Zweig openly acknowledged his Orientalist account was subjective testimony rather than scholarship

Evidence

Zweig himself made few pretensions about the “objectivity” of his text. He admits at a critical point in his discussion, “[I]f anywhere, it should be said here that this book is not supported by specialized literature, not by reports, but rather merely by the present condition of life and of the spiritual gift of observing. It is as wrong or right as the configuration itself which life presents to the observer. Hence the gaps, hence the exaggerations: it is a testimony” (104). (One of the early reviewers, in a less charitable characterization, maintained that Zweig’s work amounted to projecting “myths of the present” (Mythen der Gegenwart).) — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 437

Categorization

• QUESTION: Zweig’s self-aware admission that his account is ‘as wrong or right as the configuration itself which life presents to the observer’ — worth comparing against Said’s argument that Orientalists claimed scientific objectivity. If Zweig openly disavows objectivity, does he still count as an Orientalist per Said’s framework?
• XREF: Directly engages Said’s core thesis about Orientalist claims to objectivity vs. the topos nature of the Orient — a point of tension against the theory.