erden sehennengenngenangenense enennencennne
Bube und eine dumme Dirne waren! Es ist wie wenn er ein Hundepaar vor einer
Aphroditestatue sich paaren licße!.. Die Aufführung war unkünstlerisch, kul¬
turfeindlich, vom Standpunkt jeder Sittlichkeit aus unsittlich ... Die Gedan¬
kenstriche sind bei diesen kleinen Sauspielen die Hauptsache: der Aktus ist der
Held dieser Akte.
This review was destined to have consequences more far-reaching than
was apparent at the moment. In the course of the summer several writ¬
ers for clerical papers took up the huc and cry against Reigen, notably a
Dr. Kausen in Die M'ahrheit and a Dr. Sigl in the Bayrisches Vuterland.
On October 20, 1903, Deputy Dr. Schädler violently attacked the Aka¬
demisch-Dramatischer Verein in the Bavarian. Diet. None of these men
had witnessedthe performance or even read the book. Dr. Kausen later
declared that his criticism was based on the article in the Allgemeine
Zeitung and Dr. Schädler also quoted this paper. Presently the Bavarian
Ministry of Education and Religion took a hand in the affair by request¬
ing the rector of the University of Munich to institute proceedings
against those students who had taken part in the performance. After due
deliberation the University Senate dissolved the society.?
Some papers found it strange that no action was taken until many
months after the performance. Although condemning the performance
of Reigen, the Berliner Neueste Nachrichten (December 1, 1903) pointed
out the questionable procedure of the university senate, deploring es¬
pecially the waning of academie freedom in that the university authori¬
ties allowed themselves to be influenced in their jurisdiction by minis¬
terial decrees. It considered this all the more reprehensible as the minis¬
try had acted, not on its own initiative, but as the result of clerical
agitation, a charge that was not refuted. In Vienna meanwhile Hermann
Bahr rallied to the defencc of Reigen by announcing a public reading of
the book in the Bösendorfer Saal for November 8, 1903, which was, how¬
ever, promptly forbidden by the police. Bahr at once appealed to the
Statthalterei. On November 4 he had a personal consultation with Prime
Minister Dr. v. Körber. Accroding to report,!“ Bahr’s remark that the
government might fear anti-Semitic demonstrations at the reading was
passed over in silence by the minister. Bahr also pointed out that
10,000 copies had already been sold without interference on the part of
the government. Among other things he submitted the following in.sup¬
port of his plea:
Es hat unserer Publizistik an dem Mut gefehlt, öffentlich für das Werk Schnitz¬
lers einzutreten. Gewiß, viele unserer Schriftsteller und Kritiker erkennen den
literarischen Wert der Dichtung Schnitzlers voll an, aber in keinem Blatte ist ein
Artikel für das Buch erschienen. So wurde das Werk eines Dichters totge¬
schwiegen, ja schlimmer als das, dem Unverstande und der Gehässigkeit
preisgegeben. Durch die Vorlesung will ich den Folgen dieser Unterlassung ent¬
gegentreten und will in den Hörern die Erkenntnis erwecken oder die Uberzeu¬
gung bekräftigen, daß es sich hier um ein literarisches Werk handelt, daß die
Form des Ganzen und die Idee, die ihm zu Grunde liegt, es zu einem Kunstwerke
machen, daß die heiklen Situationen, die in ihm vorkommen, nicht in den Dienst
frivoler Spielerei, sondern ernster Gedanken gestellt, und nicht um ihrer selbst
willen, sondern aus künstlerischen Gründen mit künstlerischer Notwendigkeit
behandelt sind.
The appeal, however, failed to change the government’s attitude. On
Friday, November 21, 1930 a reading of Reigen was given before the
Freitag-Vereinigung, a private literary society in Breslau, by Marcell
Salzer in the Riegner Saal“mit fabelhafter technischer Virtuosität und
feinster, aber keine Pointe verfehlender Diskretion.?!!
As an instance of the unpleasant consequences that followed in the
wake of Reigen Schnitzler relates that in March, 1904, the widow of a
tailor in Vienna called on him to inform him that her son had been ex¬
pelled from the Gymnasium because he had borrowed a copyof the book
from a schoolmate.
On March 16, 1904, the book was confiscated in Germany at the in¬
stigation of the prosecuting attorney's office in Berlin.? In September of
the same year Ludwig and Otto Cyriacus, the two partners of the firm
Karl Knobloch, wholesale bookdealers, were summoned before the
criminal court in Leipzig, charged with the sale of Reigen. They pleaded
not guilty and were acquitted, but the further sale of the book was for¬
bidden for all of Germany. Against this decree the owner of the Wiener
Verlag, Fritz Freund, appealed, unsuccessfully, tothe Supreme Courtat
Leipzig. This prohibition of Reigen was later extended, according to an
announcement of the prosecuting attorney's office in Leipzig, to include
the Polish translation published in Cracow under the title Taniec mi¬
losci i Zycia.!4
Bube und eine dumme Dirne waren! Es ist wie wenn er ein Hundepaar vor einer
Aphroditestatue sich paaren licße!.. Die Aufführung war unkünstlerisch, kul¬
turfeindlich, vom Standpunkt jeder Sittlichkeit aus unsittlich ... Die Gedan¬
kenstriche sind bei diesen kleinen Sauspielen die Hauptsache: der Aktus ist der
Held dieser Akte.
