"ANATOL" ON THE NEW YORK STAGE

Luveme Walton

The dramas of Arthur Sdmitzler were introduced to New York theater audiences in
1897, when Lidteki made its debut at Ihe Irving Place Theater. The next two years
witnMsed the American premieres of Frenviid aniDas Vermachtnis, plays equally somber
m mood as LiebeM, and Mentified Sdmitzler as a writer of tragedy. It was not until after
the tum of the century that the world of this "leichteinniger Melanchdiker" was revealpd
to New York audiences, but since its appearance Armtol has surpassed all other plays'of
Sdimtzler in popularity, longevity, and in the variety of media and languages in which it
has been presented to American aadiences. Thoii^ performed only once in its entirety
there have been seven M productions of the work,* and on six other occasions individual
scenes have been extracted from the whole and performed separately. Adaptatk)ns of it
have been made for the sflent films, radio, television, vaudeviUe, and musical comedy As
a drama composed of a series of independent one-acts, it introduced a new dramatic form
to Broadway. Scenes from it have been produced in English, French and Russian The
only thing lacking to c<anplete its production history is a performance in German the
language in which it had its birth.

Anatol has become the symbol for Schnitzler. The work of the youth has justifiably
beconie the token of the man, for within Amtoi are the seeds of many of the concepts
and characters which Schnitzler treats in his later dramatic works. Here is the phlanderer
the raisonneur, the artist, the "siisses Madel," and the woman who exists outside the
bounds of respectable society. Here are the themes of illusion and reaHty-the
ic*ens%e-infidelity, the longing to experience life to the utmost, and the self-deceptive
Mntedng of that seardi in the realm of the erotic. In its construction Anatol represents
Uiat form m which Schnitzler excelled: the one-act. Each scene is complete in itself Each
highb^ts a basically simitar situation from a different angle and in a different mood
Together the scenes form a whole, but it is not the wholeness traditionally expected of a
laige dramatic woik. Julius Kapp described its unity thus;

So nindet sich der Anatolzyklus tiotz seiner bunt sdiillemden Vielheit

unvermerkt zu einem dramatischen Ganzen. Es ist das Drama des Junggesel-
lentums mit all seinen Freuden und Leiden. Der Einzelfall weitet sich dabei
unter den zart zufassenden HSnden des iiberall scharf beobaditenden und
diarakterisierenden Dichters zum allgememen Problem. Jeder Horer M i t sich
dine weiteres als beteiligt, vor seinon Inneren taucht die Erinnerung an
Episoden seiner eigenen Jugendzdt auf.-Die einzelnen Bilder besteheii
durdiweg aus Dialogea Die Personen simd Anatol, Max und in jed«n eine
andere Frau. Die Liebe bleibt immer die gjEiche, nur der Gegenstand
wechselt!^ *

Schnitzier did not exhibit great abiKty to sustain dramatic conflict nor to develop-plot
compUcation, but he was a master of the succinct statement about a facet of human
personality, he knew how to throw light upon human motivation in a variety of ways to
epitcanize a relationship between two people, and he used the one-act with consummate
skill as an ideal vdiicle for these purposes. In the same way that Amtol is a kind of
panorama of Schnitzler's diamas, so the production history oi Amtol on tbe New York
stage is a panwama of the history of aU Schnitzler's works there. It fust ^peaied only six
years after the 1897 premiere of Liebeki, and the most recent production was in 1959

30
 foUowed by a musical based on the work in 1961. The only other Schnitzler play to be
produced in any form in the decade of the I960's isReigen. In an Englidi translation
titled La Ronde, Reigen was performed at the Theatre Marquee in 1960, and a French
film with the same title, distributed in this country asOcte of Love, was shown in 1965.
The adverse criticism of Anatol in the course of its fifty-ei^t-year production history
contains all the major objections applied to his other plays: decadence, immorality,
datedness, absence of chaiacter development and lack of traditional form. The media in
which it has been produced encompass and exceed the number of media in which his
other works have appeared and, with the exception of sound movies, include all major
media of mass theatrical entertainment, even the twentieth century innovations of radio
and television. But there is one way in which a view of the stage history oi Anatol does
not comprise a view of all Schnitzler's works on the New York stage. Generaly speakii^,
the fate of his dramas has paralleled that of actor Oswald Yorke who, in the 1912
production of Armtol, played Max; in the 1931 production, the waiter. In like manner,
Schnitzler's works have not completely disappeared from the stage, but the importance of
their role in the theatrical repertory has greatly decreased in the course of the century.
The general production history js a decrescendo, a decrease of popularity and, in most
instances, final disappearance from the stage. In some cases the life of a play was brief
and death swift; in others the demise was prolonged but nonetheless sure. Not so with
AnatoL Though the first full production in 1912 was on most counts the h i ^ point of its
history, almost every decade has seen its revival, and each reviva] has demonstrated the
play's capacity to appeal to theater audiences and to elicit enthusiastic comment from the
critics.

