The loneliness of the brave, the gregariousness of the fearful

It may seem that the fight for respect for freedom of thought and expression is more necessary than ever. And yet, in retrospect, it has always been necessary, and it is a struggle that has no end. I say this after reading Castellio vs. Calvin. Awareness against violence, by Stefan Zweig. Beyond the literary style and the extraordinary documentation, I was impressed by the burning relevance of this work.. Published in 1936, it has been opportunely edited this year in Catalan by La Segunda Periferia with a very readable translation by Marc Jiménez Buzzi.

Castellio vs. Calvin It deals with authoritarian governments, with dictatorships that crush personal rights and freedoms, and above all, with the individuals who confront them, risking their lives. It's also about how people see their will annulled in the face of despotic rulers. It sounds familiar, right? And it does so by telling the story of a man who alone resists an authoritarian state and tirelessly fights for freedom of conscience and expression. Zweig explains the struggle of Sebastià Castellio, a professor of theology in Basel, against the reformer Joan Calví, the creator of a reign of terror in Geneva who, to preserve it, had Michel Servetus burned at the stake.

Zweig's work was probably already conditioned by its own current situation, that of the regime of violence that was ravaging Germany. But now it's impossible not to read Castellio vs. Calvin Without even thinking about the governing styles of the new extreme right and those predicted by those who aspire to it. And yet, it also reminds us of all kinds of political and intellectual authoritarianism, including those from the left—albeit half-masked—with their intolerance, censorship, and prohibitions. Let's not forget that Calvin himself had initially been a radical critic of the authority of the Catholic Church, but that he ended up creating an even more authoritarian regime. A true classic of politics.

One of the many forms of current ideological and political arrogance that Zweig is reminded of is the settling of scores with the past by imposing anachronistic moral categories that would have been incomprehensible in his time. These biased settling of scores, which, invoking the reparation of intergenerational guilt, rather than remedying bad pasts, serve present ideological interests. He has referred to the French philosophy professor Renaud-Philippe Garner in an article in the magazine Marianne Following the latest diplomatic tensions between France and Algeria, Garner states: "If the French must pay for the crimes of their ancestors, this also applies to the Algerians who practiced slavery." Yes: reparation for the guilt of the past, if it makes sense, should not only be demanding of one party, but also of the role of the other parties.

Reading of Castellio vs. Calvin This can be done in many directions. In addition to the one that emphasizes Sebastià Castellio's courage, the one that has interested me most is the one that denounces the popular complicity achieved by authoritarian and dictatorial leaders. For, as Zweig says, "State terror, systematically conceived and despotically exercised, paralyzes the individual's will and dissolves and undermines every community." Indeed, the question we now ask ourselves is how despots like Trump, Milei, Meloni, Putin, Netanyahu... have enough popular support to govern. And, as Zweig also observes, even when the supporters of dictatorships are outnumbered, their will remains uniformly united; however, the opposing will always appears divided and incapable of forming a real alternative force. A finding impossible not to associate with the current division of the independence movement in the face of the minority but consistent attempt to subordinate us, even further, to Spain.

Now and here, it is true, heretics are not burned at the stake, but they are on the networks. There are no courts of the Holy Inquisition, but there are those of the Holy Fatherland. There is a supposed rule of law, but the presumption of innocence is not respected. Freedom of expression exists, as long as it is not suspected of a hate crime or condemned to ostracism. There are a few brave people at risk of going to court, and many fearful people who find comfort and shelter in the security of a protective submission.

Zweig, based on a historical case from five centuries ago, also dissects our world today, with its authoritarianism and dictatorial temptations, with our silences and cowardice, with the loneliness of the brave and the gregariousness of the fearful. How he portrays us!