This review was destined to have consequences more far-reaching than
was apparent at the moment. In the course of the summer several writ¬
ers for clerical papers took up the huc and cry against Reigen, notably a
Dr. Kausen in Die M'ahrheit and a Dr. Sigl in the Bayrisches Vuterland.
On October 20, 1903, Deputy Dr. Schädler violently attacked the Aka¬
demisch-Dramatischer Verein in the Bavarian. Diet. None of these men
had witnessedthe performance or even read the book. Dr. Kausen later
declared that his criticism was based on the article in the Allgemeine
Zeitung and Dr. Schädler also quoted this paper. Presently the Bavarian
Ministry of Education and Religion took a hand in the affair by request¬
ing the rector of the University of Munich to institute proceedings
against those students who had taken part in the performance. After due
deliberation the University Senate dissolved the society.?
Some papers found it strange that no action was taken until many
months after the performance. Although condemning the performance
of Reigen, the Berliner Neueste Nachrichten (December 1, 1903) pointed
out the questionable procedure of the university senate, deploring es¬
pecially the waning of academie freedom in that the university authori¬
ties allowed themselves to be influenced in their jurisdiction by minis¬
terial decrees. It considered this all the more reprehensible as the minis¬
try had acted, not on its own initiative, but as the result of clerical
agitation, a charge that was not refuted. In Vienna meanwhile Hermann
Bahr rallied to the defencc of Reigen by announcing a public reading of
the book in the Bösendorfer Saal for November 8, 1903, which was, how¬
ever, promptly forbidden by the police. Bahr at once appealed to the
Statthalterei. On November 4 he had a personal consultation with Prime
Minister Dr. v. Körber. Accroding to report,!“ Bahr’s remark that the
government might fear anti-Semitic demonstrations at the reading was
passed over in silence by the minister. Bahr also pointed out that
10,000 copies had already been sold without interference on the part of
the government. Among other things he submitted the following in.sup¬
port of his plea:
Es hat unserer Publizistik an dem Mut gefehlt, öffentlich für das Werk Schnitz¬
lers einzutreten. Gewiß, viele unserer Schriftsteller und Kritiker erkennen den
literarischen Wert der Dichtung Schnitzlers voll an, aber in keinem Blatte ist ein
Artikel für das Buch erschienen. So wurde das Werk eines Dichters totge¬
schwiegen, ja schlimmer als das, dem Unverstande und der Gehässigkeit
preisgegeben. Durch die Vorlesung will ich den Folgen dieser Unterlassung ent¬
gegentreten und will in den Hörern die Erkenntnis erwecken oder die Uberzeu¬
gung bekräftigen, daß es sich hier um ein literarisches Werk handelt, daß die
Form des Ganzen und die Idee, die ihm zu Grunde liegt, es zu einem Kunstwerke
machen, daß die heiklen Situationen, die in ihm vorkommen, nicht in den Dienst
frivoler Spielerei, sondern ernster Gedanken gestellt, und nicht um ihrer selbst
willen, sondern aus künstlerischen Gründen mit künstlerischer Notwendigkeit
behandelt sind.
The appeal, however, failed to change the government’s attitude. On
Friday, November 21, 1930 a reading of Reigen was given before the
Freitag-Vereinigung, a private literary society in Breslau, by Marcell
Salzer in the Riegner Saal“mit fabelhafter technischer Virtuosität und
feinster, aber keine Pointe verfehlender Diskretion.?!!
As an instance of the unpleasant consequences that followed in the
wake of Reigen Schnitzler relates that in March, 1904, the widow of a
tailor in Vienna called on him to inform him that her son had been ex¬
pelled from the Gymnasium because he had borrowed a copyof the book
from a schoolmate.
On March 16, 1904, the book was confiscated in Germany at the in¬
stigation of the prosecuting attorney's office in Berlin.? In September of
the same year Ludwig and Otto Cyriacus, the two partners of the firm
Karl Knobloch, wholesale bookdealers, were summoned before the
criminal court in Leipzig, charged with the sale of Reigen. They pleaded
not guilty and were acquitted, but the further sale of the book was for¬
bidden for all of Germany. Against this decree the owner of the Wiener
Verlag, Fritz Freund, appealed, unsuccessfully, tothe Supreme Courtat
Leipzig. This prohibition of Reigen was later extended, according to an
announcement of the prosecuting attorney's office in Leipzig, to include
the Polish translation published in Cracow under the title Taniec mi¬
losci i Zycia.!4