By 1912, the year of the first full production oiAmtol, Schnitzler was already known
to New York theater audiences through German OT English performances of Liebelei,
Freiwikl, Das Verrmchtnis, Literatur, Die letzten Masken and Der grune Kakadu. The
most popular of the productions had been an English translation of Liebelei, titled The
Reckoning, staged in 1907. By 1912/4nfftof had also appeared inNew York twice in very
abbreviated form: the first time in 1903, 'tihmAbschiedssouper\iSiS produced in Frendi
and again in 1906 when the same scene was performed in Russian. The 1903 production
of Abschiedssoifper marks the beginning of the history of individual scenes from Anatol,
extracted from the whole and performed separately. Such picductions have included
three stagings of Abscfiiedssouper: 1903 in French, 1906 in Russian, and 1938 in English;
two productions of Anatols Hochzeitsmorgen in English: 1926 and 1959; one production
of Episode in English in 1959; and another unidentified scene in English in 1953. The
introduction af Anatol to the New York stage in 1903 occuired when Madame Charlotte
Wiehe and her French company made a guest appearance in New York and, under the
title of Souper D'Adieu, included Abschiedssouper on a vaudeville bill which opened at
the Berkeley Lyceum on October 21. Schnitzler's Aimie, renamed Louise, was played by
Madame Wiehe, andl En|;Usih program notes and plot summary aided the audience in
understanding the French dialogue. Though Danish by birth, Charlotte Wiehe had
reportedly experienced her greatest theatrical success in Paris, and her acting style was
characterized with the vague phrase, "distinctly French." Her appearance on the New
York stage drew very fashionable audiences, and the dramatic entertainment which she
and her ensemble of actors provided was described as "bright and piquant, [appealing]
pleasantly to those who enjoy the light humor of Paris."^ Again in 1906, Absehieds-
souper owed its appearance on the New York stage to a group of foreign actors, a troupe
from Russia known in this country as the Russian Players and headed by Madame Alia
Nazimova. With Madame Nazimova in the role of Aimie, the Russian Players performed

31
Abschiedssouper on the occaaon of their last appearance im America, May 2, 1906.*
ITuee days later most of the troupe sailed for Russia, but Madame Nazimova remained in
America under contract to appeal on the American stage on the condition that she learn
English, and in less than five months she had developed sufficient fluency to perfonn
Ibsen's Hedda Gabler in translation. In 1938,Abschiedssouperwis perfomied in English,
when the MacDowell Club Players staged it in conjunction witii Thornton Wilder's ITt?
Happy Joum^r in the Guild Hall of the Little Churdi Around the Comer OB March 11.
With productions in French, Russian and English Abschiedssouper has the distinction of
receiving the most international attention of any of Schnitzler's works in New York.^

On at least two occasions Anatoh Hochzeitsmorgen has al&o been extracted from the
larger work for separate perfoimance in English, and Episode once. In 1926 Ye Curtain
Players produced the wedding momiiig scene at the Princess Theatre^ and from May 11 •
15, 1959, Neighborfiood Playhouse School of the Theatre performed both one-acts."^
Twice-in 1952 and again in 1953-the Equity-Library TTieatre^ diose scenes from
Schnitzler to include in its "Scrapbook" programs, a series of productions described as
"the project that brings Shakespeare and the classics without tears to student bodies in
the metropolitan area."* According to the New York Times these programs were very
popular. Both the 1952 and 1953 "Scrapbook" productions were presented, among other
places, at the Lenox Hill Playhouse. The 1952 "Scrapbook" mcluded scenes from
Schnitzler, Rostand, Shakespeare and Wflde, but the advance publicity material about the
program did not identify which of Schnitzler's works was to be performed. Because
Amtol had been a part of the Equity-Library Theatre repertory for at least six years," °' it
is probable that the scene was an excerpt from this work, but this is only conjecture. The
selection in 1953 was from Anatol, though which portion of it was performed was not
reported in the newspaper review. The 1953 "Scrapbook" opened at the Lenox Hill
Plajftouse on November 5, and ran for the rest of that week.^ 1 The Times descried the
production as an exhibit of the show which would soon tour the public schools and
reported tJiat James Lanphier played the role of Anatol, but no other informatiom about
Schnitzler's work was given. From the staswlpoint of their critical reception in New Yoik,
little comment can be made on the production of the one-acts as almost no reviews are
available, but the fact that they continued to be produced is in itself a critical comment.
It is worth noting that two of the three which have been selected for individual
production, Abschiedssouper and Anatols Hochseitsmorgen, have also, along with
Weihnachtseinkaufe, been most often singled out from the other one-acts in fuli
productions of Anatol for their ability to entertain and for their dramatic value; and the
actresses in these three scenes have most often been applauded for performance of their
roles. It K possible that these actresses have always been the most accomplished actresses
of the entire cast, but there is no question that these roles offer the greatest opportunities
to display actir^ talent.

The premiere of the first full production of Anatol on the New York stage occurred on
October 14, 1912.12 -^^ y^^^^ ^^ 1916," 1931, 1946, 1956 and 1958 also witnessed
fiiU performances of the play, and there has been one production at the off-Broadway
Cherry Lane Theatre for which no date has been established. John Bairymore was the
first American Anatol, and the English text used for the 1912 production in which he
starred was flie Harley Granville-Barker paraphrase. This premiere "was an occasion for
critical attention not only after the opeuii^ but in anticipation of the event:

When Mr. Ames presents at lhe Little Theatre next month Arthur Schnitzler's

32
 Anatol, he will introduce to American theatergoers a novel form of dramatic
campositfon-a sequence of dialogues... We shall have a ^impse at five
episodes in the life of a very episodical young gentleman from Vienna. Each
episode is complete in itself, like a perfect bead, but it is only when they are
strung together that they become the finished piece of jewelry. The string
that holds them is the unfolding of Anatol's personality. Each bead has a
different color, given to it by the individuality of the vis-a-vis in the
episode-always a woman, of course. Anatol is an arch-connoisseui i

The question of the play's morality, its fitness for the stage, was discussed tn the reviews
of 1912. Some reviewers seemed to think that theatergoers would feel that a moral issue
was involved, and these reviewers commented on the question in some way. But Anatol's
promiscuity was obviously not the overriding issue in the judgment of the audience, as
the play found immediate favor with theatergoers. The ciitics rejoiced and attributed its
ready reception to three factors: the growing liberality of the American attiUide toward
the stage, the paraphrase of the work piepared by Granville-Barker in which he made
certain changes in the text in deference to the strict British stage on which Anatol had
appeared the previous year, and Schnitzler's finesse and taste in the characterization of
Anatol and his composition of dialogue and situation that meticulously ajid gracefully
avoid the coarse and common and concentrate Instead on the amusing and charming
figure of the incurable lover and the moods through which he passes as he falls in and out
of !ove enroute from his first affair to his wedding day. Two summations of the moral
question characterize the views of most of the critics. The first judges Anatol as theatei
entertainment:

