Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen. Große kommentierte Frankfurter Ausgabe. Kommentarband

by Thomas Mann, Hermann Kurzke (Commentary)

"Die Betrachtungen waren also eine Kampfschrift, aber doch zugleich schon ein leidenschaftliches Stück Arbeit der Selbsterforschung und der Revision meiner Grundlagen... Aber Selbsterforschung ist meist schon der erste Schritt zur Wandlung, und ich erfuhr, daß niemand ganz der bleibt, der er war, indem er sich erkennt." (Thomas Mann, Über mich selbst)

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, German Literature, Germany, Literature, Classics

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1918

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.

See also:
Serbian: Tomas Man

Thomas Mann was a German novelist, short story writer, social critic, philanthropist, essayist, and Nobel Prize laureate in 1929, known for his series of highly symbolic and ironic epic novels and novellas, noted for their insight into the psychology of the artist and the intellectual. His analysis and critique of the European and German soul used modernized German and Biblical stories, as well as the ideas of Goethe, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer. His older brother was the radical writer Heinrich Mann, and three of his six children, Erika Mann, Klaus Mann and Golo Mann, also became important German writers. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Mann fled to Switzerland. When World War II broke out in 1939, he emigrated to the United States, from where he returned to Switzerland in 1952. Thomas Mann is one of the best-known exponents of the so-called Exilliteratur.

Reviews

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a painful book to get through. Everything that MAGA (make American Great again) wannabe fascist morons believe in is part of the author’s reality but he sees it from a pre-Nazi Germany not a Trumpian dystopian point-of-view.

To understand today’s rot in American politics brought on by Trump and his fellow Republicans this book goes a long way in helping to explain it. The New York Times called the KKK America’s fascist and they morphed into the American First movement (Charles A. Lindberg) and they morphed into today’s Republican Party as led by Trump. Oswald Spengler (who is mentioned in this book) wrote a book that was immensely more popular than this book and was published at the same time as this book and both books have MAGA themes reverberating within them.

This book has a lot of craziness within it and it really does mirror the MAGA Hat Haters of today. The following are some of the crap that floats within this book:

All good Germans must be Conservatives and to be Conservative one must make Germany for the Germans, Germanness is the end all be all for the state. The author stated that he doesn’t believe in the monadism of Spengler or in the Esperanto-ism of Hegel. Though, he clearly has more in common with Spengler than he is willing to admit and he definitely overlaps with the right-wing Hegelians. Trump lovers hate anything that brings the world together such as Esperanto and they equally hate anything that makes them less special and not exceptional since anyone who is not them is not worthy of equality. Democracy means equality and for Mann and Trump lovers equality is anathema unless it increases patriotism or nationalism for the Volk or privileges their self selective group.

Mann believes, Democracy is only good as far as it enables patriotism and nationalism in the service of furthering the culture of the German people. Enlightenment values are useless and civilization is only meant to bring the German culture down to their barbaric level.

Mann believes, the Culture and Character of the German people are the noblest of all influences and all other influences outside of the Fatherland only debase the German people and their specialness and exceptionalism of the German people and Volk and the progressive world-view of the other (all who are not part of their culture) must be avoided as much as possible.

Mann believes, the ‘Negro craves desire’, and masculine values are worthwhile ends in themselves and feminine characteristics such as what the French have are best avoided, and Jews just aren’t like us and are part of the problem.

Mann believes, Dostoevsky got it right, not so much Tolstoy. (BTW, Spengler said ‘there are two kinds of people in the world: those who like Dostoevsky and those who like Tolstoy”). Both Mann and Spengler value culture over the corrupting influence of Civilization, while Spengler also made the Cosmopolitan where culture and thought goes to die, and Mann conversely made the Cosmopolitan the spirit for Culture, though Mann is not consistent in how he used the word Cosmopolitan. Overall, both Mann and Spengler value culture and character over civilization (progress, the rest of the world, progressivism, enlightenment values and democracy).

Mann states, the political is the opposite of the aesthetic. The non-political is necessary to preserve the spirit of the people and their superior Germanness.

According to Mann, Conservatives (good Germans) also ironically apply intellectual thought.

All of Mann’s stupidity does get tedious and he offers no more insight than what a MAGA hat wearing moron of today would provide in their deluded world view with the hate towards the other who is not them in search of a mythical patriotic nationalism that assumes their exceptionality and greatness because it is their identity at birth. The overlap between German ‘intellectual’ thought from 1918 and today’s Republicanism is obvious. Ben Shapiro with all of his lack of intellectual heft could have written this book.

Two notes: yes, this book is a travesty and a tedious read at best. Even with that, I would greatly recommend it for today’s reader in order to understand how the fascist and MAGA hat mind thinks. Second note: Thomas Mann ran away from this book the rest of his life, and one thing I noticed while reading his Magic Mountain he changed his view points half way through that book and started to realize the monster that was being created in Germany and how foolhardy he was to believe otherwise.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written during the last years of the First World War - this book gives us a glimpse and helps us understand what Germany stood up for during that time. Mann is rallying the German nationalism around the likes of Luther, Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche, Goethe, and Dostoevsky against democracy, individualism, rationalism, everything French (especially its revolution, enlightenment, aesthetics), almost everything British (especially parliamentarian, materialism, and individualism), and so on. The Prussian state and its militarism, order, suffering, and aristocracy are praised as high virtues that give us meaning as humans.

To us - the modern, democratic, individualists, materialists, rationalists, and so on Americans – almost none of these make sense; especially from someone of the caliber of Thomas Mann. Mann himself will turn against this book in a few years and will eventually be forced to leave Germany by the Nazi – who happily will adopt this book and its message for their cause.

[Φώτης Καραμπεσίνης · Rating 4 out of 5]

Το πρόβλημα του να έχεις διαβάσει ένα βιβλίο (εκδόθηκε το 2001) το έτος κυκλοφορίας του, είναι πως δεν θυμάσαι απαραίτητα και πολλά εν έτει 2018. Ιδίως εφόσον έχει να κάνει με ιδέες, απόψεις πολιτικό-κοινωνικής υφής.
Είναι προφανές πως εφόσον ο συγγραφέας είναι ο Τ. Mann το ενδιαφέρον (το δικό μου) εστιάζεται περισσότερο στη γραφή του παρά στις ιδέες του. Όχι πως δεν είναι σημαντικές, απλά δεν είμαι βέβαιος γιατί κάποιος μπορεί να ενδιαφερθεί γι΄αυτές, παρά μόνο διότι ο συγγραφέας τους είναι ο ίδιος με εκείνον του "Μαγικού βουνού". Ίσως, βέβαια, κάνω λάθος.

[Gerhard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bekanntlich ist dieser Essayband während des Ersten Weltkriegs entstanden und nach 1918 hätte Thomas Mann ihn gerne zurückgezogen. Seine politische Einstellung hat sich geändert. Das Buch war für mich in Etappen lesbar, man braucht die volle Konzentration.

[Pilar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Durante la 1ª Guerra Mundial, Thomas Mann dejó a un lado su novela en curso "La montaña mágica" para escribir este volumen, abatido e irritable como no lo estaría ni siquiera en su posterior exilio. En estas Consideraciones no se refiere solamente a la decadencia, a la guerra como proceso de regeneración vital, a la vida sobredeterminada por la política de las instituciones, sino que también aprovecha para poner de manifiesto la distancia ideológica que lo separa de su odiado hermano Heinrich –aquel que había afeado los impulsos homoeróticos de juventud de Thomas– más afrancesado, defensor de la democracia, la civilización y el progreso.

