Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Even a cursory examination of the two stout volumes of H. H. Houben's Verbotene Literatur von der klassischen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart vividly brings home to the reader the significant rôle that censorship has played in the history of German literature during the past one hundred and fifty years. Here we find represented not only the authors of Young Germany, Heine, Gutzkow, Laube, Wienbarg, Mundt, and modern writers, such as Dehmel, Hauptmann, Schönherr, Sudermann, but even relatively harmless poets like Bettina von Arnim, Grillparzer, Hebbel, Heyse. Despite the fact that Schnitzler is listed in the announcement at the end of the first volume as among those to be treated in the second volume, he is nevertheless conspicuously absent, while such lesser lights as Bahr, Dreyer, Fulda, Hartleben are included. Houben himself has recognized the Austrian poet's title to a place of honor in this literary rogues' gallery. In discussing Maria von Magdala by Heyse, who drew a sharp line between his poetic muse and the sensationalism and unbridled freedom of the modern dramatists, Houben points out that in one respect Heyse has far outdone the younger generation, “durch einen solennen Zensurskandal, der anderthalb Jahre die Öffentlichkeit in Atem hielt und in seiner kulturhistorischen Bedeutung höchstens durch den Kampf um Schnitzlers Reigen übertroffen wurde.”
1 Ein kritisch-historisches Lexikon über verbotene Bücher, Zeitschriften und Theaterstücke, Schriftsteller und Verleger. i, Berlin, 1924; ii, Bremen, 1928.
2 Ibid., i, 430.
3 Cf. Der Kampf um den Reigen. Vollständiger Bericht über die sechstägige Verhandlung gegen Direktion und Darsteller des Kleinen Schauspielhauses Berlin. Herausgegeben und mit einer Einleitung versehen von Wolfgang Heine, Berlin, 1922, p. 213.
4 Ibid., p. 214.
5 Cf. also the testimony of the various experts in Der Kampf um den Reigen.
6 One of these was by Philipp Frey, Die Wage, April 18, 1903; another appeared in the somewhat obscure Floridsdorfer Zeitung, May 23, 1903. The Paris Journal des Débats, May 24, 1903, also spoke of Reigen in the highest terms.
7 Neue Bahnen, 1903, Nr. 11. pp. 288 f.
8 Cf. Schnitzler's letter to Giampietro of September 13, 1912, embodied in an article by Max Epstein, Berliner Zeitung am Mittag, February 21, 1921 and reprinted in Der Kampf um den Reigen, pp. 26 f.
9 The complete “Disziplinarbeschlusz” was published in the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, December 5, 1903.
10 Cf. Berliner Zeitung, November 8, 1903.
11 Breslauer Morgen-Zeitung, November 22, 1903.
12 Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, March 18, 1904.
13 Die Zeit (Wien), October 1, 1904.
14 Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, February 5, 1905. In 1904 the book was also translated into Hungarian by Bródy Sándor under the title Körbe-körbe and published in Budapest.
15 Vossische Zeitung, November 23, 1905.
16 Cf. Schnitzler's letter to Giampietro, cited above.
17 Neues Wiener Journal, August 25, 1917.
18 Berliner Zeitung am Mittag, November 24, 1917.
19 Cf. “Berichtigung. Ein paar Worte zum Gutachten Maximilian Hardens über den Reigen.” Von Artur Schnitzler, Neues Wiener Journal, January 30, 1921.
20 The Wiener Mittags-Zeitung, November 25, 1920, reports that Director Bernau, Josef Jarno, and Dr. Geyer had sought the rights to Reigen.
21 Cf. “Berichtigung,” loc. cit.
22 Cf. also Der Kampf um den Reigen, p. 253.
23 Cf. also Felix Hollander's testimony in Der Kampf um den Reigen, pp. 199 ff.
24 “Berichtigung,” loc. cit.
25 Cf. Der Kampf um den Reigen, p. 25 f.
26 Ibid., p. 32.
27 In the fourth scene, for example, where the woman says: “ Rasch, Alfred, gib mir meine Strümpfe,” the last word was replaced by “Schuhe.” In the same scene the passage where the young man takes off his vest and therefore does not have his watch at hand, was eliminated (ibid., p. 31). Even after the dress-rehearsal Ludwig Fulda suggested toning down certain other passages in this scene. This advice was followed and these passages later omitted (ibid., p. 202 f.). Cf. also the summary of changes in this scene as enumerated by the court (ibid., p. 439).
28 For discussions of this phase of the production cf. the expert opinions of Emil Lind, régisseur of the Lessing-Theater in Berlin (ibid., p. 249), and of Arthur Eloesser (ibid., p. 263), as well as the opinion of the court (ibid., p. 439).
29 For this and the following the writer is indebted to the introduction by Wolfgang Heine in Der Kampf um den Reigen.
30 On March 13, 1920, Reigen had been declared immoral by Landgericht iii of Berlin.
31 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 Spielzeit 1921–1922, Heft 2.
32 Cf. Der Kampf um den Reigen.
33 This board consisted of L. Tils, former Vice President of the Province of Lower Austria, Dr. Karl Glossy, and Dr. Friedrich Engel, president of the Vienna Court of Commerce and of the German-Austrian Association of Judges. The full text of the report was published in the Arbeiter-Zeitung, April 24, 1921.
34 Neues Wiener Journal, January 22 and 29, 1921.
35 As a result of severe criticism for deriving support from such a source, the Federal Ministry of Social Welfare issued a 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 performance of Reigen was the first (Neue Freie Presse, February 17, 1921).
36 Cf. for instance Montags-Zeitung, January 31, 1921 and the Wiener Morgenzeitung, February 2, 1921.
37 Cf. Neue Freie Presse, February 8, 1921. The Illustrierte Kronenzeitung quotes the optician Franz Hermann, one of those arrested, to the effect that all six of them belonged to the Deutsche Volkspartei (Orel Party) and that neither he nor his comrades had witnessed the performance or read the book, but had merely seen newspaper accounts of it.
38 Cf. Neue Freie Presse, February 14, 1921.
39 Cf. Neues Wiener Journal, February 17, 1921.
40 Neue Freie Presse (Abendblatt), February 17, 1921.
41 The Neue Freie Presse, February 11, 1921, gives a lengthy account of this constitutional conflict with all the pertinent documents.
42 Wiener Allgemeine Zeitung, April 29, 1921.
43 Illustriertes Wiener Extrablatt (Abendblatt), February 12, 1921.
44 Neues Wiener Journal, February 8, 1922.
45 Berliner Börsen-Courier, February 15, 1921.
46 Favorable reviews appeared in the Leipziger Zeitung. January 24, by Hans Natonek, and in the Leipziger Tageblatt, January 25, by Hans Georg Richter.
47 Landeszeitung (Hanover), October 20, 1921.
48 Cf. Breslauer Neueste Nachrichten (May 6, 1921): “Ein reizender Theaterabend von liebenswürdiger und nachdenklicher Heiterkeit;” Breslauer Zeitung (May 7, 1921): “Der Besuch kann empfohlen werden.”
49 Published in the Schlesische Zeitung, May 12, 1921.
50 Volkswacht (Breslau), September 5, 1921.
51 Vossische Zeitung, August 16, 1922.
52 Leipziger Tageblatt, April 15, 1925.
53 Cf. The World (New York), October 9, 1929.
54 Cf. The Publishers' Weekly, December 14, 1929, p. 2758.
55 Ibid., p. 2759. Cf. also The World, December 10, 1929, p. 11.
56 Cf. The New York Times, October 25, 1930.