Of course, Anatol is a very reprehetKible young man... and yet, as theatiical

entertainment, he is such a clever and amasing figure that one almost loses
sight of his moral enoimities.' ^
The other is a judgment on Schnitzler's artistry:
To the question whether these episodes are moral, one is tempted to
equivocate by saying that they are artistic. Schnitzler's writing is always
refined; there is nothing ugly or coarse or vulgar, nothing repellent here, One
must be grateful to him for what he does not say. He has the gift of silence
and says the unsayable without asterisks and without offending.!^

It was a play to appeal to the isofdiisticates of the day, and the depth of condemnation
voiced seldom sank below the level of "naughty." Perhaps one reason why objections to
it in New York did not assume greater proportions was because as theatrical Utetature
Anatol was not taken too seriously., It was considered a charming dramatic trifle.

i ^ but agreeable entertaiiunent, fitted for an audience which has dined

pleasantly, drifted in leisurely fashion to the theatre, and brought thithier a
readiness to accept for the moment the continental habit of treating "love" as
an activity apart and sufficient unto itself, and not—as our literature
assumes—necessarily associated with marriage.-''

One may wonder whether Schnitzler's reaction to this lighthearted, uncritical aj^roadi to
his woik might not have been similar to Uie reaction of Hennann Bahr i*^o reqjonded
indignantly to the "compliment and excuse" which those outside Austria often used

33
when speaking of the worics of Austrian writers: "Wir wiirden jedoch wiinschen, strenger
bdianddt, aber dafiir emster genommen zu werden!"!^ A search for meaning in the work
usually ended in such baoaUties as "variety is the spice of Ufe,"'^ or "no matter how
comprehensive a man's experience with the gentler sex may have been; how much he may
regard himself triumphant in the duel—in the end he remains their laughing stock,"20 or
in tiie feeling that "a search for either [a philosophy or a moral] is not worthwhile. "^ ''It
was regarded as a novelty, particularly in form, and serious consideration of the play was
largely confined to Schnitzier*s gift for characteiization and dialogue. As always. The
Farewell Supper, Christmas Present and Amtol's Wedding Morning were considered to
have the greatest theatrical value, with Christmas Present must appealing in its mood of
nostalgic melancholy.

The play ran at the Little Theatre until the middle of December, then moved to
Chicago for a limited engagement at the Fine Arts Theater. There the criticism of its
morality was sharper, one critic even referring to the production as "an unsavory thing
fw the Chicago Theater Society... to bring before the town."^^ Its appearance there was
occasion for a novelty in production. There were two theaters in the Chicago Fine Arts
Buflding: the Fine Arts Theater and the Little Theater. While the professional company
from New York performed Anatol in the larger Fine Arts Theater, a group of Chicago
amateurs performed it in the Little Theatre, a tiny auditorium on the fourth floor which
seated ninety-nine persons. The amateurs offered an additional ingenious touch to their
production: instead of preparing only five scenes and staging those five at every
performance as John Banymore and the New York cast did, they prepared a l seven
scenes, but omitted two different ones at each performance. After an engagement of
approximately two weeks, the New York cast returned home and opened at Maxine
Elliott's Theatre on January 6, where perfonnances continued for several weeks. Their
return to New York brought the conunent from the writer for the Telegram:
After facing the cultured atmosphere of the Theatre of Fine Arts in Chicago,
John Barrymore and five leading women in Schnitzler's "The Affairs of
Anatol" were no doubt glad to return to New York ^^
Soon after the play re^opened the role of Max -was taken over from Oswald Yorke by
Frank Reicher, and it was reportedly on this occasion that Baitymore added to his
knowledge the meaning of the German expression "Hals- und Beinbnich!" The New York
Sun reported the story:

Half an hour before curtain time Monday night Mr. Barrymore overheard
Geoige Foster Platt, producer for Mr. Ames, tell Mr. Reicher that he hoped
he would break his neck. As Mr. Reicher received the wish with marks of the
highest appreciation, Mr. Barrymore asked for an explanation. He was
informed that in Germany it is a sign of bad luck to wish an actor good luck
when making his first appearance in a production and that to wish him some
bodily harm or bad luck is considered an omen of good fortune.^'*

Whereupon Banymore is said to have gone to the nearest telegraph office, from which he
sent Reicher the following telegram: "Max Reicher, Maxme Elliott's Theatre: 'May you
break every bone in your body.' Anatol."

No reviewer has ever aditutted complete satisfaction with the portrayal of AnatoL No
American actor has ever been able to capture completely the spirit of the "leichtsinniger

34
MelanchoUker" from Vienna, and John Bairymore was no exception. Though praised for
his interpretation of the role, he was not able to convey the delicate nuances of mood
demanded in the more subtle iscenes, but found his greatest strength in the situations
which called for farcical and comedy characterization. The 1912-1913 production of The
Affaas of Anatol was a new experience for New York, and the novelty of it and its
probable future effect on the theatergoer were summed up by Collier's:
It will be seen that 'The 'Affairs' of Anatol" is in a gallery a trifle remote
from Broadway-so different, indeed, that the spectator, having got the
"hang" of it, will probably enjoy it more the second time than the first•^^
Having got the "hang" of it. New Yorkers did enjoy Amtol again several times, bat
when it closed at Maxine Elliott's Theatre in 1913, it was eighteen years before another
major production of it occurred in New York. In the meanllrne Schnitzler's name was
kept alive through productions of a number of his other dramatic works, and familiarity
with Anatol was preserved through a small production at the Astor Hotel in 1916, the Ye
Curtain Players performance of Anatol's Wedding Morning in 1926, and a silent movie
based on the work in 1921. Titled The Affairs of Amtol, the silent film script, written by
Jeanie Macpherson, had little similarity to Schnitzler's work and producer Cecil B.
DeMille rightly billed it as "suggested by Arthur Schnitzler's play and the paraphrase
thereof by Granville-Barker."^* The TVmes caUed it "only a distant and thoroughly
acclimated cousin of the continental work" featuring a married Anatol De Witt Spencei,

an exceedingly nice young man whose affairs are all innocent If the girls
who, one after another, arouse his purely philanthropic interest are not so
innocent, they are still not so very, very bad, and promise to be good before
they are dismissed from the ^T

