article entitled "Ödipus und der Ruf des Lebens".(9) wrote in
part: Schnitsler ist noch immer nicht sehr bekannt. Irgendwo
draussen in Europa trifft man aber zuweilen einen Mann, der
etwas von Schnitzler gelesen hat, oder mal auf der Bühne sah." (9)
The fact that it was, in general, the "intellectuals" who
interested themselves in Schnitzler is the reason why journals
like Das Literarische Scho and Die Neue Deutsche Rundschau pub-
lished more articles on Schnitzler than [a] more populer imagine
like Vestermanns Illustrierte Monatshefte. In the files of Die
Gartenlaube, a popular family journal, from 1895-1914, Schnitzler
is not mentioned once. This also appears to l'orroborate what
has been stated.
G. A.P.
Richard Specht says in the opening pages of his study of
Schnitzler that the significance of Schnitzler lies in the fact
that he has been able to lncover the most secret Hnotions, of
which one previously was unconscious, with such a gentle touch,
as scarcely anyone has done before. (10) manyorities find in this
"baring of the soul" cause for denouneing Schnitzler, as will be
pointed out later.
In order to judge criticism fairly one must determine
basis for criticism. Since criticism is often a subjective matter
one might almost say that there are as many based for Ifticism
as there are orities. Specht gives what seems to me a sound
9. Die Jeue Rundschau, XVII, 498, May 1906.
10. Arthur Schnitzler. Der Dichter und sein Werk. Eine Studie.
Berlin, 1922 (S. Fischer Verlag). 7-8.