In this blog post, we will examine how Schnitzler’s medical background and the zeitgeist of 19th-century Vienna influenced his “psychoanalytic” narrative style, focusing in particular on the universal view of humanity revealed in ‘Death’ and ‘Reigen’.

Anatomy of the Human Psyche: The Criticism That His Works Were “Hospital Medical Records, Not Literature”

One of the common criticisms leveled at Arthur Schnitzler (1862–1931) during his lifetime was that his works were “more like hospital medical records than literary works.” This criticism stemmed primarily from Schnitzler’s tendency to observe human psychology with an extremely analytical eye—much like a doctor examining a patient’s symptoms—and to literarily reconstruct the results of those observations within a fictional framework.
Schnitzler was not solely interested in the uniqueness of specific individuals but was more concerned with universal human psychology and patterns of behavior. Consequently, he preferred to feature typical characters rather than heroic ones as protagonists and enjoyed depicting specific situations in which universal human psychology is revealed.
For example, in his early masterpiece, the short story “Death (Sterben)” (1892), he places two lovers in an extreme situation and delicately portrays how their psychological states change. He intentionally excluded other elements that could influence the plot—such as the characters’ ages, occupations, and family circumstances—to dilute their individuality and emphasize the universal nature of the story. The plot unfolds as follows: a man who has learned he is terminally ill tells the woman to leave him, but she insists on dying with him and leaves for a sanatorium. As his illness worsens, the man becomes increasingly obsessed with her, while she feels a growing fear of death. In the end, the man pleads with her to die together, but she, overcome by terror, pushes him away and flees.

Traces of a Medical Family and Medical Education

This tendency in his work is also linked to the fact that Schnitzler was, in fact, a doctor. He was born on May 15, 1862, in Vienna, the son of Johann Schnitzler, a laryngologist. As a child, he was introduced to theater through actors who visited his father for vocal cord problems; although he aspired to literature, his father’s opposition ultimately led him to enroll in the University of Vienna Medical School, where he majored in medicine.
After graduating from college and becoming a doctor, he continued his medical career, working as the editor of a medical journal published by his father. However, these activities were in fact due to his father’s coercion, and Schnitzler’s heart was always set on literature. Even while working as a doctor, he was already interacting with the writers of the Viennese Modernist movement and publishing various plays and short stories; it was only after his father’s death in 1893 that he was able to devote himself entirely to literature.

Medical and Historical Background and View of Humanity

Although the profession of medicine itself was an unavoidable choice, his medical studies at the university had a profound influence on his worldview. At the time, the Vienna Medical School was dominated by the Vienna School, which sought the causes of all diseases in physical and chemical factors, and Schnitzler learned an objective, scientific approach to observation. He became accustomed to viewing human beings not as beings driven by free will or divine will, but as biological entities subject to the laws of nature.
However, this view of humanity cannot be attributed solely to his medical education. Since the mid-19th century, industrial development based on the natural sciences and Darwin’s theory of evolution had shaken traditional religious views, and the perspective that humans are not special beings but biological and natural entities no different from other living creatures became widespread. Environmental determinism and the philosophy of positivism lent credence to the idea that human thought and behavior are also determined by surrounding conditions. Although Schnitzler made statements acknowledging human free will toward the end of his life, his works and the spirit of the age clearly reflect these trends of the late 19th century.

His Place in Viennese Modernism and His Relationship with Freud

Among the writers of Viennese Modernism, Schnitzler’s view of humanity was somewhat unique. While many writers in other German-speaking regions followed naturalistic tendencies, such attempts were rare in Vienna at the time. Schnitzler was a frequent visitor to the Café Grünsteidl, where he interacted with Hermann Bahr, Peter Altenberg, Felix Salten, and especially Hugo von Hofmannsthal; however, his literary world differed from that of his more aestheticist-minded colleagues.
Among the Viennese intellectuals of his time, the one who felt a spiritual kinship with Schnitzler was Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. In a letter sent on Schnitzler’s 60th birthday, Freud wrote that the reason they had not formed a personal friendship, despite having long been aware of their similar views, was due to “Doppelgangerscheu” (a fear of one’s doppelgänger). The two men were similar in that they both came from wealthy Jewish families, studied under similar mentors at the University of Vienna Medical School, and viewed sexual desire as a crucial element of human nature.
However, there were also key differences. Schnitzler did not agree with Freud’s psychoanalysis, which took infantile sexual desire as a central premise, and even after Freud’s letter, the two men never became particularly close.

Major Works and Later Years

Schnitzler produced outstanding works in both drama and fiction. His major works include the short story “Death” (Sterben, 1892), the play “Anatol” (1893), the play “Love’s Game” (1895), the play ‘Reigen’ (1896/97), the play ‘The Green Parrot’ (1898), the short story “Lieutenant Gustl” (1900), the play ‘The Lonely Road’ (1904), the novel ‘The Road to Freedom’ (1908), the play ‘Professor Bernardi’ (1912), the short story “Casanova’s Return” (1917), the short story “Miss Else” (1924), the short story “A Dream Novella” (1924), the short story “A Gamble at Dawn” (1926/27), the novel ‘Therese. A Woman’s Life” (1928).
Along with Hofmannsthal, Schnitzler was a leading figure of Viennese Modernism and garnered significant attention in Austria during the turn of the century and the early 20th century, but he did not enjoy the same level of fame after World War I. He was one of the few German-speaking intellectuals who opposed the war. He was deeply traumatized by his daughter’s suicide in 1928 and died of a cerebral hemorrhage in Vienna on October 21, 1931.