Hollywood was Hollywood even in 1921, and not only was Schnitzler's work altered
almost beyond lecognition though his title retained, his cast of eleven was increased to
twenty-three. Although other films based on Schnitzler's dramas have circulated in the
United States, The Affairs of Anatol is the only one that has been an American nim.
Among the cast were some of the famous names of silent movies: Wallace Reid, who
played Anatol, Gloria Swanson, Bebe Daniels, Monte Blue, and Polly Moran.
In 1931 Beia Biau revived the GranviUevBarker adaptation of Anatol 2i\A the potot of
departure for much of the criticism was the comparison of the new production with the
production of 1912. The two most frequent comparisons made were flie difference in
moral attitudes with which the 1931 reviewers thought that the two generations viewed
the play, and the comparison of John Barrymore and Joseph ScMldkraut as Anatol. In
the realm of moral judgment it is obvious that the reviewers of 1931 felt a superiority of
sophistication over the reviewers of 1912. It is obvious too that in their sophistication
they exaggerated the indignation with which the New Yorkers of 1912 had greeted the
play. Little evWence was found in the 1912 New York reviews to substantiate the
comment on that production which John Mason Brown made in 1931: "There were those
who not only failed to surrender to its nrbane charm but who felt outraged by the
conscienceless way in which it chronicled the progress of a Viennese rake."^^ Continuing
in this vein, Gilbert W. Gabriel sought for similarity between bathtub-gin America of
1931 and Schnitzler's old world Vienna: "We have caught up with Alt Wiea. We can sip
our 'Anato!' straight, unaffaired, un-affeared."^^ There were two kinds of superficial
language changes between the 1912 and 1931 productions, one of wMch reflected this

35
 i whidi the New Yorker of 1931 felt that he had achieved: into the
Granvijle-Barker aiiaptatk>n "a few damns [were] sprinkled here and there for purposes
of moderni2ation."30 The other change made the dialogue less obviously British: "the
"Oh, I says' and 'Really, old chaps' and 'Frightfully sorrehs' and other specimens of
Londonese" were omitted.^" In the role of Anatol Joseph Schildkraut was even less in Jiis
element than John Barrymore had been. He was stiff and strident and lacked the suavity
necessary to an Anatol. In the description of his acting, the new importance of the movies
and the advent of the "talkies" is obvious. Schildkraut, who had come to Broadway from
Hollywood, was reproached for such stage taboos as "looking into the camera"^^ and
"talking like a talkie."^ ^ Most often ctBnmended for their acting were Patricia Collinge
for her portrayal of Gabrielie, "the Lady who Didn't Dare,"^'* and Miriam Hopkins in the
role of ballet dancer Annie; and, as usual, the coirespondtog scenes of A Christmas
Present and The Farewell Supper received h i ^ s t critical acclaim of aD the one-acts. Evea
with sets d e s e e d by Jo Mieiziner and under the direction of Gabriel Beer-Hofmann, the
production did not convey a completely Viennese atmosphere, but in spite of this and in
qjite ofthe charge that the woik was a bit dated and its delights thought to be fewei than
in 1912, it was still considered to be one ofthe better offerings of Broadway 1931, and it
ran for forty-five performances.^^ Almost aU of the criticism in 1931 was confined to
aspects of the production. There were few comments on SclmitKler and almost absolute
absence of references to his other works. Brooks Atkinson came closest to a literary
judgment when he combined his comparison of the 1912 and 1931 productions with a
comment on the chaiacter of Anatol and his author:

When "Anatol" was first mounted here nearly twenty years ago with John
Barrymore it was reputed to be audacious. Anatol is a siimer. But not to
Schnitzler, and hardly to the pernicious playgoer of today, for Anatol is a
sybarite of love. He is punctilious about the deportment of conquest. He
loves love. The six. scenes in his affairs reveal his suisceptibihties-his anxiety
over the fidelity of HUda, his wounded vanity when Bianca no longer
remembers him, his anger when he discovers one of his trollops oaveting the
booty of previous amours or anoUier plarming to supplant him with a chorus
boy. For to Schnitzler love is full of savor and deception, honeyed tenderness
and sweet languor. None of the hotblooded passion of the modern theatre
bursts into his amorous hothouse. There is hardly a kiss visible to the naked
eye. Silken in the writing, it is overlong in the acting. If it were half as long it
would be twice as good in the theatre. Certainly this production would be
brisker amusement if a half hour were taken out of it.-' ^
A vaudeville act suggested by Anatol foUowed in that same year,^^ but except for it
and the MacDowell Players production of The Farewell Supper at the Little Church
Around the Comer on March II, 1938, Anatol disappeared from the stage for fifteen
years. During this long absence from the stage Orson Welles adapted it for the relatively
young medium of radio, and in 1938 it was broadcast nationally on the Mercury Theater
of the Air. The episodes were strung together by a narrative in first-person-singular style,
related by Welles in the role of Anatol, with incidents enacted by him and other members
of the Mercury Theater ensemble woven into the narrative. Anatot seems a strange choice
of character for Orson Wells to undertake. He is best known for Ms chaiacterizations in
heavy, suspenseful dramas, and it is not surprising that his portrayal of the urbane,
sophisticated Anatol drew the comment from a Massachusetts listener that
The play began and, strange as it may seem, Mr. Welles became Chailes