En los sucesivos capítulos, mientras millones de soldados mueren en las trincheras, se esfuerza por defender una Alemania de las ciudades contra la Entente Cordiale de Francia e Inglaterra, con esa innata condición protestataria que paradójicamente odia la revolución: su Alemania es un país de individualistas románticos con formación intelectual fundamentada en Schopenhauer, Nietzsche y Wagner, de burgueses ascetas nacionalistas, para los que el trabajo es el símbolo ético de la vida y que tienen un sentimiento patriótico por el idioma; pero sobre todo, dice, es un país portador de la Cultura con C mayúscula: el carácter alemán es cultura, alma, libertad, arte, y no civilización, sociedad, derecho al voto y literatura. Será en los capítulos finales, en los que Mann termina por concretar una teoría estética aplicable a su propia obra, en la que no hay más belleza que la crítica de la realidad y la moral y en la que el uso de la ironía es la verdera "política interna" a la que todo artista debe agarrarse.

Desde nuestra sensibilidad de hoy, todo el relato puede verse como un delirio de orgullo y de fanatismo irritado, como una refinadísima pataleta, pero hay que comprender que Mann habla desde la ironía – el radical es un nihilista, el ironista es conservador –, y que lo hace desde la perspectiva de un "hombre inútil", el tipo de hombre que no sirve románticamente para nada: No, lo admito, no soy un caballero de la época; tampoco soy un "líder", ni lo quiero ser. En lo intelectualmente esencial soy un hijo del siglo XIX: el romanticismo, el nacionalismo, el civismo, la música, el pesimismo, el humor son los elementos atmosféricos de mi ser.

[Jacob Hurley · Rating 4 out of 5]

his main thesis seems to be that politics and aesthetics (including morality and daily life) are antithetical, the former French in character and the latter german. written during ww1, so very much of this is wrong or regrettable considering the 30s and 40s. the substance is all in his evaluations of his own writings and the greater literary/philosophic shit he ties into his argument which itself is occasionally astute but not overwhelmingly persuasive

[Kuszma · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nem igazán tudom megmagyarázni magamnak, miért gondoltam, hogy a karácsonyi hajtás idején jó ötlet lesz pont ezt a könyvet olvasni – valahogy megkívántam, így alakult. Mann első világháború derekán íródott hegynyi esszéje korszerűtlen elmélkedés a háborúról, demokráciáról, németekről, művészetről és még megannyi másról. Színleg polemizálás az ún. civilizációs irodalmárral*, ám bennem hamar kialakult a meggyőződés, hogy ez a fazon ebben a formában csak Mann fejében létezik, ergo: Mann önmagával disputál lelkesülten, önmagát bombázza csodás mann-i mondat-napalmjaival, vagy – egy utolsó szókép – önön mann-i farkát kergeti (filozófiai értelemben, persze). Mann pour mann moralizálás. Mindezek folyományaként ez egy olyan szöveg, amiben ha egy fejezet címe az, hogy „Néhány szó a ….-ról”, akkor készüljünk fel 60 oldal körkörös okoskodásra sok idézettel megtűzdelve, amik napnál is világosabban bizonyítják 1.) Mann fenenagy műveltségét 2.) azt, hogy valaha valaki már leírt valamit, amit Mann éppen most gondol.

De hogy a jó dolgokról is. Mint említettem, szépek a mondatok. Nagyon jól állnak például egy Mann-regénynek: érződik rajtuk a nagystílűség, a magabiztosság, és az őszinte törekvés az esztétika és az erkölcs szintézisére. De gondolati mélységük, megkockáztatom, gyakran csak látszólagos. (A miértekre mindjárt kitérek.) A másik jó dolog meg egyszerre rossz is: bár Mann magáról beszél, de van annyira univerzális elme, hogy magáról beszélve németség és polgárság általános képét igyekezzék lefesteni. Amiben csak annyi a hiba, hogy magából kiindulva állapítja meg azokat az ún. német tulajdonságokat, amelyeknek gócpontjában a belső (autonóm és arisztokratikus) kultúraeszmény áll, ami (Mann szerint) nem fér össze a demokráciával, amely demokrácia (szintén Mann szerint) szinonim fogalom a politizálással, amely politizálás pedig a kultúra ellentéte. (Már hogy Mann szerint.) Ebből fakad a következtetés, hogy a komplett első világháború tulajdonképpen a „protestáló”, mély gondolatiságát védelmező Németország küzdelme a demokráciát ráerőltetni igyekvő külvilággal – kultúra és civilizáció harca, amely egyenletben Németország a kultúra. És itt elkezdenek sorjázni azok az elemek, amiket én logikai hibának érzékelek, de oly bőséggel, hogy azt se tudom, melyikkel kezdjem.

1.) Amikor a németséget alapvető és a priorinak vett tulajdonságokkal ruházza fel, Mann eléri, hogy azokat, akik ezek ellen a tulajdonságok ellen felszólalnak, a németség elleni harc vádjával illethesse – holott lehetséges, számukra ezek a tulajdonságok nem német, hanem egyszerűen negatív tulajdonságok, és saját meglátásuk szerint ők is egy jobb Németországért küzdenek. (Maga Mann amúgy sosem megy odáig, hogy ezeket a személyeket kitagadja a németség kebeléből – de a recept adott. Mások nem lesznek ilyen elnézőek, és a bírálókat kivetik a nemzettestből.)
2.) Nem definiálja, mit ért politika alatt, pusztán egy negatív meghatározást tesz – a politika azért rossz, mert nem kultúra. A józan polgár ezért tartsa távol magát tőle, inkább foglalkozzon a könyvespolcával meg az operabérletével. Hogy a politika lehet szimplán személyes érdekeink védelmezése is, Mannt nem érdekli.
3.) Ahogy németség-meghatározása is csöpög a nemzetkarakterológiától, úgy demokrácialeírása is. A szerző szerint a demokrácia mindenekelőtt valamiféle francia betegség: léha, felületes, hangoskodóan humanista, erőszakosan és álszent módon pacifista. Ez érvelése szempontjából azért praktikus, mert így Robespierre-től idézhet jó kis vérgőzös passzusokat, és azzal a ténnyel, hogy a demokráciához több köze van mondjuk Stuart Millnek, nem kell foglalkoznia. Biztos nem olvasta.
4.) Tegyük még hozzá, hogy Mann fejében a demokrácia és a nacionalizmus fogalmai összenőttek, ami mondjuk a kor kontextusában érthető. A francia köztársaság egy német polgár szemszögéből valóban borzasztóan hazafiaskodónak tűnhetett akkor, és még nem volt messze az az idő sem, amikor a nacionalizmusok és a liberalizmusok vállvetve küzdöttek a monarchiák ellen kontinensszerte. Ugyanakkor a második világháború és a jelenkor ismeretében ez az elem csak erősíti bennem az érzést, hogy ezt az egész eszmefuttatást (és: az egész könyvet) az azóta eltelt események zárójelbe tették.

