S
box 31/5
25 PBernhandr
BXTRAOT FROM
JEWISH CHRONICLE,
2, Finsbury Square, E.C.2.
7 9 Mik 1936
Da
1
THE JEWISH
Theatre
Professor Bernhardi at the Embassy
Fine Production of a Great Play
DRAMATIC EXAMINATION OF JEW-HATRED
The Embassy Theatre is to be congratulated upon presenting to
London the most intellectually gripping and stinulating drama to be
seen on the Metropolitan stage to-day. The fact that Schnitzler’s
* Professor Bernhardi’ was written some forty years ago and that it is
as topical and applicable almost in all respects as it was when first
conceived, results partly from its being a play which deals with
essentials in human nature, and partly because it deals with that
invariable symptom of inflamed and morbid Nationalism—anti¬
Semitism.
The story is perfectly suited fo development towards dramatie
intensitv, starting as it does from a small ineident whien the Professor,
head of a hospital, refuses to allow a priest to visit a dying patient to
adninister the last sacrament. His reason was that the patient, having
reached that state of feeling perfectly well, which sometimes forms the
immedliate prelude to death, was enjoving a short period of intense happi¬
ness, which would have been spoilt by the appearance of a priest suggest¬
ing that her end was inevitable. Thie Professor thus refused to allow his
patient'’s last hours to be made unhappy. This ineident is seized upon by
the mang who hate the Professor by reason of jealousy, or because of some
pettr grudge, or merely because he is a Jew, to beat up a first-rate
political scandal. From this small ineident, the story broadens out as
inore and more branches of human rascality seize upon it, flagrantly
prostituting the religion they pretend to be protecting, and accusing the
Professor of an anti-Christian action. He is betrayed by a former friend,
who has wormed his way high up in polites into being Minister of Culture,
und eventually is proseested, convicted and sentenced to two monthe'
Inprisonment.
Not the least interest in the play is the excellent balance whlich the
author maintains between the Professor, the protagonist for truth, merey
and reason, and his intelligent opponent, the priest, who is quite naturally
convineed that the Professor’s action was wrong, since, according to his
belief, the patient was given a few minutes’ happiness at the expense of a
greut tüne of discomfort in the regions of the soul after deatn. Here
is the very finest kind of controversy, between two sincere opponents,
both, granted their preinises, reasonable in their arguments.
But this is not the real message of the play, which is an opportunity
for frong and stinging commentary on certain detestable traits in human
nature. Schnitzler’s purpose is to reveal the mean and contemptible
rassalitg which is called forth by an incident such as the controversy
between Berhardi and the priest among the canaille of all classes; the
swindling politiclan who“ gasses abeut ultimate and greater good while
all the tine he is feathering his own nest and purely interested in his own
selfish aims, pursuing them with a complete disregard for truthifulness,
honour and faith; the vicious and eswardlly assistant director of the
hospital, whose green envy surges up into gloating persecution of his
jealousle-hated superior, perseeution tricked out in all the fatuous
hypoerisy of the Germnan Jew-huter; thie crawling treachery of the Jew
deserter who wants to show himself more of an anti-Semite than his most
degraded non-Jewish Jew-hater; the franklg opportunist goverminent
careerist who, least objectionable of them all, openly admits that ouly a
fool tells the truth when a lie is popular—these are the meat and bones of
the play. It is no case of a struggle between the Jewish doctor’s
rationalism and the priest’s Christian faith, as might superficially appear.
It is the fight between all that is comprised by the phirase-ethical decency.
and all that should be included in the concept of thie fonl liend.
Polities in this play, as is so often the case on the Continent, and
not seldom the case in this countrv, is thie synonym for all that is
mnean, treacherous, unserupulous and selfish. It is interesting to recall
the words of an authoritative writer on that subtle English political
attunde knetn as Torrismn. In reviewing that attitude in its highest
aspects, he said that it might be regarded, in one respect, 'as a perpetunl
warning that the State, no less than the individual, does well to fear.
lest it do evil that good may come.*' Bernhurdi had te unssersn
take up this Tor
nn en
box 31/5
25 PBernhandr
BXTRAOT FROM
JEWISH CHRONICLE,
2, Finsbury Square, E.C.2.