36
 Laughton and remained Charles Laughton to the end. Again he was good in
the mote serious parts, but inclmed to be ponderous and monotonous in the
lijjiter ones. I think Anatol was a tenor and Welles is Basso troppo Profundo,
unable to portray the unscrupulous frivoUty, the disarming wit and dtarm of
therole.3»
Eight years later, in 1946, reviewers thought for the first time that a true touch of
Vienna was given to a production of Anatol when Mady Christians directwl the play for
the Equity-Library Theatre. In addition to Miss Christians* own continental heritage and
directorial skill, two factors may have benefited her in the creation of the mood of
Anatol: the prefacing of the performance with the Prologue by Loris and her own
experience as Ilona in Anatoh Hochzeitsmorgen in the 1924 Max Reirihardt Kammer-
spiele production of Anatol in Berlin. Though currently starring in the 1946 Broadway
Slit of / Remember Mama, Miss Christians worked into her schedule the rehearsals for
Anatol, and for a while these rehearsals were held m her apartment but were later moved
into the basement smoking lounge of the Music Box Theatre, reportedly because she
thought her apartment was "too sunny foi the romantic;, by-candle-Ught mood of
AnatoL "^^ Anatol was an exception to the regular Equity-Library productions because
its cast included a greater than usual number of experienced actors in types of roles in
which they were not ordinarEy cast. Tonio Seiwart, chosen for Anatol, had played
" b r ^ t boys under 25" on Broadway, aind villains—including Nazis—in Hollywood.
Carmen Matthews, usually cast as a "regal, suffering womao," played Mimi**" in The
Farewell Supper, and Henry Jones, who "was always cast as older men, caricatures," was
Max.'*^ Opening June S, 1946, Armtol was performed four times at the George Bruce
Branch Library—all performances fiee to tiiie public-and closed the Equity-Library
Theatre local season on June 7.**^ George Freedley, who had helped to found ihe acting
group, called Anatol "the most expert production which [Equity-Libraiy Theatre] has
had in its three seasons' existence," and claimed that with Anatol the Theatre's season
had ended "in a blaze of glory and a roar of laughter.'"*^ Since Freedley was one of the
founders of Equity-Library and might naturally be expected to be enthusiastic about the
productions, it is gratifying to have a report from another source whidh corroborated his
commendation. Writing for the Post, Vemon Rice said:

To our way of thinking, {Miss Christians] couldn't have made a better choice,
for the bUl had variety, contrast and consuming interest. If she used wisdom
in selectii^ her plays she also used a touch of genius in iselecting hei players.
So important are just the right actors for these kinds of playlets, that one bit
of miscasting would almost prove to be fatal. Schnitzler is a writer of
atmosphere and mood. There is a touch of grace mixed in with portions of
gentle passion, melancholy, charm, wit and delicacy in his writing and even a
slight stroke of heavyhandedness on the part of the director or an actor and
the playwright's whole fragile structure is ruined. Through the expert work of
Miss Christians, however, and her assembled cast, the spidt of Vienna of
1900, the whir] of the Viennese waltz were retained.'**

The only discordant note came from the New Yorker Staats-Zeitur^ und Herald: Miss
Christians had indeed succeeded in her dkection of the actors and her creation of mood:
"Sie hat ein sehr gutes, echtes, Wiener Leben aus den Darstellem herausgeholt;"but she
had committed one "Todsiinde:" the inadequacies of the English tianslatlon used for the
production had not been conected. In Weihnachtseinkmfe two phrases occur which,
more than any others, have become tokens of Anatol andl his world; "Das siisse Madel"

37
has become the dicih6 which captures the essence of Schnitzler's "Midel aus der
Vorstadt;" "leicbtsinniger Melandiolikei," a phiase which Anatol uses to descrfiw
hnnself, has come to embody not oi% Anatol but the entire geDemtioa of Viennese
young men of whcon Anatol was representative. The E n p ^ translation used by Miss
Christians rendered the latter phrase as "amateur [Mosqthex," a translation, whidi
utterly fails to capture the essence of lhe GermaE. The Sutats-Zeitungwis indigtiant over
the discrepancy in meaning and the resultijig erroneous compreheiisiOE of Anatol's
character:
Es ist kaum noch eine Ahnlichkeit da zwisdien den beiden Begriffen!! Ein
Amateurphilosoph-ein Raisonneur, der neben dei Handlung steht utid
gescheite Ben»ikungen macht, den kennen wir ja aus bundertunddrei
franzomchen Stjicken. Aber Anato] steht ja zutiefst in der Handlung . . . und
was er sagt, ist gar nidit philosophisdi iiberl^en-in den meisten Fallen
btamiert er sich griindlich! Aber das ist wahr, dass seine Genusssucht gepaart
ist mit einer nachdenkHchenMelanchoUe, die ihn immerfcmt das VergaqgUdie,.
Vergebliche in aller Ghicksliche ahnen lisst und damit all seinen Handlungen
die Frische und Energie nimmt. Dieser Lebemann, der so viel seinen Pariter
Vorbildem verdankt, ist dodi kem Paiiser—er ist Wiener von 1890—"fin de
siecle"! Es ist ein Stiickchen Hamlet in ihm—zu viel "Bewwsstsein" macht ihn
"feige"! Das Bewusstsein hat er freilich mit dem Philosoplien gemein> aber in
nichts die Lebensiialtung.'**
The greatest number of Schnitzler productions in New York occurred in the first
thirty years of the century, and by mid-century most of fliem had disa|^eared from ttie
stage connpletely. Only in ^ e case of Anatol and Reigen do the later decades represent a
real continuation or upsurge of interest in Schnitzler's plays. In the fifties Amtol was
played in New York on four occasions. Twice it appeared in cuttings on bills with other
plays when Equity-Library Theatre and the Nei^orhood Fla>i[»ouse School of lhe
Theatre chose scenes for production in 1953 and 1959 respectively. Twice-in 1956 and
aj^in in 1958—full productions were given. Both of the latter were smaller and less
dabwate than those in Ts^iich John Bart>more and Joseph Sdiildkraut starred, but eadi
had its own small point of distinction. In 1956 six of the seven scenes were staged in
Directors Theatre, a second-floor studio half a block off Broadway on West 46th Street.
The producers were Laura Malin and Vivian Schectman, and their theater was described
as an "off-Broadway showcase for directors."*^ Originally sdieduled to open oil August
8, the opening was postponed until August 15, and performances were advertised for
Wednesday throu^ Saturday njghts until SeptenAer 1.*'' The distinction of this
production lay in the fact that each scene was staged by a different director, but this very
point of distinction was undoubtedly resp(Hi#)le for lessening tiie impact of the whole,
for theie was a consequent lack of unity in interpretation of the work: "As some of the
directors seem not too sure Aether the audience shovild laugh oi shudder at certain
crucial moments, it is small wonder that the results are uneven."** In spite of this
unevenness in interpretation and some amateurish actmg, the production was lecom-
tnended by its reviewer:
As Schnitzler, wifli his translator, Grace Colbron, makes the rounds of 1900
Vienna's world of cafe lights and boudoir shadows with Anatol, his friend.
Max, and assorted past-and-present misOresses, there lurks beneath the
ceaseless How of keen-edged wit, the disturbing comparisons between
happiness-and-pleasure and tnifli-and-illusion which crane up more harrow-

