the
ace
nd
11. Reigen
box 19/1
Germang appeared in defense of:Reigen“ On
January 3, 1921, the very Court which had granted
the injunction ten days before, voided it; and de¬
clared that not only was the play free from obscen¬
ity, but that it was a moral work.
At this time there was ouly an oral decision. A
few months later another attempt was made to
suppress the play; and there was a trial lasting two
weeks.Reigen'’ was completely exonerated. The
following is a significant excerpt from the prelimi¬
nary opinion of the Court, delivered on November
12, 1921:
The present piece (i. e., Reigen’) deals, as
the Court has concluded from the testimony,
with moral notions. The author endeavors to
show how false and tawdry a life of pleasure
may become. According to the opinion of the
Court it was not the author’s intention, in com¬
posing his work, to arouse lewd feelings. He
has written out of a deep emotion and from his
soul. The content likewise, in our opinion, is
an ethical one. The writer desires to achieve
good throngh his work. This idea is so strik¬
ingly apparent to the normal, sensible man that
in the present case every non-essential portion
of the work that might possibly be regarded as
immoral is sübmerged.“
The case was exhaustively and conclusivelyy con¬
sidered on November 18, 1921 at the 6th Criminal
Term of the II Lundgerichts in Berlin, and the
Court in clearing the defendants delivered a lengthy
opinion praising the work. Salient passages faken
From the opinion follow:
The temporary restraining order was later, in
an oral decision, vacated bya judgment of the
6th Civil Term of the said court, under date of
January 6, 1921. This decision was expressly
annonneed with reference to the peryformance
and even characterized as a ’moral act’ thecir¬