e
November Sto November 18, 1021. The record of this trial is interesting
from several angles and is often amusing, but as it is available in book¬
form,¾ we must not dwell upon it at length. To ang one who reads this
testimony with an unprejudiced mind the verdict of acquittal is à fore¬
gone conclusion. The prosecution had a very slender case. Most of its
witnesses not only made vague and general statements, often contradict¬
ing themselves, but were obviously inspired by religious bias or national¬
istic and anti-Semitic propaganda. The defence, onthe other hand, had
summoned a notable array of experts, among them prominent literary
personages, such as Ludwig Fulda, Felix Holländer, Alfred Kerr, Arthur
Eloesser, Max Osborn; the university professors Gorg Witkowski and
Albert Köster; the dramatic critics Max Hochdorf, Herbert Thering; the
president and managing director of the Deutscher Bühnenverein Baron
von und zu Putlitz and Artur Wolff; and various others prominent in
theatrical affairs, among them Dr. Alfred Klaar, Dr. Carl Heine, and
Emil Lind. These expert witnesses were practically unanimous in their
unqualified defence of the production.
When the Kammerspiele of the Deutsches Volkstheater in Vienna
proposed to produce Reigen, the president of the police protested to
Burgomaster Reumann, but the latter, in his capacity as Governor ofthe
Province of Vienna, gave his official sanction under date of January 12,
1921, in view of the favorable report submitted to him by the Censorship
Advisory Board.' Schnitzier personally attended the rehearsals, and
took an active part in coaching the actors, reciting the lines to them and
indicating the exact modulation of the voice.“ A public dress-rehearsal
was given on Sunday morning, Januarv 30, 1921, at half-past ten osclock.
One half of the proceeds wereto be contributed to the Children’s Fund. 35
The theatre was almost empty, however, due to thefact that the Opern¬
redoute and the Böser Buben Ball had been given the preceding evening.
The actual première took place on February 1, 1921, and proceeded
smoothly despite the threats published in the Christian Socialist press.
There was scarcely a reviewer who raised his voice in support of the per¬
formance. Many critics approved of the book and spoke highly of the
artistic character of the production, but nevertheless deplored the public
presentation of these scenes.“ The clerical, anti-Semitic papers, how¬
ever, outdid each other in denouncing the play. A few quotations may
illustrate the tone and temper of these onslaughts. The Reichspost, the
organ of the Christian Socialist Party, incited its readers in numerous
articles to interfere with the performance. On February 1, 1921, the day
of the première, it issued the following warning:
Mit dem Reigen hat Schnitzler das Theater, das uns ein Haus edler Freuden sein
sollte, zu einem Freudenhause, zum Schauplatze von Vorgängen und Gesprächen
gemacht, wie sie sich schamloser in keiner Dirnenhöhle abwickeln können..
Schnaufende Dickwänste mit ihrem weiblichen Anhange, der den Namen der
deutschen Frau schändet, sollen sich jetzt dort allabendlich ihre im wüsten Sin¬
nentaumel erschlafften Nerven aufkitzeln lassen. Allein wir gedenken den Herr¬
schaften das Vergnügen bald zu verleiden.
The Neues Montagblatt (February 7, 1921) refers to Reigen as foilows:
2 For this and the following the writer is indebted to the introduction by Wolfgang
Heine in Der Kampf um den Reigen.
20 On March 13, 1930, Reigen had been declared immoral by Landgericht mi of Berlin.
21 The opinion is printed in the introduction of Der Kampf um den Reigen, pp. 6-8, and
also in the programs of the Kleines Schauspielhaus, Spielzeit 1920-1921, Heft 1, and Spiel¬
zeit 1921—-1922, Heft 2.
2 Cl. Der Kampf um den Reigen.
3 This board consisted of L. Tils, former Vice President of the Province of Lower Aus¬
tria, Dr. Karl Glossy, and Dr. Friedrich Engel, president ofthe Vienna Court of Commerce
and of the German-Austrian Association of Judges. The full text of the report was pub¬
lished in the Arbeiter-Zeitung, April 24, 1021.
3 Neues Wiener Journal, January 22 and 20, 1921.
35 As a result of severe criticism for deriving support from such a source, the Federal
Ministry of Social Welfare issued & statement to the effect that Dr. Joseph Resch, the
minister, had appealed to the theatre directors for aid in behalf of this fund. Director
Bernau of the Deutsches Volkstheater, in his capacity as chairman of the Association of¬
Theatre Directors, had agreed to donate one half of the proceeds of public dress-rehearsals
for this purpose. This was to apply to all such dress-rehearsals, It so chanced that the per¬
formance of Reigen was the first (Neue Freie Presse, February 17, 1021).
& Cf. for instance Montags-Zeitung. Januarx 31, 1921 and the Wiener Morgenseilung,
February 2, 1921.