38
 ingly and not so well balanced in the same mihot's Reigen.*^
The mention of Reigen suggests the possibility that it may have contributed to the
impetus for the two new revivals otAnatot m the second Iialf of the fifties. In 1954 a
French film based on Reigen, titled La Ronde, received wide publicity in New York when
attempts were first made to distribute it there. Censors objected to its appearance on New
York screens and only a ruling by the LFnited States Supreme Court made possible the
fihn's distribution there. The foUowing year the EricBentley English stage adaptation of
Reigen, also titled La Ronde, had a long and successful run off Broadway.
The significant feature about the 1958 production of Armtol, a translation by Karl
Zimmermann, is the fact that it is the only production which has included aH seven of the
scenes. Once again it was a "Little Theatre" in which the production occurred, but in
1958 it was not the Little Theatre in which the John Barrymore production of 1912 took
place, but a newly named theater at 4 St. Mark's Square. Formerly known as the Tempo
Theatre, it had produced Schnitzler's one-act. The Galkint Cassian, in 1956. Anatol
opened the off^Broadway season there on September 3, 1958. Though one reviewer ex-
pressed the opinion that the play "today . . . belongs in a curiosity shop,"*^ another
considered it a happy choice for littLe theater entertainment. The production was executed
with artistry and with concern for correct interpretation of the author's intent, and in
sldllful hands the mood of Schnitzler's Vienna and the fortunes of his hero were not
without appeal for another time and place. Reacting to the opening njght performance a
reviewer wrote:

Although it was written at the turn of the century in a decadent Vienna

where gentlemen had little to amuse themselves with but love, its barbs and
its wistful mockery will do very well today . . . [Anatol] is the toy
philosopher in a toy world of emotion, seeking a faithful mistress in a society
where no one reniains faithful, least of all himsetf. And in each episode, his
disillusion is complete. You don't feel sorry for him, only slightly sad at what
people accept as love.^'
Since the perfoonance by the Neighborhood Playhouse School of ihe Theatre of
AnatoVs Wedding Morning and Episode in May 1959, the year following the last full
production, no appearances oi Anatol have been actual presentations of ttie work itself
on the stage,^^ but have included adaptations for television and musical comedy. Though
there is no indication that the television version oi Anatol was shown in New York, the
adaptation is recorded here to illustrate the wide variety of media for which the work has
been considered appropriate. In 1961 Hollywood TV station KNXT offered a
ninety-minute telecast of three of the scenes^ It was part of a series of programs made,
reportedly, "in the interests of better television," but the result was disappointing:

[It] was, indeed, better than most of what is seen on tv but, alas, fell
somewhat shy of the special excitement one hopes for in what is classified as
prestige entertainment., . It* native spirit of witty sophistication, delicate
irony and subtlety of style as weE as the intended endearing nature of its
centra! characters [have been] tarnished by the passage of time, victimized by
the modern viewer's acquired immunity to astoni^iment when confronted
with the "naughty" manners of its rakish, but outmoded "lady's man" hero,
and [it is] faintly incompatible with the supercharged requirements of the
living room medium itself.53

39
Though the reviewer was not enthusiastic about the fmal result, it is worth noting in
rdating the production history ot Amtol that it was chosen to be inchaded as a part of a
series intended to upgrade a theatrical medium.^ ^