Meg lehet úgy közelíteni, hogy Mann próféta volt, aki megjósolta, hogy ha a németekre ráerőltetik a nyugati típusú liberális demokráciát, akkor az katasztrófába torkollik – lám, jött Hitler, és a világégés. De én azt látom, hogy inkább megtisztította a terepet azok előtt, akik a totális államot felépítették. Nem is azt vetem a szemére, hogy szellemi muníciót szolgáltatott nekik (arról aligha tehet, hogy Nietzschét és Wagnert nevezi meg intellektuális elődként, pont mint… tudjukki), hanem hogy a művelt német középosztályt megtanította félreállni. Kiokosította őket, hogyan kell megőrizni a belső erkölcsi tisztaságukat a négy fal között, miközben a szörny az utcán randalírozik. Be ne piszkolják a kezüket a politikával – közben meg a politika, ha akarták, ha nem, fülig nyomta őket a trágyába. Mann becsületére válik, hogy ő maga tudta, mikor kell kiszállni – minden demokráciával szemben érzett ellenérzésével együtt inkább Amerikát választotta. De mondjuk a vasúti tisztségviselő, aki úgy őrizte morális autonómiáját, hogy közben a keze alatt mentek a vonatok Bergen-Belsenbe, ővele mi lett? Tegyük fel, ott állt a háború végén, a maga karcolatlan lelkiismeretével. Most mit csináljunk vele?

Amúgy nem volt haszontalan olvasmány. Szépen leképezi a konzervatív polgár belső világát. Konzervatív polgár amúgy (ezek szerint) az, aki felismeri és óvja saját autonóm erkölcsi lényegét és belső szabadságát, de másokban nem mindig feltételezi, mert nem tapasztalja**. (Sajnos ebből az következik, hogy mivel gyakran csak a magáéhoz hasonló erkölcsi lényeget ismeri el létezőnek, ezért a tőle különbözőtől megtagadhatja az empátiát.) Összességében örültem, hogy nekifutottam, bár helyenként szenvedtem vele, egyszer pedig még bele is aludtam. (Lap közepén. Nem sűrűn van velem ilyen.) Azért jó lett volna, ha háromszáz oldallal rövidebb. Akkor például nem láttam volna, miket hord össze Mann arról, miért nem is olyan rossz dolog a háború. Azok nagyon szerencsétlen sorok. Biztos vagyok benne, hogy Mann később, mikor már A varázshegy-et írta, pironkodott miattuk.

* Aki amúgy azonos Heinrich Mann-nal, akivel Thomasnak akkortájt volt egy nagyon késhegyre menő vitája. Tanulság: a testvéri torzsalkodásokat nem okos dolog papírra vetni, kiadatni pedig pláne nem.
** Az ebből fakadó liberalizmus-definíció: liberális az, aki felismeri és óvja saját autonóm erkölcsi lényegét és belső szabadságát, és ezt a lényeget másokban is feltételezi – még ha nem is mindig tapasztalja. Nekem tetszik, én vállalom.

[Lukas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Mann trägt in diesem Werk einen Kampf mit der Welt, dem Jahrhundert, seinem Bruder, vor allem aber mit sich selbst aus, um seinen Platz in einer Welt zu finden, in der er noch zu irren scheint.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book hoping to learn more about Thomas Mann whose masterful work "Magic Mountain" so entranced and moved me.

Unfortunately, however, I discovered -- despite warning descriptions of the book ahead of time -- that this collection of essays, largely written near the outset of the Great War in 1914 and then just a few years later, is dense, defensive, and filled with the kind of cultural detail that I suspect only scholars of Germany of the time will find interesting.

It was fascinating to discover how defensive this very learned man was, given Germany's long reputation for being one of the leading intellectual lights of Europe. In fact, Mann is anticipating the post-war conclusion -- enshrined in the Versailles Peace Treaty -- that it was Germany that was largely, if not solely, responsible for the tensions that led up to and broke out into war.

For me, this is but further proof -- if such, indeed, is needed at all -- that even the most brilliant among us have grave limitations, even blinders, with respect to some things.

In part, Mann's writings here can be viewed as an interesting time-scope view into a Germany which had, after all, been unified only 40 years by the outbreak of the war, a unification that while celebrated in Germany had been viewed with concern by much of the rest of Europe -- after all, Prussia had by itself considerably dominated central and western Europe for decades because of its scientific and military prowess. Moreover, the early triumphs of this unified Germany under Bismarck had morphed into both a colonialist and militaristic explosion under Kaiser Wilhelm.

As a perhaps relevant "aside," I do believe that the Kaiser's decision to launch a futile attempt to rival Britain's naval fleet with his own construction of battleships and "super-dreadnoughts" was a MAJOR factor in escalating tensions in Europe and with Great Britain at a time when the Austro-Hungarian Empire faced increasing centrifugal forces, especially from within its territories in the Balkans.

In any case, Mann is writing after the long-dreaded and almost equally long-anticipated Great War had broken out, a war with unimaginable consequences for the Old Europe that was to forever set the stage for the conflicts, tensions, and struggles that still dominate our concerns in the 21st century.

IF his essays had been briefer, and IF they had remained more on a specific point, I MAY have found it possible to finish this book. However, none of the above qualifiers were met and I just tired of his seeming untiring (and interminable) grievances and his repeated circling round to make essentially the same points.

Mann was a clear genius and I continue to admire his greatest work, but this is a book I would caution others against beginning.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished Toibin’s novelized biography of Thomas Mann and followed up by reading this rerelease of “Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man”, whose release coincided nicely with that of Toibin’s book. It is nonfiction, a set of essays, and thus different from Mann’s more popular fiction.

The book presents a series of macro level discussions of politics and culture focused on various aspects of Germany’s participation in WW1 and its relative moral standing and blame versus the Entente powers in the war. The discussions have an air that reminds one of the different war guilt arguments that arose in light of WW1 and the peace conferences - a literature that has continued on and off ever since 1914.

I am not sure why Mann got involved in these arguments. They are largely pro-German and seem different from the positions that Mann later adopted and that got him into trouble once the Nazis and Hitler came to power in 1933. Some of the positions come across as conservative and pro-German - the book reads like that of a different person as compared with the author of “The Magic Mountain”. Even worse, the arguments throw around notions of national character and national culture as a means of justifying national participation in a slaughter of millions. Such arguments seem out of date and delusional, especially given the history that followed for the remainder of Mann’s life.

What about “Nonpolitical” in the title? It seems like this refers to Mann’s position supporting art for its own sake. This is opposed to art in service of the state and political power. Mann is arguing that he is an artist rather than a propagandist and that there is little room for the mixing of art and politics. The odd point about this is that today, such a distinction is hard to imagine. A starting point for interpreting art is the intermixing of art and politics. In the “Reflections” volume, Mann is also being political and taking sides in public debates about the war - which grew catastrophic by the time the book was finally published. I am unsure who he was arguing against but was it worth it then to put such debates into print? That truth can both be put in service of a national war effort and also support a campaign against a regime like the Nazis is hard to see. Part of the book’s arguments could be seen as countering the writing efforts of Mann’s brother, who was very much against the war.

It is interesting to compare the politics in German as WW1 ended with recent US politics and culture around the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially given the recent US exit from Afghanistan.

I am glad I read this but will be happy to get back to Mann’s fiction. The feeling is similar to that of reading Kafka’s “Office Manuscripts” when compared to his great levels.

[Richard Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many fine pages, but quite repetitive.

