23.
1,11
The statement that "a complet is not without honor save in
his own country “holds true in the reception of Arthur Schnitzler
in Berlin. There was an altogether different tone in the criti-
cisms of Schnitzler in Berlin than in Austria, especially in the
more unfavorable ones. The genial, easy-going Viennesse seem to
take pleasure in condemning the works of one of their active sons.
when possible, and in their condemnation often become very person
al.
In Berlin, even if a.critic.disapproved krongly of a work
of Schnitzler, he mentioned an attitude of respect for the author
in his review and never became personal.nenerary criticiem does
not warrant reflections on the personal character of the author.
This is what happened in Vienna. There were two diametrically
opposed groups oforities in theSustrian city, who, dependin¬
largely onBpolitical bias and party affiliations, as Dr. O.P.
Schinnerer has pointed out in a recent article. "The Suppression
of Schnitzler's Der grüne Kakadu", condemned or preised Schnitzier
in accordance with the police of their paper. (90) The unfavorable
press usually availed itself of the opportunity to carry on Auti-
Semitie propaganda. Of Der Grüne Kakadu in Vienna the Deutsches
Volksblatt (March 2, 1899) said: "Die erste Bühne der Stadt ist zu
einer Ablagerungsstätte der dramatischen arzeugnisse des dichtenden
Judentums geworden", thereby ce sting reflections on Schnitzler
personally. More insulting was the Wiener Witzblatt (March 5, 1899)
named are
90. The Germanic Review VI, 185, No.2, April 1931.
1,11
The statement that "a complet is not without honor save in
his own country “holds true in the reception of Arthur Schnitzler
in Berlin. There was an altogether different tone in the criti-
cisms of Schnitzler in Berlin than in Austria, especially in the
more unfavorable ones. The genial, easy-going Viennesse seem to
take pleasure in condemning the works of one of their active sons.
when possible, and in their condemnation often become very person
al.
In Berlin, even if a.critic.disapproved krongly of a work
of Schnitzler, he mentioned an attitude of respect for the author
in his review and never became personal.nenerary criticiem does
not warrant reflections on the personal character of the author.
This is what happened in Vienna. There were two diametrically
opposed groups oforities in theSustrian city, who, dependin¬
largely onBpolitical bias and party affiliations, as Dr. O.P.
Schinnerer has pointed out in a recent article. "The Suppression
of Schnitzler's Der grüne Kakadu", condemned or preised Schnitzier
in accordance with the police of their paper. (90) The unfavorable
press usually availed itself of the opportunity to carry on Auti-
Semitie propaganda. Of Der Grüne Kakadu in Vienna the Deutsches
Volksblatt (March 2, 1899) said: "Die erste Bühne der Stadt ist zu
einer Ablagerungsstätte der dramatischen arzeugnisse des dichtenden
Judentums geworden", thereby ce sting reflections on Schnitzler
personally. More insulting was the Wiener Witzblatt (March 5, 1899)
named are
90. The Germanic Review VI, 185, No.2, April 1931.