The yeais since 1959 have seen two musicals based on Amtol Neither can properly be
called an ad^tatioii, except in the broadest sense, but tffough them the diaiacter of
Anatol and the name of Arthur Sduiitzler have been preserved for this decade of theater
audiences. One of the muacds, Armtoh dH not have the opportunity to make an
impression on the New York theater world. Based on Schnitzfcr's work, Ihe book and
lyrics for the musical were written by Tom Jones;*^ the music was bonowed from
Offenbach. It was performed twenty-four tinies at the Boston Arts Center in 1961,^* and
Show Business IUustrated called the Boston production a "pre-Broadway tryout."*^ If it
was, as such it was a failure, as it was not perfanned professionally in New York although
one amateur performance there is recorded for it: in 1959 lones was associated with the
theater pto^am at St. Bartholomew's Community House in New York and Ihere in the
fall of that year he produced his AnatoL^^ The other musical based oo Anatol, The Gay
Life, was more successful. After pre-Broadway ttyouts in Detroit and Toronto, it opened
in New York at the Shubert Theatre on November 18, 1961, and was performed 113
times before it dosed in February of the following year.^^ In keeping with the idea of
the need for a special temperament to capture the character of Anatol, in both musicals
"latin lovers" were chosen for the role. In the Boston prodoction of Amtol, it was
Frenchman Pierre Aumont; in The Gay Life Walter Chiari was imported from Italy for
the occasioa The Gay Life was a Broadway "extravaganza" and Schnitzler's cast of
^even-Anatol, Max, seven women, a waiter, and a servant-was inflated to twenty-two,
plus singing and dancing ensembles. Though The Gay Life is not an adaptation of
Schnitder's Anatol, the musical's debt to Schnitzler is greater than the acknowle%ememt
whidi appears on the program might lead the audience unacquainted with Amtol to
believe. Neither Schnitzler's name noi the title of Amtol appears on the pi^e which
contains all the other composition and production credits; but tucked away underneath
the cast of characters is the note: " The Gay Life' was suggested by Artlrair Schnitzler's
'Anatol,*" almost like an oversight remembered just in time. Among 1he obvious debts to
Schnitzler-in addition to theme, characters, and setting-is the incorporation of incidents
taken from the various scenes, the reproduction of snatches of dialogue, as weE as the
episodic nature of a great part of the musical's structure which portrays througji
fladibacks some of Anatol's affairs. It is a tribute to Schnitzler and his drama that most
of the reviewers welcomed a revival of the story of Anatol and the mood of flie era which
Schnitzler he^ed to romanticize: "It is still durable and, as it has been treated by its
current creators, modemly old-fashioned or, if you prefer, old-fashionedly modem."60 It
is an opulent extrava^nza cast in iie operetta mood of gay Vieima at the dawning of this
century. It is the era of Strauss waltzes, of hansom cabs clobbering on the cobbled
pavements, of maidens in billowing full-length skirts, of higji living and elite dining. This
ebullient period is rcanantically distilled by every facet of the current production. Here is
the diarm of a period that may never recur. Here is a fiesta for nostalgic sentimen-
talists."* 1 jts revival and its adaptation for a new med&im attest to the continued appeal
of the play and its 113 performances witness to theatergoers' approval of the new garb in
which Fay and Michael Kanin, Howard Dietz, and Arthur Schwartz clothed it. To the
"nostalgic sentimentalists" Anatol still has diarm and the ability to delight, and the world
that is revealed with the opening of the curtain is the same enchanted world which Alfred
Kerr described in 1896, only three years after the work was published:

40
 Mit leisem Zaubersdilag erscheint eine sdimeizliduusse Welt, vcH traurig:
schalkhafter Grazie, voll irotiisdier lilekndLolie, vol leiser, ladiender
Irmigkeit. Sie ist von zartem Leichtsinn duichweht, von sdiwermiit^gem
Zweifel umwittert, von hoUem Betrug umspielt.. Alles flutet durdiein-
ander: Innigkeit und Eleganz, Weidiheit und Ironie, Weltstadtisches und
Abseitiges, Lyrik und FeuiUetonismus, Lebensraffmement und volksmassige
Schlichtheit, Oestendchertmn und Halbfranz&sisdies, Schmerz und Spiel,
LScheln und Sterben... Das ist die unverjjlelchEche Welt Arthur
S h l ^ ^
University of Missouri, Cohjmbia
FOOTNOTES

1. A fun production is defined here as one which includes five or more of the seven one-acts in
AnatoL
2. Julius Kapp, Arthur Schnitzler, (Leipzig, 1912), p. 40L A more recent comment on the naUire
of the unity oi Anatol is (hat of Ernst L. Oflennanns: "Trotz lockerei Ftigung bildet dk
Einaktersammlung Armtol ... ein Ganzes.. .: Anatols diskontinuierliche Pers&nlichkeit, die
ihm das Leben zu einer Abfolge isolierter Episoden werden Usst, deren atigstjgende
Vergai^llchkeit durch die tuiiiulente Permanenz stSndigen neuen Abenteuers verdeckt werden
soil; sein Versuch, Einsamkeit und Langeweile mitteh der Ftille immer neuer Beziehungen zu
iiberwinden; wie er sich abei dabei in seinem Veihalten zu Welt und Du gexade niclit van deren
Wesentlichem bestinunen lasst, sondem durdi die impressionistisclie Nuance dei jeweiligen
Situation oder Stimmung, woraus sach die Austausdifcarfceit aller Relationen des Ichs er^bt;
wie Anatol schliessdich, die mittlere Linie der Klarsidit immer nur kurze Zeii behauptend,
Depressionen oder schoner Tauschung erliegt. Diese Problematik eischetnt in den diizelnen
Akten des Zyklus' mannigfach entfaltet." ArthurSchnitiler, Anatol, Komedia, no. 6, Helmut
Amtzen und Karl Pestalozzi, eds., (Berlin, 1964), pp. 174.175. Thiough a brief analysis of the
one^cts, Offermanns then shows how each of them illustrates this main theme. Other aspects
of Anatol dealt with in this present essay which Offenmanns also touches upon aie: lie
novelty of the dramatic form, the prcxluction history of the play and its leception by the
critics.

3. New York Drama tic Mirror, October 31,1903, p. 16.

4. It is poss3>le that Abschiedssouper was performed by the Russian Players in New York before
May 2, 1906, but no substantiation of an earlier peifbrmance can be made here from
programs, reviews or other sources.
5. In the fUes of the Theatre CoSection of the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New
York City there is a note about another Er^giish perfontiance ol Abschiedssouper at the Lyric
Theatre in New York on April 11, 1916, but because no program, review or reference to it in
newspapers or periodicals was found to substantiate the performance, it has not been Included
here.
6. The exact date of the performance is not available. A brief report of the production was
found in BiUbota-d, March £, 1926, p. 40, and for ttmt reason it is probable that it was
performed in Febiuary of that year.
7. Program.
8. The Equity~Library Theatre was, as its name suggests, a combined effort by members of
Actors Equity and the New York Public Library to accomplish three purposes: (1) to create a
receptive attitude toward Iheatei in New York neighborhood audiences; (2) to ghee acting
opportunities to new actors; (3) to give established actors opportunities to appear in roles
which they ordinarily did not play. New York Mornir^ Telegraph, June 8, 1946.