[Andrew Hanna]

this book was like 800 pages of bad takes ngl

[Tom Wijgert · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intellectual work of the highest order; that is what Mann said about ‘Der Untergang des Abendlandes,’ on a first glance. This seems to fit perfectly for the Betrachtungen. It is not so much a book, neither a novel, it is just a ‘work’, a peculiar work. Nevertheless, it is true that the Betrachtungen are crucial in order to understand the ideological and political ‘wandel’ of Thomas Mann. In all honesty, Mann places his cards on the table - a rather good deck- and he continues to work with this hand, until the 1950s. Obviously, the constellation of the cards changes: but the deck remains unchanged.

[Nicolas · Rating 5 out of 5]

« La commémoration est une excellente méthode d’épuisement festif d’un sujet » estimait Philippe Muray. Au cœur des festivités entourant le centenaire du déclenchement du premier conflit mondial, inscrites sous le signe d’un pacifisme fédérateur et permettant aux rédactions des JT d’espacer les marronniers estivaux – et à l’heure même où les meutes de jihadistes enragés de l’IS s’emparent de Qaraqosh, la plus grande ville chrétienne d’Irak, bien décidés à éradiquer toute traces d’un passé multiconfessionnel millénaire, quoi de plus exotique qu’une plongée dans les exquises pensées de Thomas Mann parues en 1918, et à mille lieues de l’unanimisme ambiant.

Clarifions d’emblée la position de Mann vis-à-vis des faiseurs d’opinion :

« Non, j’accorde que je ne suis pas un paladin de mon époque, pas plus un « guide », ni ne veux l’être. Je n’aime pas les guides, les Führer, ni non plus les « professeurs », par exemple, les « professeurs de démocratie ». J’aime et j’estime encore moins ces petits, ces médiocres, ces nez creux qui vivent d’informations récoltées et de pistes flairées, cette racaille de valets et d’estafettes du temps qui trottent aux côtés de tout ce qui est nouveau, en manifestant sans cesse leur dédain pour ceux qui sont moins dispos et moins agiles. Ou encore les freluquets et conformistes de leur époque, ces gens chics, ces élégants intellectuels, qui portent les dernières idées et les dernières paroles à la mode comme ils portent leur monocle, qui, par exemple, manient les concepts « esprit, amour, démocratie » – en sorte qu’il aujourd’hui déjà difficile d’entendre ce jargon sans avoir la nausée. » (p. 27)

Aussi, pour Mann, « ce qu’il y a de plus minable et de plus méprisable sur terre n’est pas la classe d’artistes subalternes, mais l’ « intellectualité » subalterne. » (p. 86) – en premier lieu les journalistes : « Le journaliste, cet habile mitonneur de sauces qui avec un tout petit fait vous fabrique un article de fond de cinq colonnes ? Jouer le rôle de connaisseur ne fait-il pas partie, en définitive, de ses instincts fondamentaux. » (p. 256)

Ce qui révolte encore plus Thomas Mann est l’apparition de l’intellectuel satisfait, « qui a fait du monde un système placé sous le signe de la pensée démocratique et vit à présent en ergoteur, en détenteur du droit. » (p. 279) Mann, écrivain anti-intellectuel ? Non, l’auteur de Mort à Venise s’inscrit en réalité dans la tradition des chroniqueurs sceptiques : « Le scepticisme est lui-même une prise de position intellectuelle contre ce qui est intellectuel, il n’est pas un anti-intellectualisme, car celui-ci implique le respect, et la notion de scepticisme ne va jamais sans une note de frivolité. » (p. 200). Pour l’écrivain, « nulle exigence n’est plus insensée, plus éhontée, que « la politisation de l’esprit » – comme si l’esprit devait se politiser parce que la politique n’est pas capable d’esprit et tombe de plus en plus dans une sorte d’encanaillement rhétorique ! » (p. 230)

Soit, ces considérations rédigées en pleine guerre, ne devaient, à l’origine, n’être qu’une réplique au Zola de son antithétique frère, Henrich Mann – renommé pour l’occasion : « littérateur de la civilisation ». Une civilisation, imposée par les forces ennemies pour supplanter la Kultur – « une évolution menant à un nivellement de toute culture nationale dans le sens d’une civilisation homogène » (p. 208) :

« La civilisation est non seulement, […] quelque chose de spirituel, mais elle est l’esprit même – l’esprit au sens de la raison, des mœurs policées, du doute, des lumières et enfin de la désagrégation, alors que la culture, au contraire, représente le principe artistique organisateur et constructif, qui maintient et transfigure la vie. » (p. 149)

« Je n’ai pas été assez fort ou assez présomptueux pour ne pas me préoccuper de la guerre. » (p. 407) En effet, Thomas Mann prendra fait et cause pour le camp allemand. Il perçoit l’entrée en guerre de l’Empire des Hohenzollern comme un acte de survie, de préservation et de conservation de l’âme allemande, ce dernier bastion de culture face aux promesses d’une civilisation et d’un démocratisme qu’il répugne, non sans développer son parti-pris :

« Ma participation à cette guerre n’a rien à voir avec une hégémonie mondiale et commerciale, elle n’est rien d’autre que la participation à ce processus passionné d’autoconnaissance, de limitation et de consolidation de soi, auquel la culture allemande s’est trouvée contrainte à la suite d’une effroyable pression spirituelle et d’un assaut venus de l’extérieur. » (p. 105)

Il nuancera plus tard :

« On peut, dans cette guerre, être corps et âme du côté allemand, désirer passionnément la victoire allemande parce qu’on sent sa propre vie, son propre honneur, indissolublement liés à la vie et à l’honneur de l’Allemagne, – et cependant, à ses heures les plus secrètes, incliner à penser que ce peuple cultivé, savant et problématique est destiné à être le ferment de l’Europe, et non à la dominer. » (p. 422)

Tout au long de ses considérations, Thomas Mann veillera à décrire ce qu’il sous-entend par ce type allemand, en voie d’extinction, mettant en exergue ses propres convictions : « Si je suis libéral, je le suis au sens de la libéralité et non du libéralisme. Car je suis apolitique, nationaliste, mais de convictions apolitiques, comme l’Allemand de culture bourgeoise » (p. 104)

Partisan des Villes et de l’Empire contre l’Etat-Nation, c’est l’identité même du peuple allemand qui selon Mann se voit menacée par le modèle démocratique. Bourgeois [Bürger] au sens germanique du terme, il perçoit en effet le peuple allemand comme profondément apolitique ; étranger à la démocratie – la démocratisation de l’Allemagne équivalant pour Mann à sa dégermanisation (p. 65).

