¾
Gal. 78—P. M. L. A.-1108—10-12-31E-p. 319-B-J-Schinnerer—U. A.
Although the theme of the book is admittedly the quite universal literary
theme of men and women, the author here deals with it in a cold and analytical,
one might even say scientißie, manner that precludes any salacious interpretation.
A careful scrutiny ofthe text reveals not a single line, not a single word, that
might be regarded as obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent, or disgusting
within the meaning ofthe statute.5
On December 9, 1920, however, Philip Pesky, who had also been ar¬
rested on the complaint of Mr. Sumner, was convicted in the Court of
Special Sessions by Justices Frederic Kernochan, William A. Walling,
and Max Solomon, who held that the book was “obscene and indecent,
being a lurid story of ten incidents of illicit love relations. '55 On Janu¬
ary 17, 1930, ihe defandant was arraigned for judgment and the court
suspended sentence. On June 23, 1930, this conviction was affirmed by
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New Vork with twoofthe
five judges dissenting.
Reigen is in a way the counterpart of Anatol. Whereas Anatol’s love
affairs are treated in a light and playful mood, portrayed with a certain
benign tolerance of his foibles, and surrounded with a kind of romantic
halo, the Reigen scenes are a ruthless unmasking of the animal instincts
in man, which often parade under the guise of friendship and love. The¬
former work, considerably overrated, has spread Schnitzler’s fame
throughout the civilized world. Reigen, on every count superior to Anatol,
both as a work of art and in its unerring observation and its almost un¬
canny dissection of human motives, has become one of the most notori¬
ous and maligned works in a generation. Although it was written solely
in obedience to the inner urge of a creative artist who felt impelled to
cometo a reckoning, harsh and cruel though it be, with the philandering
promiscuity he saw everywhere about him, Schnitzler nevertheless
realized full well that because of the powerful sexual and social taboos
of the time publication could produce only a gross misinterpretation of
his intentions. Three years elapsed after the composition of these scenes
before he even ventured to have a small manuscript edition printed for
his friends, and another three years before it became available to the
public in book form. The latter event caused consternation even among
many of his friends. To be sure, such outstanding men as Felix Salten,
Hermann Bahr, and M. G. Conrad rallied to his defence, but the great
majority of reviewers denounced the work in no uncertain terms. In
Austria the book itself was never molested, but in Germany it was al¬
most at once forbidden and confiscated.
Despite repeated requests Schnitzler firmly and consistently refused
his authorization for public production until 1920. The few isolated
attempts to stage these scenes were made against his wishes or even
without his knowledge. Only after Max Reinhardt assured the author
that he would devote all his energies to the creation of an unobjection¬
able and highly artistic production did Schnitzler reluctantly yield to
his persuasion. We have attempted to trace the subsequent history of
Reigen on the stage and the dire consequences that followed in its wake,
especially in the cities of Berlin, Vienna, and Munich.
To the impartial observer these violent attacks upon Reigen havea
very sinister aspect. Rarely, if ever, was objection raised to the work for
alleged artistic shortcomings, the only sound criterion to apply to a work
of art. Rarely did the agitation proceed from genuine moral indignation
or disinterested motives. Morally sensitive peopie do not as a rule de¬
liberately seek out opportunities to be shocked, nor do they resort to
mob violence. Furthermore, some of the worst offenders had neither
seen the book or read the play. From the tone and temper of the journal¬
istic onslaughts as well as from the very nature of the theatre scandals
and riots, it is obvious that the vast majority of protestants were ani¬
mated by political motives based on religious, nationalistic, or anti¬
Semitic bias.
Orro P. SCHINNERER
Columbia University
*4 Cf. The Publishers' Weckly, December 14, 1929, p. 2758.
55 Ibid., p. 2759. Cf. also The World, December 10, 1929, p. 11.