Gal. 76-P. M. L. A.-1108-10-12-31E-p. 303-B-J-Schinnerer—U. A.—
Bordellprologe des Juden Schnitzler. typischer jüdischer Schiebereinfall,
sogar mit der Wohltätigkeit unsaubere Geschäfte zu versuchen und hungernden
Kindern Brosamen vom Tische der Geilheit zu offerieren .. das Schmierigste,
was auf dem Theater je dagewesen ist ... geilste Pornographie ... Es ist Pflicht
der Wiener Katholiken, die in ihrem Kampf gegen Schmutz und Schund wieder
einmal allein zu stehen scheinen, sich zu mächtigen Protestaktionen zusammen¬
zutun, die von den Behörden nicht überhört werden können.
Der Volkssturm (February 10, 1921) calls these dialogs Schandstück''
and "jüdische Schweinerei,' concluding:
Wer noch einen Funken sittlichen Empfindens in sich verspürt, für den gibt
es nur eines: Hinweg mit einer Regierung, die solches gestattet, um dann als
Lohn das Schandgeld für ein Kinderhilfswerk dankend in Empfang zu nehmen.
These and many similar denunciations were soon to bear fruit. On
February 7 about twenty young men entered the theatre during the
ninth scene, shouting Pfui,?“Schweinerei,' etc., and attempted to
break upthe performance. The audience, however, instead of sympathiz¬
ing with them, resented this intrusion. Half a dozen of the men were ar¬
rested and the performance was continued.s“
Im connection with the fourteenth general meeting ofthe“ Volksbund
der Katholiken Osterreichs,? a special meeting was held on Sunday,
February 13, 1921, in the new city hall, at which Professor Ignaz Sei¬
pel, deputy in the National Council, spoke against Reigen, calling it
“Schmutzstück aus der Feder eines jüdischen Autors. After this meet¬
ing a mob of several hundred people went to the Kammerspiele to pre¬
vent the performance, but the police succeeded in dispersing the crowd
who insulted all people trying to enter the theatre.3
The performance on February 16 began quietly before a sold-out
house. In the first scene there were sharp, penetrating odors, caused by
stink-bombs. In the fifth scene a mob of about six hundred, many of
them students, stormed the theatre. Ten policemen were unable to stop
the onrush. At this moment a stink-bomb of hydrogen sulphide was
thrown on the floor and then the tumult started. The mob entered,
swinging canes. From the boxes they hurled paper balls soaked in tar and
eggshells filled with tar, and even seats, into the auditorium and onto the
stage. A panic ensued with scenes that can hardly be described. Men
trying to defend their escorts were clubbed. Ladies were slapped in the
face and insulted. The stagehands hurried to the hydrants and turned
the hose on the invaders. Soon the stage and the dressing rooms were
flooded. The theatre locked as if it had been wrecked.##
On February 17 further performances were forbidden by the police
Laus Gründen der öffentlichen Ruhe und Ordnung.?°4° The Reichspost
(February 17, 1921) naturally hailed this success of its agitation and
spoke of the Akt der Selbsthilfe christlich junger Männer gegen das
öffentliche Argernis der Reigen-Aufführungen.'’ A news article in the
Wiener Stimmen (February 17, 1921) reporting these events was sub¬
titled" Ein Erfolg der Wiener christlichen Jugend.? The Deutsches
Volksblatt (February 19, 1921) states that the indignant masses of the
indigenous German population of Vienna proved “daß es Mittel gibt,
um den Volksvergiftern, trotzdem diese natürlich gerne unter sich sein
möchten, das Konzept zu verderben.' The political nature of this entire
affair is most clearly revealed by Der Volkssturm (March 3, 1921).
Stating that the German Christian people will not tolerate a resumption
of the performances, it adds:"Es handelt sich da um eine Ehren- und
Machtfrage des Christenvolkes. Die Wiedergestattung der Aufführungen
wäre ein casus belli in aller Form.?
Meanwhile reverberations of this affair had reached the Austrian
Parliament. On the grounds that Reigen gave public offence, the Federal
Minister of the Interior, Dr. Glanz, had requested the burgomaster to
prohibit the performance, but the latter refused to change his original
decision.* Thereupon the Federal Government forbade further perform¬
ances "aus Beweggründen der öffentlichen Ordnung,'’ basing its decision
on paragraph five of thetheatre regulations of theyear 1850. The burgo¬
master considered this unconstitutional and refused to take notice of it.