Tantôt ironique ; « J’ai entendu un célèbre chef d’orchestre s’écrier : « On en viendra à faire voter l’orchestre pour décider si un passage doit être joué piano ou mezzoforte » (p. 228), il reprendra une phrase de Wagner à son compte : « en Allemagne la démocratie a le caractère d’une traduction. Elle n’existe que dans la presse. » (p. 108) « Sous un régime démocratique, on pourra plus avantageusement faire du commerce » – voilà sa manière d’argumenter » (p. 215) dit-il, exposant au fil des pages, et non sans esprit, son point de vue d’antidémocrate :

« La démocratie équivaut au règne de la politique. Il ne peut y avoir, il n’y aura rien, ni pensée, ni création, ni vie, où la politique n’ait sa part ou qui n’entretienne pas un contact, un rapport avec elle. La politique en tant qu’atmosphère, mêlée à l’air vital. » (p. 257)

« L’art politisé, la morale politisée, l’idée, toute pensée, tout sentiment, toute volonté politisés – qui voudrait vivre dans un monde pareil ? » (p. 329)

« La foi dans la démocratie est une manière de se mettre intellectuellement à l’abri à tout prix, c’est de l’obscurantisme, – quand ce n’est pas, […] de l’autocomplaisance. » (p. 412)

Or, ces pages ne constituent en aucun cas un manifeste (a)politique. Bien plus a-t-on à faire au témoignage d’un mécontemporain nostalgique d’une certaine époque : l’époque bourgeoise, celle qui « succéda à l’âge religieux et chevaleresque, l’époque de la Hanse, l’époque des Villes, [qui] fut une époque culturelle pure, non politique, le bourgeois ne recueillit pas l’héritage politique du chevalier. » (p. 103)

Dans une période où s’affront(ai)ent les conceptions nationales étriquées, Mann rappelle que « l’Allemagne n’a pas de front d’airain comme l’Angleterre, elle n’a pas l’élan sentimental unifié de la France. L’Allemagne n’est pas une nation… » (p. 169). Un constat qu’il nous faudra, plus que jamais, mûrir aujourd’hui :

« Démocratie et nationalisme sont de même origine, et ne font qu’un. Et le coupable […], la responsable de l’état actuel de l’Europe, de son anarchie, de la lutte de tous contre tous, la coupable dans cette guerre, c’est la démocratie nationaliste. Le principe national est le principe atomiste, anarchique, antieuropéen, réactionnaire. La démocratie est réactionnaire, car elle est nationaliste et sans aucune conscience européenne. » (p. 179)

Ces considérations sont en outre pour Mann l’occasion de revenir sur les nombreuses figures tutélaires qui marquèrent profondément sa pensée; trois esprits à jamais associés, « des phénomènes, non pas intimement allemands mais européens : Schopenhauer, Nietzsche et Wagner. » (p. 69)

De Schopenhauer, il louera la pensée politique aux accents hobbesiens : « La constitution d’un Etat incarnant uniquement le droit abstrait serait une excellente chose pour d’autres êtres que les hommes ; la grande majorité de ceux-ci est, en effet extrêmement égoïste, injuste, sans scrupules, menteuse, parfois méchante et en même temps d’une intelligence très médiocre.» (p. 112) Un Schopenhauer qui voulait que l’on considérât l’Etat « comme une machine au service de l’homme, et dont il importe peu de savoir si elle est conservatrice, libérale, libre penseuse, catholique, mais simplement si elle fonctionne à notre gré, et aux moindres frais possible » (la Commission européenne serait-elle d’essence schopenhauerienne ?)

Le Schopenhauer dépeint par Mann déclare l’Etat comme indispensable, « car lui seul met un frein à l’égoïsme illimité de presque tous, à la méchanceté de beaucoup, à la cruauté de quelques-uns. » (p. 216) Mann lui-même s’exprimera clairement en faveur d’une monarchie constitutionnelle : « Je veux la monarchie, je veux un régime passablement indépendant, lui seul garantit la liberté politique dans le domaine spirituel et économique. » (p. 224)

Aussi, il approuve Nietzsche lorsque ce dernier dénonce : « la montée de l’idiotie parlementaire, de la lecture du journal et des bavardages littéraires de tous sur tout… La montée croissante du démocrate, l’abrutissement de l’Europe et le rapetissement de l’homme européen qu’elle conditionne » (p. 207) Avec Nietzsche, il souhaitera dès lors que « la croyance idiote au nombre et la superstition des majorités ne s’imposent pas encore en Allemagne comme chez les races latines, et qu’on invente enfin encore du nouveau en politique ! » p. 234

Ses redoutables incises contre ce moral verbiage que certains appelleraient aujourd’hui « le politiquement correct » demeurent d’une acuité inégalée :

« La conscience d’avoir le « progrès » pour soi engendre manifestement une assurance morale, une confiance en soi qui approchent de l’endurcissement et finalement se figurent ennoblir la grossièreté, du seul fait qu’elle s’en sert » (p. 56)

« Les opinions publiques courent les rues. Ramassez-en une, affichez-là, et vous semblerez à beaucoup de gens – peut-être à vous-même – plus respectable qu’auparavant, ce qui d’ailleurs repose sur une illusion. Le fait que quelqu’un est conservateur importe peu quant à son rang et sa valeur : tout imbécile peut l’être. Pas plus que le fait d’être démocrate n’assigne à quelqu’un une valeur et un rang : tout imbécile l’est aujourd’hui. » (p. 219)

Mann met ainsi en garde devant les dangers psychiques, humains, de cette démocratisation croissante, à savoir: « [le] danger d’un nivellement complet, d’un abêtissement et d’un encanaillement par le journal et la rhétorique, seule peut obvier une éducation dont l’idée dominante, comme Goethe le réclame dans la Province pédagogique, devrait être le respect. » (p. 222) « La politique rend grossier, vulgaire, stupide. L’envie, l’insolence, la convoitise sont tout ce qu’elle enseigne. Seule l’éducation de l’âme libère », ajoute-t-il (p. 223) en concluant : « Je ne veux pas de politique. Je veux l’objectivité, l’ordre, la décence. Si c’est faire acte de béotien, je veux être un béotien. » (p. 224)

À ce titre, Mann citera Gogol signalant que « les vrais génies ne se développent qu’aux époques brillantes de rois et de royaumes puissants, et non sous l’influence de hideux événements politiques et de républiques terroristes qui jusqu’à ce jour n’ont pas donné au monde un seul poète. » (p. 305)

Aussi, « L’optimiste, le réformateur, en un mot le politicien n’a jamais d’humour, il est pathétique et rhéteur » (p. 344) indique-t-il. Mann estime ainsi que « l’intellectuel a le choix […] entre l’ironie et le radicalisme. Une troisième solution n’est décemment pas possible. » (p. 471) Une ironie, qui est « modestie, scepticisme regardant en arrière, est une forme de morale, une éthique personnelle, une « politique intérieure » (p. 477).

Car c’est en l’esthète que Thomas Mann perçoit l’antithèse du politique :

« L’esthète est plutôt un humoriste, le tragi-comique de l’humanité ; et sa critique, en dépassant et excluant le nationale, ne suggère pas que seul son propre peuple est misérable et ridicule, et que les autres par contre sont nobles et heureux – conception que le critique politique semble presque toujours tout au moins entretenir et court toujours grand danger d’éveiller. » (p. 252)

Notons pour finir que les écrits de l’auteur des Buddenbrook prendront souvent une tournure prophétique, en particulier lorsqu’il s’agit de gloser sur la politique mondiale, sur l’Europe ou les États-Unis :

« L’avenir, si les indices ne trompent pas, verra quelques gigantesques empires mondiaux – que l’Allemagne en fasse ou non partie – qui se partageront l’administration du globe terrestre, et l’expression « les droits des petites nation » passera généralement pour la phrase sentimentale et mensongère qu’elle est déjà aujourd’hui : comme si la démocratie était le moins du monde en contradiction avec l’impérialisme ou le capitalisme – comme s’il n’étaient pas, bien plutôt, presque solidaires et identiques. » (p. 298)

« L’ « Européen », dit une phrase de la « doctrine », « veut d’abord faire des affaires, mais tout en faisant ses affaires, en deuxième lieu, il veut aussi quelque chose de moral, c’est-à-dire : réaliser un progrès humanitaire ». Telle est la définition de l’européanisme, et c’est en même temps celle de la politique et de la civilisation. Ce que le littérateur de la civilisation veut nous inculquer, à nous Allemands. » (p. 300)

