Banned in Berlin. Gary D. Stark

Frankfurt PP to Intendant der Stadttheater, 5 Sept. and 14 Sept. 1891, HHStA/407, Nr. 25, Bd. 1; Frankfurter Finanzherold, 14 Nov. 1891 and General Anzeiger, 9 Dec. 1891; Frankfurt RP to PrIM, 17 Oct. 1904, GStA PK/1000, Nr. 7, Bd. 3; and HHStA/407, Nrs. 408, 409; Schulze-Olden, “Theaterzensur in Rheinprovinz,” 67–81, 95–97; OP Hanover to PrIM, 2 July 1895, GStA PK/1000, Nr. 4, Bd. 2.

      42. Dresden police instituted prior theater censorship on 24 Dec. 1876 and Leipzig on 10 Mar. 1894. Goldbaum, Theaterrecht, 67; G. Krais, “Über Theaterzensur,” Blätter für administrative Praxis 51 (1901): 29 n. 2, and Schmid, “Theaterzensur,” 148. Munich's censorship ordinance, which closely paralleled Berlin's, is quoted in Krais, “Über Theaterzensur,” 31ff. and Lenman, “Censorship and Society,” 214–15.

      43. Court costs even at the first instance could run into thousands of marks; in Oct. 1895 the Bezirksausschuß ruled against the Neue Freie Volksbühne and assessed it costs totaling three thousand marks. (See chapter 4.)

      44. District administrative councils in Prussia consisted of the district administrative president—a professional civil servant and a judicial officer appointed by the state—and four laymen elected by the provincial assembly. While on most councils these laymen generally came from a narrow elite of estate owners and upper-middle-class businessmen, Berlin's tended to be slightly more democratic: the Berlin District Administrative Council that ruled on Hauptmanns Die Weber in March 1893, for example, had as its four lay members a Techniker, a Maurermeister, a Verlagsbuchhändler, and a Bankier. (VL, 1: 342–44)

      45. Kenneth F. Ledford, “Formalizing the Rule of Law in Prussia: The Supreme Administrative Law Court, 1876–1914,” Central European History 37, no. 2 (2004): 203–24; Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte, 1:662ff; 2:118–19; Michael John, “Constitution, Administration, and the Law,” in Chickering, Imperial Germany, 202–3; and even Wehler, German Empire, 128.

      46. “Gesetz betreffend die Einrichtung eines Verwaltungsgerichthofes und das Verfahren im Verwaltungsgerichtssachen,” Gesez- und Verordnungsblatt für den Freistaat Bayern, 1878, 369ff; Lenman, “Censorship and Society,” 95 n. 2, 216.

      47. Maximilian Harden, Berlin als Theaterhauptstadt (Berlin, 1888), 14. To avoid embarrassment to his royal employer, von Hülsen went so far as to change words like Serrenissmus to Ein Großer and Monarch to die erhabene Regierung. Charlotte Klinger, “Das Königliche Schauspielhaus unter Botho von Hülsen, 1869–1886” (Diss. phil., Berlin, 1954), 203–4.

      48. Hans Schorer, Das Theaterleben in Münster in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Emsdetten, 1935), 146, 158; Wilhelm Herrmann, “Mannheimer Theaterzensur im 19. Jahrhundert,” Mannheimer Hefte, no. 2 (1976): 74–78.

      49. Verwaltungsbericht, 64; [Zweiter] Verwaltungsbericht, 294. Another 443 such groups came into existence between 1890 and 1896, when police ceased keeping records on them. (Dritter Verwaltungsbericht, 383.) On Munich see Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte, 1:793.

      50. Julius Hart, “Die Entstehung der ‘Freien Bühne': Persönliche Erinnerungen von Julius Hart,” Velhagen und Klasings Monatshefte 24, Bd. 1 (1909/10): 291–92.

      51. Berlin police Tagesbefehl of 17 July 1875, LAB A/74, Th. 3; BPP to PrIM 10 Oct. 1888, LAB A/74, Th 952; [Zweiter] Verwaltungsbericht, 64; Charlottenberg PP decree, 18 July 1896, LAB A/74, Th 3796; Lenman, “Censorship and Society,” 233, 237; Michael Meyer, Theaterzensur in München 1900–1918. Geschichte und Entwicklung der polizeilichen Zensur und des Theaterzensurbeirates unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Frank Wedekinds (Munich, 1982), 58–59, 286–87; Schulze-Olden, “Theaterzensur in Rheinprovinz,” 131. As an example of how dramatist Ferdinand Bonn tried to use bogus “private” performances to circumvent a police ban on his work, and how police continually thwarted him, see LAB A/74, Th 496.

      52. See decisions of Pr OVG of 25 Aug. 1883, 4 Jan. 1895, and 5 Oct. 1906, and the discussion of the Freie Volksbühne and Neue Freie Volksbühne in chapter 4.