41
9. New York Times, November 6, 19S3. The Times added to the above descrqjtion: "The
presentations, usually about an hour long, are designed to demonstrate the vitality of the
living theatre. They also are brought to life by experienced professional actors and are shown
during the one-hour assembly periods in the city's public schoob."
10. As early as 1946 the Equity-Library Theatre pro<Juced five scenes from Amtoi at the George
Bruce Branch Lfcrary. This production is discussed later in this essay.
11. Cuttings from other dramas included scenes from Tamir^ of the Shrew and Twelfth N^ht,
Maxwell Anderson's £'&a6efft the Queen, and Oscar WUde's the Importance of Being Earnest.
12 In her unpubUAed thesis, 'The Reception of Arthur Schnitzler in the United States,"
(Columbia University, 1931) Beatrice Schrumpf dates the premiere performanc* and first njn
of this production as March 12,1911, indicating that the Octobei, 1912 *ow was a revival of
the preceding year's production. Nothing in her thesis substantiates the 1911 date except the
remark years later by Ward Morehouse, who recalled that "it was at the Uttle Theatre 'that
John Barrymore held forth as Anato! back in 1911,"' (p. S) AH of SdirumpFs bibliographical
references to the stage production refer to the October 1912 production. Every reference
examined for this present essay substantiates the New York premiere performance date of
October 14, 1912. There was a production in London in March, 1911, «*ich used the same
Granville-Barker paraphrase,, and both the London and New York productions took place in
theaters named the Little Theatre. Because of these amilarities it is possible that Schrumpf
confiised the two productions.

13. This producUon occurred at the Astor Hotel, May 24, 1916, but no information about the
details of the perfomsance is available.
14. This is the anticipatory comment of E. E. vom Saw, who wrote a lengthy review of Anatol
prior to its stage premiere and quoted passages of dialogue from the scenes. Theatre Magazine,
XVI (October 1912), 106.
15. Mimxey'sMt^zine. XLVII! (December 1912), 527.
16. TheaVe Magazine, XVI (October 1912), 110.
17. Comer's Weekly. November 2, 1912.
18. Quoted by Julius Kapp, Arthur Schnitzler, p. 11.
19. New York Worti, Octdber 1S, 1912.
20. New York Telegram, October 15, 1912.
21. New York Evening Post, October 15,1912.
22. Chicago Reconi.Jiecmiafn: 20,1912.
23. January 7,1912.
24. Undated clipping of January 1913, in the Theatre Collection, Lincoln Center for the
Perfoiming Arts, New York City.
25. November 2,1912.
26. Program from the RivoU Theatre, New York, week of September 11,1921.
27. September 12,1921.
28. EveningPost, January 17, S931.
29. Wov rorfe^mertcfln, January 17, 1931.

42
30. Brooklyn Eagle, January 17, 1931.
31. Times, January 11, 1931.
32. WorW, January 17, 1931.
33. Brooklyn Eagle, January 17, 1931.
34. NewYorkEveningWorid, larmmy 19,1931.
35. Burns Mantle, The Best Pkys of 1930-31 (New York, 195S), p. 480.
36. Times, January 17, 1931.
37. Photographs in the Theatre Collection at Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York
City are evidence of a vaudeville production oi Amtol in 1931, but research in 1931
periodicals and newspapers has produced no further details about the act.
38. New York Pout. August 26, 1938.
39. /".M, June 4, 1946.
40. Schnitzler's "Annie."
41. P.Af., June 4, 1946.
42. The perfomiance was repeated at the U.S.O, Theatre on June 14, 1946.
43. New York Morning Telegruph, June 8, 1946.
44. June 8, 1946.
45. June 10, 1946.
46. Unidentified newspaper clipping of August 24,, 1956, tn the Theatre Collection, Lincoln
Center for the Performing Arts, New York City.
47. Times, July 26, 1956.
48. Unidentified newspaper clipping of August 24, 1956, in the Theatre Collection, Lincoln
Center for the Performing Arts, New York Cily.
49. Unidentified newspaper clipping of August 24, 1956, in the Theatre Collection, Lincoln
Center for the Perfoiming Arts, New York City.
50. New York Wortd-Telegrem and Sun, September 4, 1958.
51. Posf, September 4, 1958.
52. This excludes the possibility that the Cherry Lane Theatre production, for which no date has
been established, occurred after 1959.
53. Carre/j, April 12, 1961.
54. The adaptation for the ninety-minute program for television. The Affats of Anawl, was
written by Robert Boon, produced by Alexander Ramati, and directed by Ezra Stone.
Members of the cast included John van Dreelen, Oscar Beregi, Kathleen Crowley, Susan Silo,
Didi Ramati, Jack Tealei, and Ralph Smiley. Variety, Apiii 12, 1961.
55. Jones is the author of the book and lyrics for the musical The famasticks.
56. Henry Hewes, The Best Plays of 1961-62 (New York, 1962), p. 41.

43
57. September 19, 1961.
58. Confirmed in a telephone conversation with a staff member of St. Bartholomew's, March 18,
1966.
59. rfteS«wPir>'Jof 1961-1962, p. 270.
60. Afewsrfflv, November 22,1961.
61. Women's Wear Daily, November 20, 1961,
62. "ArthuT Sdinitzlei,"Neue deutsche Rundschau, Jahrgang VII, 1 (1896), p. 287.

44