« En ce moment, [l’Amérique] offre un brillant exemple de l’art démocratique de la bonne conscience, la synthèse politique de l’esprit et de la puissance, de la morale et des affaires sous prétexte de « justice » et, couverte des louanges du monde démocratique, elle se fortifie et s’élève au rang de grande puissance – et ce, en se militarisant et en construisant une flotte. » (p. 302)

« À mes bonnes heures, je crois aussi en cette Europe future qui, ouverte à une humanité religieuse et à une spiritualité tolérante, ne pourra se souvenir qu’avec honte et ironie de son conflit actuel, acharné, au sujet de conceptions du monde divergentes. Puisse cette Europe n’être pas doctrinaire, ergoteuse, ne pas croire à des mots et à des antithèses, être libre, sereine et douce, puisse-t-elle n’avoir qu’un haussement d’épaules pour les vocables « aristocratie » et de « démocratie ». (p. 407)

Citant le tristement célèbre Paul de Lagarde – dont certaines idées furent reprises a posteriori par le nazisme, Mann, pour qui « la germanité est un abîme » notera que celle-ci « n’est pas dans la race, mais dans l’âme » (p. 458).

Thomas Mann, un type allemand désormais intégralement éteint, après deux guerres mondiales, 40 années durant lesquelles une partie de sa population demeura engrillagée derrière le rideau de fer à l’est tandis que s’accomplissait une américanisation profonde des moeurs à l’ouest ; la civilisation du Burger King ayant depuis belle lurette supplantée la Kultur du Bürger de la Hanse. À noter qu’au même titre que les Himbas, on trouvera quelques poches préservées de Deutschländers en Namibie, à Swakopmund, à la côte, ou barricadés dans quelque ranch reculé, éleveurs-cultivateurs en terres arides ; rares descendants des anciens colons motivés par la Weltpolitik de Guillaume II.

À lire sur : http://wp.me/p1fGoZ-8H

[Mark Golden]

Like Wagner, Mann was not always well served by his burning need to explain himself outside of his works. It is enlightening to be made privy to their sincere but often tortured attempts to understand their own (and evolving) thinking, but the results of such public and incomplete working out of ideas are often shockingly crude and their public airing did the authors no good in the moment, and often did not age well when viewed in a vacuum that omits both the artist’s later thought and more mature understanding of themselves and their art and the particular events that were the immediate cause of their public reactions.

Also like Wagner, Mann’s timing was atrocious. The massive collection of essays that make up the Reflections were begun in the immediate aftermath of the start of World War I, but not finished or published until mere months before the war’s end. They are in large part a perfectly human and understandable response to the massive and shockingly brutal and ad hominem response to his earliest statements on to the war (from the political and literary realm, but most painful to Thomas, from brother Heinrich‘s public and personal invisceration of him as a person, an author and a thinker). How could Mann not respond to the public and intra-familial trashing? But by the time they saw print, the original cause of the need to speak as well as the main, substantive topic of debate (the meaning of Germany’s entry into the war) had long since been overtaken by events.

Viewed sympathetically and in context, however, there is much of interest in the insights the essays provide into Mann’s thinking as it was evolving at the time and there is his usual degree of intellectual consistency and acumen.

But it must also be admitted that there is a large volume of uncharacteriscally intemperate (if understandable) spleen and crude national chauvinism in time of war expressed herein that makes reading the Reflections an often unpleasant and embarrassing chore.

But both his reputation and his stature as a serious thinker and artist would have been better served by relegating this work to his locked desk, and letting the more mature and compelling working out of the ideas and issues as they ultimately emerged in a fully formed literary work (in this case, The Magic Mountain) serve as his public contribution to consideration and even debate of the serious mattters the essays take as their subject. Maybe he needed to write the Reflections as a foundational step toward what would emerge in his work. But no good purpose was served (and a good deal of damage done) by publishing intemperate and incompletely views that were already mooted by events that were well underway long before their publication.

With the benefit of hindsight, the saddest thing, the thing that he can be criticized for, is his failure to understand that the very cultural vitality (even barbarism) that he viewed as an essential and unique aspect of being German and of German nationalism, unchecked by the political and cultural counter of the internationalism of his intellectual and political opponents, could (and tragically would) manifest so savagely in the Germany that emerged as the vanquished foe in World War I and what followed.

He was early in his recognition and relatively forceful as a critic (too mild a world) of national socialism as it did emerge. And later a fierce and public critic of that regime. And certainly he must have been intellectually honest enough (once the consequences had manifested) to recognize the part that the very cultural ideals and political dialectics he himself had once championed contributed to that outcome. But nothing like a fully voiced or direct mea culpa or apology came from it. I leave it to the historians to assess the adequacy of his actions and his works in reflecting that recognition.

The book contains two additional essays. "Thoughts in Wartime" preceded Reflections and is, if anything more extreme in its contrast of civilization and culture (with the latter the more valued). "On the German Republic," a spirited argument in support of the Weimar Republic from a lecture delivered in 1922, is like tonic after laboring through Reflections. I think that Mann "doth protest too much" in his insistence that his pro-democracy views are entirely consistent with those expressed in Reflections , but there is a logical progression of thought, evolving thought, and realism in the face of a changing world situation. And he does demonstrate a prescient sense of alarm at the direction his country was going, a decade before Hitler took power, alarms that would prove all too warranted in the years ahead.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Reflections of a Non-Political Man by Thomas Mann is a remarkable literary work that delves into the intricacies of political consciousness and its impact on the individual during a tumultuous period in history. First published in 1918, Mann's book offers a profound examination of the relationship between politics and the human psyche.

Mann's writing style is characterized by its intellectual depth, introspection, and profound observations. In "Reflections of a Non-Political Man, 1918," he presents a series of thoughtful reflections that delve into the political climate of the time, examining the repercussions of World War I and the disillusionment that followed. Through his meticulous analysis and introspection, Mann explores the complexities of political engagement, societal upheaval, and the struggle for individual identity.

One of the notable strengths of "Reflections of a Non-Political Man, 1918" lies in Mann's ability to provide a nuanced perspective on the prevailing political ideologies of his time. He examines the rise of nationalism, the allure of socialism, and the role of the individual in shaping political discourse. Mann's astute observations serve as a catalyst for readers to question and critically analyze their own political beliefs and the motivations behind them.

Mann's exploration of the human psyche during this transformative period is another significant aspect of the book. He artfully captures the internal struggles faced by individuals as they grapple with their identities and attempt to reconcile their personal values with the chaotic political landscape. By intertwining the personal and the political, Mann offers readers a profound understanding of the human condition and its inherent complexities.

Furthermore, "Reflections of a Non-Political Man, 1918" reflects Mann's masterful command of historical and cultural contexts. He skillfully weaves in references to prominent figures, events, and literary works of the time, creating a rich tapestry that enhances the reader's comprehension of the political and intellectual atmosphere of the era. Mann's ability to draw from multiple sources of knowledge and merge them into a cohesive narrative is commendable.

However, the book does have some limitations. The language and style can at times be dense and esoteric, requiring readers to possess a certain level of familiarity with historical and philosophical concepts. Additionally, while Mann offers insightful reflections, the absence of concrete proposals for political reform may leave readers wanting more in terms of practical solutions.