7 9 Mik 1936
Da
1
THE JEWISH
Theatre
Professor Bernhardi at the Embassy
Fine Production of a Great Play
DRAMATIC EXAMINATION OF JEW-HATRED
The Embassy Theatre is to be congratulated upon presenting to
London the most intellectually gripping and stinulating drama to be
seen on the Metropolitan stage to-day. The fact that Schnitzler’s
* Professor Bernhardi’ was written some forty years ago and that it is
as topical and applicable almost in all respects as it was when first
conceived, results partly from its being a play which deals with
essentials in human nature, and partly because it deals with that
invariable symptom of inflamed and morbid Nationalism—anti¬
Semitism.
The story is perfectly suited fo development towards dramatie
intensitv, starting as it does from a small ineident whien the Professor,
head of a hospital, refuses to allow a priest to visit a dying patient to
adninister the last sacrament. His reason was that the patient, having
reached that state of feeling perfectly well, which sometimes forms the
immedliate prelude to death, was enjoving a short period of intense happi¬
ness, which would have been spoilt by the appearance of a priest suggest¬
ing that her end was inevitable. Thie Professor thus refused to allow his
patient'’s last hours to be made unhappy. This ineident is seized upon by
the mang who hate the Professor by reason of jealousy, or because of some
pettr grudge, or merely because he is a Jew, to beat up a first-rate
political scandal. From this small ineident, the story broadens out as
inore and more branches of human rascality seize upon it, flagrantly
prostituting the religion they pretend to be protecting, and accusing the
Professor of an anti-Christian action. He is betrayed by a former friend,
who has wormed his way high up in polites into being Minister of Culture,
und eventually is proseested, convicted and sentenced to two monthe'
Inprisonment.
Not the least interest in the play is the excellent balance whlich the
author maintains between the Professor, the protagonist for truth, merey
and reason, and his intelligent opponent, the priest, who is quite naturally
convineed that the Professor’s action was wrong, since, according to his
belief, the patient was given a few minutes’ happiness at the expense of a
greut tüne of discomfort in the regions of the soul after deatn. Here
is the very finest kind of controversy, between two sincere opponents,
both, granted their preinises, reasonable in their arguments.
But this is not the real message of the play, which is an opportunity
for frong and stinging commentary on certain detestable traits in human
nature. Schnitzler’s purpose is to reveal the mean and contemptible
rassalitg which is called forth by an incident such as the controversy
between Berhardi and the priest among the canaille of all classes; the
swindling politiclan who“ gasses abeut ultimate and greater good while
all the tine he is feathering his own nest and purely interested in his own
selfish aims, pursuing them with a complete disregard for truthifulness,
honour and faith; the vicious and eswardlly assistant director of the
hospital, whose green envy surges up into gloating persecution of his
jealousle-hated superior, perseeution tricked out in all the fatuous
hypoerisy of the Germnan Jew-huter; thie crawling treachery of the Jew
deserter who wants to show himself more of an anti-Semite than his most
degraded non-Jewish Jew-hater; the franklg opportunist goverminent
careerist who, least objectionable of them all, openly admits that ouly a
fool tells the truth when a lie is popular—these are the meat and bones of
the play. It is no case of a struggle between the Jewish doctor’s
rationalism and the priest’s Christian faith, as might superficially appear.
It is the fight between all that is comprised by the phirase-ethical decency.
and all that should be included in the concept of thie fonl liend.
Polities in this play, as is so often the case on the Continent, and
not seldom the case in this countrv, is thie synonym for all that is
mnean, treacherous, unserupulous and selfish. It is interesting to recall
the words of an authoritative writer on that subtle English political
attunde knetn as Torrismn. In reviewing that attitude in its highest
aspects, he said that it might be regarded, in one respect, 'as a perpetunl
warning that the State, no less than the individual, does well to fear.
lest it do evil that good may come.*' Bernhurdi had te unssersn
take up this Tor
nn en