17.02.2023
Introduction
Arthur Schnitzler’s Reigen (La Ronde, 1903) follows ten intricately woven lives: a chain of interactions between men and women both before and after a sexual encounter. The play connects conventional Viennese society members through a seductive design. In the opening scene, a prostitute propositions a soldier, who in the second scene is involved with the chambermaid, who is entangled with a young gentleman in the next scene. The gentleman romances a young married woman, whose husband has an affair with a sweet girl, who is sexually engaged with the poet, and so on until the end. The play ultimately comes to a full circle when the count spends the night with the courtesan from the introductory scene. This intricate narrative coupled with repetitive motifs creates a gripping and amusing story. However, the seemingly simple tale spurred considerable controversy during the 1900s. With the intention of holistically understanding the public concerns raised by the story’s contemporary audience, this essay aims to conduct a literary analysis of the play with reference to human sexuality in the late 19th century. To this end, the essay also considers societal norms (including class expectations and taboos) in siècle Vienna, and the play’s reception in several countries in the 20th century. I propose through this literary examination that Reigen is a simultaneous self-reflexive representation and intervention in the convention of human sexuality and class ideology.
Reception in the 1900s
Reigen was written in the winter of 1896-1997, and privately published in 1900. Well received by Schnitzler’s friends, the work was staged in 1903 in Munich obtaining intense criticism within the German population (Schneider, 1986). Due to an increase in unauthorized performances of the play after 1918, Schnitzler authorized stage performances in Berlin and Vienna in 1920. Despite the initially positive reviews in Berlin, Schneider (1986) explains that a growth in anti-Semitic biases within society as well as pre-existing societal notions of sexuality led to the recognized theatre scandal in 1921. Demonstrators marched through the doors, threatening the audience members and the police had to shut down the production (Lang, 2009). The play was denounced as “decadent work” and was confiscated due to these riots, trials, and censorships. It only performed again in Germany in 1982 because of a performance ban on Schnitzler himself (Goldmann, 2022).
Intriguingly, fame spread with its French translations, including the film adaptations by Max Ophüls (La Ronde, 1950) and Roger Vadim (Circle of Love, 1964). However, similar to its German reception, Reigen was condemned by the National Legion of Decency and multiple censor boards in the New York state. These groups condemned the offensive and provocative nature of the play, stating that every single word in the text could be regarded “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent, or disgusting” (Schneider, 1986). It was additionally criticized for openly rebutting the “legitimacy of family life”. The contemporary audience was fearful that the scenes would negatively impact the behaviours and attitudes of its readers. More precisely, there was concern that women, children and other impressionable minds would model this permissive and “immoral” outlook towards sexuality and social status.
The Literature: “Why the Scandal?”
There is a double-barrelled explanation for the long-standing controversy around Reigen.
Firstly, Schnitzler’s Reigen meticulously strips away the masks within society through an open discussion of sexual intimacy within the story. While the actual sexual contact is blacked-out using dashes “- – -”[1], this play puts to the forefront encounters, between characters, that are primarily sexual in nature – either the characters are in pursuit of sensual intimacy and/or they have recently coupled with each other. Schnitzler also comments on the double-sided nature of sexuality in society. On one hand, sexual activity, prostitution, and pornography are common throughout the play – mimicking everyday private life in 19th century Vienna. On the other hand, the topic of sexuality is taboo and censored, both within the text and in public real lives. In the text, there are clear motifs of the light and dark to symbolise the secretive nature of sexuality. Evidently, the young gentleman undresses in the dark, and the husband puts out the light before the sexual encounter with his wife. When the poet asks the sweet girl if he can light a candle after their affair, the girl replies “Please don’t. It makes me feel so ashamed.” In the last scene, the count replies bashfully, “I did… we both… well…” when the courtesan asks him if he remembers what the couple “did” the previous night. This highlights the idea that their sexual activity was believed to be embarrassing and, perhaps, dishonourable. Moreover, there is a sense of urgency permeating throughout the text. The characters’ fear that someone would glimpse upon their sexual behaviours, behaviours that – in society – were thought to be immoral and degenerative (McEwen, 2012). Gruber (1987) clarifies that, in the 19th century, sexuality had a social utility with an end goal of creating orderly and respectable families. Hence, non-procreative activities (e.g., sexual behaviour and homosexuality) were seen as indecent choices and abnormalities.