In conclusion, "Reflections of a Non-Political Man, 1918" by Thomas Mann is a captivating and intellectually stimulating exploration of the interplay between politics and the individual during a transformative historical period. Mann's keen observations, astute analysis, and incorporation of historical and cultural references contribute to the richness of the work. Despite its occasional denseness and a lack of practical solutions, this book remains a valuable resource for scholars, historians, and those interested in understanding the intricate relationship between politics, individuality, and societal change.

GPT

[Manuel Malavé · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leí vorazmente las últimas trescientas páginas del libro de un tirón. Así de entusiasmado estaba. Evidentemente no comparto ni una sola de las opiniones políticas del autor, pero no leí este libro (creo que ninguno de sus lectores lo ha hecho) esperando encontrar un argumento que me convenciera de sus posiciones, sino esperando aprender algo de lo que el autor entendía por política.

Llegué a este libro intentando leer otra vez las Categorías de lo impolítico del hermeneuta italiano Roberto Esposito, al que hace alusión en las primeras páginas. Me propuse leerlo interesado en la concepción de política que maneja el autor.

Mann era un reaccionario que apostaba por los ideales clásicos de la derecha decimonónica: detestaba a las masas y abominaba de cualquier tipo de concesión de derechos básicos a los desposeídos. No creía en el liberalismo político, pero tampoco en el económico. Era el tipo opuesto de los ideales que pudieran encarnar intelectuales progresistas como Bertrand Russell o John Dewey.

El caso es que el autor identifica la política con la razón pública. Y según su concepción la germanidad, el ser alemán, es por esencia apolítico, es decir, antidemocrático. Mann era un nacionalista convencido que era muy consciente de la posición histórica que jugaba la cultura alemana dentro de la cultura europea. Y consideraba los ideales ilustrados de emancipación política una perversión que desvirtuaría el sentido de la germanidad.

Esto es interesante, porque al oponer el tipo alemán al tipo latino, que identifica con el occidental, el autor también está pensando la occidentalidad. Occidente es sinónimo de civilización, pero Alemania no es una sociedad civilizada, sino cultura. Al oponer la cultura a la civilización, lo que defiende en el fondo es una sociedad de hombres cultivados que no podrá realizarse si se extienden a las masas derechos de participación política.

En ese sentido es que la obra deviene no un ensayo político, sino una defensa del arte por el arte (que no es una concepción políticamente neutra). Y es este punto lo que hace que Mann no pueda ser, como he leído en alguna reseña por aquí, ni un precursor del nazismo, ni un votante de Trump. El nazismo pretendía doblegar el arte a los intereses del partido. Eso es opuesto a lo que Mann defiende. Tampoco habría apoyado a Trump, hombre inculto donde los haya, al entenderlo también como una desvirtuación del ideal de sociedad cultivada al que aspiraba.

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

a strange man
strange tastes in politics
strange tastes in sexuality

a real oddball

......

Political views

During World War I, Mann supported Kaiser Wilhelm II's conservatism, attacked liberalism and supported the war effort, calling the Great War "a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope".

In his 600-page-long work Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man (1918), Mann presented his conservative, anti-modernist philosophy: spiritual tradition over material progress, German patriotism over egalitarian internationalism, and rooted culture over rootless civilisation.

.......

The Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man is a non-fiction work by German author Thomas Mann published in 1918.

Unlike his brother, Thomas Mann supported the German war effort during World War I.

The book, which runs to almost six hundred pages, defends the authoritarianism and 'culture' of Germany against the 'civilization' of the West.

.......

Romain Rolland and other French authors criticised this literary support for Germany and in particular the support of the German invasion of neutral Belgium.

Rolland from time to time also criticised Mann personally for his pro-war stance and substantiated this reproach in the essay Les Idoles.

In this essay he criticised Thomas Mann's militarism and ill-advised fanaticism.

........

Publication history

The book was published shortly before the armistice in October 1918.

It was not translated into English during Thomas Mann's lifetime.

According to Tobias Boes, the non-translation of the work during his lifetime was intentional on Mann's part due to chauvinistic content of the book which could have led to his abandonment by the American public.

The first English translation by Walter D. Morris under the title Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man was published in 1983 by Frederick Unger Publishing Company.

This translation was republished in 2021 as a NYRB Classic with an introduction by Mark Lilla.

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Thomas Mann's Reflection of a Nonpolitical Man, he justifies his taking a pro-German stance that approved of the invasion of Belgium and set himself in opposition to the Allies, a political stance where he explicitly comes out against democracy. For the young Thomas Mann, the shards of religion survive, but are clearly incapable of giving any unity or solidity to a world ever more increasingly fragmented and divided ideologically. I felt I shared a similar view of politics as Mann did after the events of September 11, 2001, and my decision to join the U.S. Army in the war against Al-Qaeda was based on, and I feel Mann shares, an endemic sense of political irony and an intriguing ambivalence of commentary and critique, which springs from a similarly ambivalent relation to bourgeois culture; this ultimately, may be related to a Western Marxism whose primary category would be the reification of commodity fetishism. Mann, following Dostoevsky's history of the world, takes it as ubiquitous that Germany has always sounded a note of protest, a distinct resounding voice of dissension over the course of history, beginning as far back as the end of the Roman Empire. Germany is unique, Mann says, in that it never wanted to be aligned with the nations who inherited what he sees as the overweening political and cultural destiny of the Roman republic. Freud clearly saw the rise and nature of fascist movements; his theoretical intuitions are capable of anticipating tendencies still latent on a rational level but manifesting themselves on a deeper one.

Mann claims Germany should rightfully be seen as a destroyer of this notion of the cultural precedents that landmark the Roman historical bequests, and one wonders whether he sees Germany as an example of a totalitarian state in an age where all politics, he admits, is democratic, beginning as far back as the age of Rousseau's Social Contract. The duty of the petit-bourgeois German citizen, Mann says, is to take advantage of a freedom of speech that nobody is free for, least of all in the Reich; in this way Mann looks towards previous writers such as Stendhal, who suggested that one should enter society with a duel. The greatest literary men of history were specifically nonpolitical, and Mann claims that this is reflected in their art. The unfolding of liberal democracy leads to a bourgeois art that is necessarily confined to political pigeonhole categories and the traps of verbals conundrums. Vigilantly aware of ideological determinations, he has no time for progressive politics, he is a maker of "litterature." One should really have lost hope a long time ago, like those politicians who always look straight ahead, sweeping away all limits, as for the citizen who is freed from the demands to produce, the idea of a life free from domination seems plausible; he seeks in the world of achievement the significance that this realm specifically defines him in.

In this work Mann says that Nietzsche was an adolescent from the middle class. I recognized in his words a man who also discovered the nobility of Nietzsche's early works when he was still yet to be twenty. He never understood the art of setting people against him, and for this he says he had an incomparable father for this quality; however un-Christian it might seem, I have never taken sides against myself: "You can examine my life from any angle, but you will not find a trace of anyone having had a bad will towards me, although you may find cases of having people having too good a will towards me." He is moving in his description of the terrible fate that becomes of the poet and great man under the leveling rule of democracy and the doctrine of salvation through freedom. He is happy to maintain a humbly agnostic, modestly skeptical attitude towards the value of his own pronouncements. My question of whether literature can still be written in a postmodern regime where artworks become ideological symbols of commerce and price control aesthetics rules the minds of all Republican bureaucrats seems to be still relevant as it is fundamentally the task of the writer to detect and throw light on the two popular forms of political opinion -- left and right -- yet without surrendering its own theoretical motivation as the basis for a critical revaluation and radicalization of popular consciousness itself. Further reflection that Dostoevsky was a conservative touched me deeply, as excerpts from his Diary of a Writer demonstrate. The actual power of aesthetic image-consciousness itself with respect to works of art has always been highly questionable. I am careful not to hold humanity responsible for its mental illness, my reading -- books and authors, my only friends -- takes me through whole millenia of psychiatric wards and madhouse worlds whose only qualitative objection is an intolerance of the past. Basically, my two friends growing up were Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. Someday, perhaps, Thomas Mann and I will be friends, too...