November Sto November 18, 1021. The record of this trial is interesting
from several angles and is often amusing, but as it is available in book¬
form,¾ we must not dwell upon it at length. To ang one who reads this
testimony with an unprejudiced mind the verdict of acquittal is à fore¬
gone conclusion. The prosecution had a very slender case. Most of its
witnesses not only made vague and general statements, often contradict¬
ing themselves, but were obviously inspired by religious bias or national¬
istic and anti-Semitic propaganda. The defence, onthe other hand, had
summoned a notable array of experts, among them prominent literary
personages, such as Ludwig Fulda, Felix Holländer, Alfred Kerr, Arthur
Eloesser, Max Osborn; the university professors Gorg Witkowski and
Albert Köster; the dramatic critics Max Hochdorf, Herbert Thering; the
president and managing director of the Deutscher Bühnenverein Baron
von und zu Putlitz and Artur Wolff; and various others prominent in
theatrical affairs, among them Dr. Alfred Klaar, Dr. Carl Heine, and
Emil Lind. These expert witnesses were practically unanimous in their
unqualified defence of the production.
When the Kammerspiele of the Deutsches Volkstheater in Vienna
proposed to produce Reigen, the president of the police protested to
Burgomaster Reumann, but the latter, in his capacity as Governor ofthe
Province of Vienna, gave his official sanction under date of January 12,
1921, in view of the favorable report submitted to him by the Censorship
Advisory Board.' Schnitzier personally attended the rehearsals, and
took an active part in coaching the actors, reciting the lines to them and
indicating the exact modulation of the voice.“ A public dress-rehearsal
was given on Sunday morning, Januarv 30, 1921, at half-past ten osclock.
One half of the proceeds wereto be contributed to the Children’s Fund. 35
The theatre was almost empty, however, due to thefact that the Opern¬
redoute and the Böser Buben Ball had been given the preceding evening.
The actual première took place on February 1, 1921, and proceeded
smoothly despite the threats published in the Christian Socialist press.
There was scarcely a reviewer who raised his voice in support of the per¬
formance. Many critics approved of the book and spoke highly of the
artistic character of the production, but nevertheless deplored the public
presentation of these scenes.“ The clerical, anti-Semitic papers, how¬
ever, outdid each other in denouncing the play. A few quotations may
illustrate the tone and temper of these onslaughts. The Reichspost, the
organ of the Christian Socialist Party, incited its readers in numerous
articles to interfere with the performance. On February 1, 1921, the day
of the première, it issued the following warning:
Mit dem Reigen hat Schnitzler das Theater, das uns ein Haus edler Freuden sein
sollte, zu einem Freudenhause, zum Schauplatze von Vorgängen und Gesprächen
gemacht, wie sie sich schamloser in keiner Dirnenhöhle abwickeln können..
Schnaufende Dickwänste mit ihrem weiblichen Anhange, der den Namen der
deutschen Frau schändet, sollen sich jetzt dort allabendlich ihre im wüsten Sin¬
nentaumel erschlafften Nerven aufkitzeln lassen. Allein wir gedenken den Herr¬
schaften das Vergnügen bald zu verleiden.
The Neues Montagblatt (February 7, 1921) refers to Reigen as foilows:
2 For this and the following the writer is indebted to the introduction by Wolfgang
Heine in Der Kampf um den Reigen.
20 On March 13, 1930, Reigen had been declared immoral by Landgericht mi of Berlin.
21 The opinion is printed in the introduction of Der Kampf um den Reigen, pp. 6-8, and
also in the programs of the Kleines Schauspielhaus, Spielzeit 1920-1921, Heft 1, and Spiel¬
zeit 1921—-1922, Heft 2.
2 Cl. Der Kampf um den Reigen.
3 This board consisted of L. Tils, former Vice President of the Province of Lower Aus¬
tria, Dr. Karl Glossy, and Dr. Friedrich Engel, president ofthe Vienna Court of Commerce
and of the German-Austrian Association of Judges. The full text of the report was pub¬
lished in the Arbeiter-Zeitung, April 24, 1021.
3 Neues Wiener Journal, January 22 and 20, 1921.
35 As a result of severe criticism for deriving support from such a source, the Federal
Ministry of Social Welfare issued & statement to the effect that Dr. Joseph Resch, the
minister, had appealed to the theatre directors for aid in behalf of this fund. Director
Bernau of the Deutsches Volkstheater, in his capacity as chairman of the Association of¬
Theatre Directors, had agreed to donate one half of the proceeds of public dress-rehearsals
for this purpose. This was to apply to all such dress-rehearsals, It so chanced that the per¬
formance of Reigen was the first (Neue Freie Presse, February 17, 1021).
& Cf. for instance Montags-Zeitung. Januarx 31, 1921 and the Wiener Morgenseilung,
February 2, 1921.