Women who were passive and non-sexual beings were perceived as “noble and good” during this time-period. Reigen explores this normative view in detail with the conversation between the husband and the young married woman as an indicative example. The husband comments that “good girls…waited quietly in (their) parent’s care until a decent man proposed marriage to them.” Comparatively, “creatures” who were sexually promiscuous were to be pitied, since they were repellent and led a life full of lies, treachery, deceit. He concludes that, “man loves only where there’s purity and truth.” In addition to recognizing such conventional notions of women’s sexuality, Reigen challenges the view and replaces it with a realistic counterpart. Women are allowed the same sexual freedom as the men and are portrayed as sexually liberated in some scenes (Lang, 2009). For instance, the chambermaid asks the soldier openly, “Come, won’t you give me a kiss?” and the actress suddenly takes (the count’s) hand and kisses it.
Second, Schnitzler scrutinizes the class ideology within siècle Vienna. By incorporating characters from all echelons of society, the play offers a social commentary on how sexuality, passion and relationships transcend socio-economic status. The text offers a reflection of the socio-cultural norms within the 1900s in Vienna. The German language used by the aristocracy (for instance, the count) is more formal than the speech of the middle-class actress or low-class prostitute. Each sexual encounter also follows a prewritten script: the women first reject the advances of the men regardless of their sexual desires (“No, it’s disgraceful – of me”) before “apprehensively” agreeing to the union. At the same time, the play subverts expectations when class boundaries are broken by the characters. Notably, the play encompasses a number of love affairs between high-ranking individuals (including the count, young gentleman, and soldier) and low-class members (such as the chambermaid, poet, prostitute) in society. This was rare in 19th century Viennese society and disapproved of in public. Furthermore, some characters are self-assured and honest about their wishes and sexuality – which was seen as promiscuous and impermissible in siècle Vienna.
Actress (to the poet): You’re a whim.
Young Married Woman (to the young gentleman): Alfred – do you love me, really love me?
Count (to the actress): Pleasure…intoxication…there’s nothing to be said against them, these things are real. If I’m enjoying something, all right, then I know I enjoy it… And when it’s over, it’s over.
Analysed a different way, the above examples demonstrate that the Reigen, in its entirety, speaks about the transience of passion as a motivating force of human behaviour (Raffety, 2008). Pushing past the sexual taboos and class ideology, this play prompts a crucial question pertinent to even modern-day life: Is it true love? Regardless of the character’s social status, the repetitive motif of questioning one’s love for another (“do you like me?”) demonstrates a timeless and universal pursuit. The need for human connection about all else.
Conclusion
The popularity of Reigen (1903) by Arthur Schnitzler has been momentous, both as a key text of Viennese literature and due to the considerable controversy around its text. It is apparent from the above literary analysis: Reigen’s merry-go-round of love affairs both represents and intervenes in societal conventions of sexuality. Whereas the sexual taboos and cultural norms are depicted in the play, the text also brings sexual behaviour, women’s sexuality, and class ideology to the forefront – breaking gender stereotypes and uncovering the double-standards of the time. Thus, it has encouraged open conversations about sexuality and class structures in societies around the world for over a century. Taken together, the simple overarching theme within the play reinforces the famous saying, “Love makes the world go round!”
References
Binner, V. (2019). Arthur Schnitzler: Why the Scandal? Virtual Vienna. https://www.virtualvienna.net/arthur-schnitzler-why-the-scandal/
Goldmann, A., J. (2022, August 4). In Salzburg, New Lives for Two Scandalous Plays. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/theater/salzburg-festival-reigen-prisoner-of-ingolstadt.html
Gruber, H. (1987). Sexuality in “Red Vienna”: Socialist Party Conceptions and Programs and Working-Class Life, 1920-34. International Labor and Working-Class History, 31, 37–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27671673
Haydon, A. (2009, March 17). La Ronde: too risqué for the 21st century? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2009/mar/17/la-ronde-scandal-stage
Lang, B. (2009). The Viennese Legacy of Casanova: The Late Erotic Writings of Arthur Schnitzler and Franz Blei. In Interwar Vienna (Vol. 43, pp. 224–245). Boydell & Brewer. https://doi.org/10.7722/j.ctt81tft.15
McEwen, B. (2012). Sexual knowledge feeling, fact, and social reform in Vienna, 1900-1934. Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780857453389
Rafferty, T. (2008, September 15). La Ronde: Vicious Circle. Criterion. https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/549-la-ronde-vicious-circle
Schneider, G. K. (1986). The Reception of Arthur Schnitzler’s “Reigen” in the Old Country and the New World: A Study in Cultural Differences. Modern Austrian Literature, 19(3/4), 75–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24647597
Schnitzler, A. (1903). Reigen (La Ronde: Merry-Go-Round). Tandem Books Ltd. Ed. 1964. London, England.
[1] This gives the impression that the act itself is not important, but what comes before and after is crucial.
dreamsofg0ld 