[Linda Vinding · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fortjener helt sikkert højeste antal stjerner - min rating beror helt og aldeles på,
at læsning af denne (forkortede) essaysamling af Thomas Manns er (tung) pligtlæsning til et litterært kursus. Samlingen er et forsvar for Manns ej heller i denne læsers øjne helt sympatiske forkærlighed for krigens (1. verdenskrig) nødvendighed, for det (tyske)kejserrige versus de vestlige demokratier (141: “Krigen har overlevet sig selv og er gået i råd, ved jeg - men var Tyskland til gengæld ikke smukt for en stakket hellig stund, dengang krigen var ung, da den brød ud og fejede freden til side?”) Heldigvis ændrer Mann synspunkt om krig(e), demokratier etc. nogle år senere. I udvalget af essays er mange overvejelser om kultur, litteratur, samfund og omtale af diverse forfattere, komponister, filosoffer etc. Endvidere mange referencer til Manns eget skønlitterære forfatterskab. Kræver en tålmodig og øvet læser med sit kringlede sprog og sine mange kulturelle og intellektuelle referencer, fremmedord og latinske udtryk.

[David C Ward · Rating 3 out of 5]

An artifact of late 19th century German nationalism, and support for its cause in the Great War, unfortunately published in October 1918. Mann contrasts German culture (“heathen”) with Western European civilization (feminine). The tone and argument is very convoluted almost as if Mann was arguing with himself - he WAS arguing with his brother Heinrich, a leftist democrat, whose anti war pacifism enraged Thomas. Wagner makes an appearance, as you would expect! It might have been more honest of Mann if he had just admitted the martial thrill that even Freud experienced in August 1914 and left it at that. His argument would be bankrupt by 1933, as he admitted with his turn into democratic liberalism and his exile.

I’ll note the complete coincidence that I finished this on Armistice Day, 11/11 albeit not at 11 am.

[Izzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

In translation it is not at all easy to follow all of the ideas being laid out. I am not even sure if I’d do any better in the original; that said, it is interesting to read his justifications of Germany at the start of WWI, but even more interesting to read about his support for the Weimar republic in the appended chapter in my edition, celebrating Gerhart Hauptmann’s birthday. Reading about the shuffling feet as he gives this chapter as a talk, makes one feel one is there, and gives an eerie sense of the instability of the time (1922). Very difficult to translate the ideas in any language. I got more out of The Magician, even though it is billed as fiction.

[Dave Pier · Rating 2 out of 5]

I hope this is Mann's worst book, so I now can read the rest knowing it can only get better. It is really a book about the artist's mentality--Mann's mentality specifically---and the conditions it needs to thrive. His mistake is to ascribe this self-focused, apolitical artistic mentality to an essential German-ness, opposed to an essential French-ness. He justifies the war as a last stand of German tradition against this imperial, Jacobin Frenchness, and also as a morally improving event. Alex Ross did a good review in the New Yorker. In spite of its noxious ideology, lack of organization, and punishing length, it is still interesting as an experiment in the art of the essay.

[Panda · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probabilmente uno dei libri più centrali nella storia della rivoluzione conservatrice tedesca, eppure - come Mann stesso ammette - trattasi di qualcosa che va oltre il saggio, o che non arriva al saggio. La sensazione è più quella di una specie di flusso di pensieri, tutti collegati al fastidio che Mann provava per suo fratello. Le ripetizioni sono tante, troppe, e si ha costantemente la sensazione di essere sempre al punto iniziale della sua costruzione teorica. Molto utile come collezione di citazioni ed incredibilmente dotto.

[Esther Mateo]

Un libro difícil. He leído ciertos capítulos. Me ha resultado complicado de seguir.

[Jason Ernst]

This is just a note for my own reference. I was 82% finished when I had to return this book to the library. I did not finish and would now like to move it to a different shelf here...

[Moisés Lucano · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un Thomas Mann aún cautivado por el ideal alemán. Increíble que en la Segunda Guerra Mundial sería enemigo de lo que una vez defendió.

[Pardis TD · Rating 5 out of 5]

The artist and the writer have no business meddling with politics. Our job is to create and to preserve the true culture, the inner essence of life that remains untouched by political strife.

[Leonardo]

Recuerdo la honda impresión que me hizo ya en el último curso de instituto el escrito de Thomas Mann "Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen" (Consideraciones de un apolítico).

Verdad y Método II Cap.27

[Bill FromPA · Rating 2 out of 5]

For what cause and question at all will not immediately degenerate into a trial of strength for the parties? Which ones will not immediately stand in the falsifying, distorting light of politics, of party politics, that is? Politics as a source of perception through which all things are seen; the administration – skilled in the spirit of the ruling parliamentary majority of the time; the officer corps – politically demoralized; the justice department – politically poisoned; creative writing – tendentious theater and psychology on the basis of social comparison, carried to the point of tout-est-dit; and affairs, scandals, political-symbolic conflicts of the times, magnificent ones that elevate and inflame the burgher in alternating dances, a new one every year – this is the way we will have it, this is the way we will live every day. (253)

I need only look up from my table to delight my eyes with the vision of a moist glade, through whose half darkness the bright architecture of a temple glistens. From the sacrificial stone the flame blazes up whose smoke disappears in the branches. Flagstones embedded in the swampy-flowered earth lead to its smooth steps, and there sacerdotally covered figures kneel, solemnly humbling their humanity before the savior, while others, upright, in ceremonial bearing, stride from the direction of the temple to the service. Whoever would see an insult to human dignity in this picture by the Swiss artist that I have always valued and held dear, could certainly be called a philistine. (396-7)

Mann wrote, or perhaps I should say compiled, this book over the course of several years in the middle of WWI and doesn't seem to have gone back over it to revise or tighten its arguments. It starts out pretty incoherently, making distinctions, such as opposing culture to civilization, that aren't readily intuitive to the reader. Some of these get clarified to some extent in the course of the book, but any hope for growing coherence is eventually dashed as Mann adds qualifications that have the form of nuance but which actually further muddy any logic his argument might achieve.

At one point he makes the claim that the opposite of a politician, a "nonpolitical man", is an aesthete (though he later undoes this by claiming the politician as a kind of aesthete, a claim he fails completely to make convincing). Indeed, Mann's aesthetic opinions here are the only worthwhile elements in the book, especially his descriptions on the inferiority of "political" art and a lengthy appreciation of Pfitzner's opera Palestrina (pp. 337-353, end of Chapter 8). On the whole, though, these nuggets are swamped by his ill-considered and tendentiously supported political opinions, generally buttressed by questionable references to a trio of German thinkers: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Wagner. I can't say whether his citations of the first are solid, but he tends to discount much of Nietzsche's later thought as the work of a degenerating mind and, needless to say, citing the political opinions of Wagner in the hope of supporting an argument is pretty much the sign of a desperate, if not unmoored, thinker.