      53. Verdicts of Berlin Schöffengericht, 29 May 1883, Berlin Landgericht, 30 Oct. 1883, Royal Kammergericht, 31 Jan. 1884, and Pr OVG, 2 May 1892, 12 Jun. 1892, 1 Dec. 1892, 3 Jan. 1894. Also Pr OVG, 3 Jan. 1909, Bavarian Verwaltungsgerichthof, 19 Jan. 1896; Saxon OVG, 16 Mar. 1901; Württemberg ambassador in Bavaria to Württemberg Foreign Minister, 3 Jul. 1908, in HStA Stuttgart, E151cII, Nr. 270a.

      54. Center delegate Rintelen, quoted in Peter Mast, Künstlerische und wissenschaftliche Freiheit im Deutschen Reich 1890–1901 (Rheinfelden, 1980), 141–42.

      55. Von Heller to Bavarian Justice Minister, 4 Mar. 1893 (Auszug von Bericht über Gerichtsverhandlungen), in BHStA, MA 76 781; Mast, Künstlerische und wissenschaftliche Freiheit, 141–42; Robin J. V. Lenman, “Art, Society, and the Law in Wilhelmine Germany: the Lex Heinze,” Oxford German Studies 8 (1973): 94–95.

      56. Remarks by von Heereman, 21 Feb. 1895 in Prussian Landtag, quoted in Manfred Brauneck, Literatur und Öffentlichkeit im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Rezeption des naturalistischen Theaters in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1974), 250.

      57. Quoted in Mast, Künstlerische und wissenschaftliche Freiheit, 142.

      58. Petition to Wilhelm II, “Gegen die Corruption der Bühne,” Jan. 1898, GStA PK, Rep. 77, Tit. 435, Nr. 23, Bd. 2, Bl. 87ff.

      59. Mast, Künstlerische und wissenschaftliche Freiheit, 152–54; Lenman, “Art, Society, and the Law,” 96–97.

      60. Max Halbe (founder of the Munich Goethebund) to Munich police, 15 Mar. 1900 and police report on the Munich Goethebund, StAM/PDM, 2401; press reports in Vorwärts 27 Mar. 1900 and Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel, 28 Mar. 1900. The charter of the Berlin Goethebund, founded by Hermann Sudermann, stated: “The purpose of [this] association is to resist all attacks on the free development of artistic and scholarly life, in particular by guaranteeing its legal protection.” Satzungen des Berliner Goethebunds, undated [Mar. 1900] in Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Marbach, Cotta Archiv, Nachl. Sud. xxv4.

      61. Andreas Pöllinger, Der Zensurprozeß um Paul Heyses Drama “Maria von Magdala” (1901–1903) (Frankfurt, 1989), 32–40, 118–49; Hermann Sudermann, Drei Reden, gehalten von Hermann Sudermann (Stuttgart, 1900); Huber, Das klassische Schwabing, 88–90; Lenman, “Art, Society, and the Law,” 100–104, 107; Meyer, Theaterzensur in München, 15–27.

      62. Gordon A. Craig, Germany 1866–1945 (New York, 1978), 262.

      63. Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte, 2:128.

      64. Hermann Sudermann, in Die Theaterzensur. Fünf Vorträge, 3–14.

      65. M. G. Conrad, “Goethebund,” Die Gesellschaft, 16, Pt. 2 (1900): 69.

      66. Petition of Verband der deutschen Goethebunds, 10/11 Nov. 1900, in Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Marbach, Cotta Archiv, Nachl. Sudermann, XXV3. See also Dritter Verwaltungsbericht, 335.

      67. StenBer/RT, 10. Leg. Periode, II. Session, Drucksache 16 (Bd. 189, 281).

      68. Remarks by Ernst Müller-Meiningen, Dr. H. Pachnicke, and A. Traeger, StenBer/RT, 10.Leg. Per., II.Session, Sitzung von 30. Jan., 6 Feb., and 20 Feb. 1901, Bd. 180, 1016–27, 1160–61, and 1459–65; quotations from 1022, 1019, 1026–27.

      69. Remarks by A. Stadthagen, ibid., 6 Feb. 1901, Bd. 180, 1164–73.

      70. Remarks by Dr. Stockmann, ibid., 30 Jan. 1901 and 20 Feb. 1901, and by Himburg, 6 Feb. 1901, Bd. 180, 1028–34, 1163–64, 1465–67.

      71. Remarks by H. Roeren, ibid., 6 Feb. 1901, 1152–59 and his remarks in the Prussian Landtag, 15 Feb. 1901, StenBer/Pr, 27. Sitzung am 15.2.1901, Bd. 442, 1721–28.

      72. Remarks by Bassermann, 6 Feb. 1901, StenBer/RT, Bd. 180, 1148–52.