Bordellprologe des Juden Schnitzler. typischer jüdischer Schiebereinfall,
sogar mit der Wohltätigkeit unsaubere Geschäfte zu versuchen und hungernden
Kindern Brosamen vom Tische der Geilheit zu offerieren .. das Schmierigste,
was auf dem Theater je dagewesen ist ... geilste Pornographie ... Es ist Pflicht
der Wiener Katholiken, die in ihrem Kampf gegen Schmutz und Schund wieder
einmal allein zu stehen scheinen, sich zu mächtigen Protestaktionen zusammen¬
zutun, die von den Behörden nicht überhört werden können.
Der Volkssturm (February 10, 1921) calls these dialogs Schandstück''
and "jüdische Schweinerei,' concluding:
Wer noch einen Funken sittlichen Empfindens in sich verspürt, für den gibt
es nur eines: Hinweg mit einer Regierung, die solches gestattet, um dann als
Lohn das Schandgeld für ein Kinderhilfswerk dankend in Empfang zu nehmen.
These and many similar denunciations were soon to bear fruit. On
February 7 about twenty young men entered the theatre during the
ninth scene, shouting Pfui,?“Schweinerei,' etc., and attempted to
break upthe performance. The audience, however, instead of sympathiz¬
ing with them, resented this intrusion. Half a dozen of the men were ar¬
rested and the performance was continued.s“
Im connection with the fourteenth general meeting ofthe“ Volksbund
der Katholiken Osterreichs,? a special meeting was held on Sunday,
February 13, 1921, in the new city hall, at which Professor Ignaz Sei¬
pel, deputy in the National Council, spoke against Reigen, calling it
“Schmutzstück aus der Feder eines jüdischen Autors. After this meet¬
ing a mob of several hundred people went to the Kammerspiele to pre¬
vent the performance, but the police succeeded in dispersing the crowd
who insulted all people trying to enter the theatre.3
The performance on February 16 began quietly before a sold-out
house. In the first scene there were sharp, penetrating odors, caused by
stink-bombs. In the fifth scene a mob of about six hundred, many of
them students, stormed the theatre. Ten policemen were unable to stop
the onrush. At this moment a stink-bomb of hydrogen sulphide was
thrown on the floor and then the tumult started. The mob entered,
swinging canes. From the boxes they hurled paper balls soaked in tar and
eggshells filled with tar, and even seats, into the auditorium and onto the
stage. A panic ensued with scenes that can hardly be described. Men
trying to defend their escorts were clubbed. Ladies were slapped in the
face and insulted. The stagehands hurried to the hydrants and turned
the hose on the invaders. Soon the stage and the dressing rooms were
flooded. The theatre locked as if it had been wrecked.##
On February 17 further performances were forbidden by the police
Laus Gründen der öffentlichen Ruhe und Ordnung.?°4° The Reichspost
(February 17, 1921) naturally hailed this success of its agitation and
spoke of the Akt der Selbsthilfe christlich junger Männer gegen das
öffentliche Argernis der Reigen-Aufführungen.'’ A news article in the
Wiener Stimmen (February 17, 1921) reporting these events was sub¬
titled" Ein Erfolg der Wiener christlichen Jugend.? The Deutsches
Volksblatt (February 19, 1921) states that the indignant masses of the
indigenous German population of Vienna proved “daß es Mittel gibt,
um den Volksvergiftern, trotzdem diese natürlich gerne unter sich sein
möchten, das Konzept zu verderben.' The political nature of this entire
affair is most clearly revealed by Der Volkssturm (March 3, 1921).
Stating that the German Christian people will not tolerate a resumption
of the performances, it adds:"Es handelt sich da um eine Ehren- und
Machtfrage des Christenvolkes. Die Wiedergestattung der Aufführungen
wäre ein casus belli in aller Form.?
Meanwhile reverberations of this affair had reached the Austrian
Parliament. On the grounds that Reigen gave public offence, the Federal
Minister of the Interior, Dr. Glanz, had requested the burgomaster to
prohibit the performance, but the latter refused to change his original
decision.* Thereupon the Federal Government forbade further perform¬
ances "aus Beweggründen der öffentlichen Ordnung,'’ basing its decision
on paragraph five of thetheatre regulations of theyear 1850. The burgo¬
master considered this unconstitutional and refused to take notice of it.