: it seems more political than religious, but then again it is not.
Joseph Roth has a delicious innocence in his writing, or at least in the two books I've read of his so far, this and The Holy Drinker, which lends itself well to true Christian humility and scepticism... the book is profoundly sceptical. I was half-expecting a last chapter, showing us that the narrator himself was really the Antichrist himself.
Joseph Roth has a delicious innocence in his writing, or at least in the two books I've read of his so far, this and The Holy Drinker, which lends itself well to true Christian humility and scepticism... the book is profoundly sceptical. I was half-expecting a last chapter, showing us that the narrator himself was really the Antichrist himself.
June 12, 2019
Second time I've tried to read this and I simply can't. I've loved many of Roth’s books, fiction and nonfiction, so I thought I'd give this another chance, but it's pretty awful.
The book is just fragments of memories, fantasies, and harangues strung together. I can certainly understand the urgency of wanting to let the world know about the horrors of Hitler, but The Antichrist doesn't quite accomplish it.
The book is just fragments of memories, fantasies, and harangues strung together. I can certainly understand the urgency of wanting to let the world know about the horrors of Hitler, but The Antichrist doesn't quite accomplish it.
September 10, 2014
Good writer, small mind.
October 8, 2018
I really struggled with this book. I could understand its premise, but the execution left me cold. To my intense disappointment, I just couldn't get into it
April 5, 2025
There is nothing wrong with making a long and lamentable list of woes and angry complaints. There is also nothing good about it — except a satiation of a deeply personal craving for attention. The same attention and fulfillment can be received by going to a street corner and yelling unpleasant truths at others, or by accosting others in social settings, or by anonymous posting on internet forums, which seem to be en vogue now, especially with consequently added edge-lord behavior.
A problem arises when those woes are put on paper. The words are then published, and then about a hundred years later someone (in this case, me) reads those words and gets stopped in their (in this case, mine) tracks because of the accuracy of projection applied to today. And that is not the first book or literary work from the 1930s that is so eerily similar to what is happening today. And there is no exaggeration to it — if you, the reader of my words today, are in doubt, all you need to do is to read this book.
We all love to sleepwalk. All is not an exaggeration because it includes me, and if I am a part of something common, then everybody is — that is exactly what I think. We are all sleepwalking toward some end, or a beginning. But the beginning cannot take place if there is no end beforehand. So, the end will come first. And it will be painful — for most of us. I am under no illusions, some will benefit from the end until the end. Usually, it will be the same who benefit in so many devious ways today. And what am I supposed to do? I write what I see, and there is no more agency above that I can provide for my observations. I can go on long lamentations and jeremiads, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing good either. Maybe just some perverted satisfaction from being right…
A problem arises when those woes are put on paper. The words are then published, and then about a hundred years later someone (in this case, me) reads those words and gets stopped in their (in this case, mine) tracks because of the accuracy of projection applied to today. And that is not the first book or literary work from the 1930s that is so eerily similar to what is happening today. And there is no exaggeration to it — if you, the reader of my words today, are in doubt, all you need to do is to read this book.
We all love to sleepwalk. All is not an exaggeration because it includes me, and if I am a part of something common, then everybody is — that is exactly what I think. We are all sleepwalking toward some end, or a beginning. But the beginning cannot take place if there is no end beforehand. So, the end will come first. And it will be painful — for most of us. I am under no illusions, some will benefit from the end until the end. Usually, it will be the same who benefit in so many devious ways today. And what am I supposed to do? I write what I see, and there is no more agency above that I can provide for my observations. I can go on long lamentations and jeremiads, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing good either. Maybe just some perverted satisfaction from being right…
January 26, 2025
This is a 1934 doom-and-gloom sermon, with parables, and with a funny twist past the middle. Hollywood/unholywood (a great new translation) and how actors sell themselves to become shadows, is a standout target of Roth’s wrath, although he also takes aim at communism, capitalism, democracy, technology and more. I don’t remember him dealing much with Eastern ideas. He does divine a negative comparison between Westerns, with swords in the shape of the cross, and Easterns, whose swords are curved. Altogether it’s not very easy reading, though brief and told in brief essayistic chapters. It’s only a novel insofar as a novel is anything. Also of strong interest for me was a mystical Jewish idea that Roth melds with his otherwise Christian stance (while acknowledging Mohammad as someone who has communicated with God): the 36 righteous that keep the world from total ruin. In a parable, an unrighteous man tells JR that the just are now unjust, and vice verse. Whatever most people think is right, is right. Instead of might makes right, it’s numbers make right. JR demurs. I hope the 36 are out there, safe. So Hollywood can make a movie about them.
September 27, 2020
Prefacio: Después de mucho, he terminado otro libro.
Este ensayo es, como muchos sabrán, algo muy extraño. Joseph Roth comenzó a escribir un ensayo humanista y, al tercer capítulo, decidió valerse de un mecanismo narrativo para hilar de cierta manera el ensayo. Yo me aventuro a decir que esto es una memoria filosófica, pues lo que está en juego en la narración no es sólo el humanismo, sino la conexión humana con lo Sagrado. Eso es lo que Joseph Roth retrata: la forma en que la modernidad se desliga de lo Sagrado.
Aviso que esta visión humanista y mística tiene el sesgo propio del catolicismo, por lo que habrá algún discurso desentonante con la calidad humanista del ensayo, pero ello no demerita la reflexión de Roth.
Este ensayo es, como muchos sabrán, algo muy extraño. Joseph Roth comenzó a escribir un ensayo humanista y, al tercer capítulo, decidió valerse de un mecanismo narrativo para hilar de cierta manera el ensayo. Yo me aventuro a decir que esto es una memoria filosófica, pues lo que está en juego en la narración no es sólo el humanismo, sino la conexión humana con lo Sagrado. Eso es lo que Joseph Roth retrata: la forma en que la modernidad se desliga de lo Sagrado.
Aviso que esta visión humanista y mística tiene el sesgo propio del catolicismo, por lo que habrá algún discurso desentonante con la calidad humanista del ensayo, pero ello no demerita la reflexión de Roth.
August 22, 2025
“Entre allò que cal per a la felicitat previsible de la persona i allò que és necessari per a la seva felicitat imprevisible s’obre un ample espai impossible d’emplenar a còpia de mesures racionals. Estem fets de carn i d’esperit”.
October 4, 2020
29 pitch & sulphur
72 camphor & iodoform
120 rancid odour of oil
127 pestilence & putrefaction
—-plague & chemicals
72 camphor & iodoform
120 rancid odour of oil
127 pestilence & putrefaction
—-plague & chemicals
Read
July 3, 2025Sono arrivata a metà ma questo viaggio finisce qui
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews