Gal 75—7 MLA–1108—p 297—9-11-31E.—B-0A—
—EW
The première was announced for December 23, 1020, in the Kleines
Schauspielhaus. This theatre had been opened in the fall of 1918 by Max
Reinhardt who had leased it from the Hochschule für Musik.? Afterthe
completion of the Großes Schauspielhaus Reinhardt withdrew and was
succeeded first by Dr. Altmann and later by Gertrud Eysoldt and Maxi¬
milian Sladek. The Hochschule für Musik, and consequently also this
theatre, were under the jurisdiction of the Prussian Ministry of Art,
Science, and Education. At about this time the Social Democratie
ministry desiredtoterminate its contract with the lessees of this theatre
because of its plan to provide high-grade theatrical entertainment forthe
populace at nominal rates. Although no objection had been raised tothe
productions of Wedekind's Die Büchse der Pandora and Frühlings Er¬
wachen in this theatre under Reinhardt’s direction, the ministry now fell
back on a clause in the contract, contained in all such agreements, which
forbade performances of plays “welche in politischer, religiöser oder
sittlicher Beziehung Anstoß erregen.? A few hours before the première
the Hochschule für Musik obtained an injunction against the perform¬
ance under threat of imprisonment, on the ground that the book had
repeatedly been declared immoral.s° The directors, however, ignored
this, resolved to make an issue of it. The première took place without
any untoward incidents, and the majority of papers, with the exception
of the Tägliche Rundschau and a few others of the extreme right, spoke
very highly of the artistic and discreet staging of these dialogs. On Janu¬
ary 3, 1921, the injunction was voided by the same court (6. Zivilkam¬
mer des Landgerichts in) that had isse#ed it, after the directors had been
given a hearing and after the members ofthe court had witnessed a per¬
formance. In a carefully considered opinion the court not merely upheld
every claim of the defendants, but even calledthe performance“a moral
deed'’ and concluded:"Es kann für die Aufhaltung des sittlichen Ver¬
falles nur förderlich sein, diese Dinge so zurückhaltend und sachlich und
zugleich so deutlich und rücksichtslos aufzudecken und zur Erörterung
zu stellen, wie es hier geschieht. )'3
Although the findings of the court were widely published in the papers,
the prosecuting attorney's oflice of Landgericht mi almost immediately
began an investigation of its own as tothe propriety of the performance.
On February 4, 1921, Professor Karl Brunner, Regierungsrat in the
Prussian Ministry of Social Welfare and attached to the Zentral¬
polizeistelle zur Bekämpfung unzüchtiger Schriften'' as expert adviser,
submitted a report in which he denounced the performance in no uncer¬
tain terms and advised rigorous action. Professor Brunner also attended
a meeting of the female contingent ofthe Reichstag, called with the
intention of presenting an interpellation at the next session of the
Reichstag. A protest was drafted with his active assistance which was
later submitted to numerous societies in Ber in and the provinces and
signed by a host of people who had neither seen the performance nor read
the book. In this manner pressure was exerted on the prosecuting at¬
torney. On the basis of Professor Brunner’s report proceedings were in¬
stituted against the directors and actors involved.
During all this time no attempt had been made, outside of legal chan¬
nels, to interfere with the performance. On February 22, 1921, however,
an organized and prearranged demonstration on the part of nationalistic
and anti-Semitic elements took place in the fourth scene, amounting
almost to a riot. At a certain passage various members of the audience
began to shout“Schweinerei,'“ etc. This was the signal for the release of
stink-bombs, and a considerable uproar ensued. The directors as well as
the police had been forewarned and had taken precautionary measurcs.
Several dozen men and women were arrested and transported to the
police station, whereupon the performance was continued.
In view of the court'’s decision cited above the prosecuting attorney
foresaw difficulties in making out a case. Upon his motion the court (6.
Strafkammer of Landgericht in) on June 11 decided to drop the charge
against the defen lants since having ested in good faith, it was impos¬
—EW
The première was announced for December 23, 1020, in the Kleines
Schauspielhaus. This theatre had been opened in the fall of 1918 by Max
Reinhardt who had leased it from the Hochschule für Musik.? Afterthe
completion of the Großes Schauspielhaus Reinhardt withdrew and was
succeeded first by Dr. Altmann and later by Gertrud Eysoldt and Maxi¬
milian Sladek. The Hochschule für Musik, and consequently also this
theatre, were under the jurisdiction of the Prussian Ministry of Art,
Science, and Education. At about this time the Social Democratie
ministry desiredtoterminate its contract with the lessees of this theatre
because of its plan to provide high-grade theatrical entertainment forthe
populace at nominal rates. Although no objection had been raised tothe
productions of Wedekind's Die Büchse der Pandora and Frühlings Er¬
wachen in this theatre under Reinhardt’s direction, the ministry now fell
back on a clause in the contract, contained in all such agreements, which
forbade performances of plays “welche in politischer, religiöser oder
sittlicher Beziehung Anstoß erregen.? A few hours before the première
the Hochschule für Musik obtained an injunction against the perform¬
ance under threat of imprisonment, on the ground that the book had
repeatedly been declared immoral.s° The directors, however, ignored
this, resolved to make an issue of it. The première took place without
any untoward incidents, and the majority of papers, with the exception
of the Tägliche Rundschau and a few others of the extreme right, spoke
very highly of the artistic and discreet staging of these dialogs. On Janu¬
ary 3, 1921, the injunction was voided by the same court (6. Zivilkam¬
mer des Landgerichts in) that had isse#ed it, after the directors had been
given a hearing and after the members ofthe court had witnessed a per¬
formance. In a carefully considered opinion the court not merely upheld
every claim of the defendants, but even calledthe performance“a moral
deed'’ and concluded:"Es kann für die Aufhaltung des sittlichen Ver¬
falles nur förderlich sein, diese Dinge so zurückhaltend und sachlich und
zugleich so deutlich und rücksichtslos aufzudecken und zur Erörterung
zu stellen, wie es hier geschieht. )'3
Although the findings of the court were widely published in the papers,
the prosecuting attorney's oflice of Landgericht mi almost immediately
began an investigation of its own as tothe propriety of the performance.
On February 4, 1921, Professor Karl Brunner, Regierungsrat in the
Prussian Ministry of Social Welfare and attached to the Zentral¬
polizeistelle zur Bekämpfung unzüchtiger Schriften'' as expert adviser,
submitted a report in which he denounced the performance in no uncer¬
tain terms and advised rigorous action. Professor Brunner also attended
a meeting of the female contingent ofthe Reichstag, called with the
intention of presenting an interpellation at the next session of the
Reichstag. A protest was drafted with his active assistance which was
later submitted to numerous societies in Ber in and the provinces and
signed by a host of people who had neither seen the performance nor read
the book. In this manner pressure was exerted on the prosecuting at¬
torney. On the basis of Professor Brunner’s report proceedings were in¬
stituted against the directors and actors involved.
During all this time no attempt had been made, outside of legal chan¬
nels, to interfere with the performance. On February 22, 1921, however,
an organized and prearranged demonstration on the part of nationalistic
and anti-Semitic elements took place in the fourth scene, amounting
almost to a riot. At a certain passage various members of the audience
began to shout“Schweinerei,'“ etc. This was the signal for the release of
stink-bombs, and a considerable uproar ensued. The directors as well as
the police had been forewarned and had taken precautionary measurcs.
Several dozen men and women were arrested and transported to the
police station, whereupon the performance was continued.
In view of the court'’s decision cited above the prosecuting attorney
foresaw difficulties in making out a case. Upon his motion the court (6.
Strafkammer of Landgericht in) on June 11 decided to drop the charge
against the defen lants since having ested in good faith, it was impos¬