Reigen (1897) — Scandal and Circular Structure

“Reigen” was one of the works that caused the biggest scandals in Germany in the early 1900s. Originally, “Reigen” refers to an ancient European circle dance in which people hold hands to form a circle and dance to lively music. Schnitzler borrowed this dance form for his play.
The work consists of ten episodes in which ten characters take turns changing partners and engaging in sexual relations; the characters who appear in the first episode reappear in the tenth, creating a cyclical structure identical to that of the “Reigen” dance. Each episode follows the same structure: a conversation between two lovers unfolds, sexual intercourse is implied by “——,” and the episode concludes with another conversation between the two lovers.
With the exception of the fifth episode, which depicts sexual relations between a married couple, the work—which portrays exclusively extramarital affairs—explicitly thematized sexuality. It depicted only relationships that deviated from the strict sexual ethics of the time and portrayed sexual desire as a natural instinct that could not be suppressed by mere moral condemnation. For this reason, ‘Reigen’ caused a major controversy from the moment it was first published.

Reigen

In February 1897, when the work was completed, Schnitzler intended to publish ‘Reigen’ through S. Fischer Verlag, the publisher that had released his previous works. However, when Samuel Fischer, the head of the publishing house, expressed reservations, Schnitzler ultimately had 200 copies printed at his own expense and distributed them only to his close acquaintances. Having already attracted significant attention from Vienna’s cultural circles and the public by this time, the work was made available to the general public in 1903 through a Viennese publisher. ‘Reigen’, which had been published with great difficulty, sold over 14,000 copies in just eight months, achieving great commercial success. However, in 1904, the Austrian censorship authorities ordered a ban on the book’s sale, and ‘Reigen’ was also placed on the list of banned books in many German cities.
Having already faced numerous setbacks during the publishing process, ‘Reigen’ sparked an even greater scandal when it was staged. In the early 1900s, when the work was first published, Schnitzler did not authorize its performance, primarily because he feared it would degenerate into a vulgar play, particularly regarding the staging of the love scene—which had been replaced with “——.” Schnitzler changed his mind after World War I ended, the monarchies of Germany and Austria collapsed, and censorship was abolished.
When Max Reinhardt—the director who was then at the helm of Berlin’s Deutsches Theater and enjoyed the highest reputation in the German-speaking world—proposed staging ‘Reigen’, Schnitzler granted permission, believing that a production faithful to his original intent would be possible. After many twists and turns, ‘Reigen’ premiered on December 22, 1920, at the Kleines Schauspielhaus in Berlin.
The circumstances surrounding the premiere were not unfavorable. Censorship had been abolished, and the Minister of Culture at the time was a member of the progressive Social Democratic Party. However, at 4:00 p.m. on the day of the premiere, an official notice from the Ministry of Culture arrived at the Kleines Schauspielhaus, prohibiting the performance. The notice cited a previous court ruling that had deemed Schnitzler’s work “obscene” and ordered its ban.
Gertrud Isolde, the artistic director of the Kleines Schauspielhaus, addressed the audience before the performance began to explain the situation and went ahead with the performance, accepting the risk of legal consequences. The performance proceeded without incident, and on January 3, 1921, after the judge and jurors of the local district court had seen the performance, the ban was lifted. However, the matter did not end there. On December 23, 1920, the day after the premiere, Professor Emil Brunner, who was in charge of “obscene literature” at the Berlin Police Department, filed a complaint against the production team, and a series of legal battles—commonly known as the “Reigen Trial”—began.
Around the same time, a more serious situation unfolded during a performance in Vienna. Following the premiere on February 1, 1921, at the Kammerspiel on Rotenturm Street, conservative newspapers and organizations in Vienna reacted vehemently against the ‘Reigen’ production. The ‘Reichspost’, the official newspaper of the ruling Christian Social Party, launched a campaign to halt the performances, using phrases such as “a plague outbreak” and “a disgrace that contaminates the nation,” and Catholic bishops also voiced their support.
As heated debates raged in the National Council and local assemblies, and the Ministry of the Interior sought to ban the play, the Socialist Party blocked the move on constitutional grounds. ‘Reigen’ was attacked and labeled a “brothel play,” and on February 13, 1922, the Austrian Catholic National Union held an “anti-Reigen rally” at City Hall.
The incident spilled over into the theater itself. On February 16, 1926, a “stink bomb” was thrown into the Kammerspiel while ‘Reigen’ was being performed, and soon after, some 600 people stormed the theater to protest the play. A large crowd stormed the theater, leading to a brawl; the performance was halted, and the venue descended into chaos. As a result of this incident, the play was banned starting the following day. Schnitzler, who happened to witness the brawl at the scene, concluded that the production of ‘Reigen’ only invited misunderstanding and voluntarily banned the play permanently.
This ban was upheld by his son, Heinrich Schnitzler, who inherited his copyright, and performances of ‘Reigen’ were not permitted again until 1982, when the copyright expired.
Why did ‘Reigen’ provoke such extreme support and opposition at the same time?
The depiction of sexuality in ‘Reigen’ is based on a new view of humanity that began to take root in the late 19th century. The perspective that views humans as part of nature and understands sexual desire as part of human nature underlies the entire work, arguing that it cannot be arbitrarily judged by strict moral standards. This progressive view of sexuality was welcomed by many readers of the time.
On the other hand, the conservative middle class—who advocated strict sexual morality while engaging in prostitution—was outraged that they were caricatured in Schnitzler’s work and felt a sense of crisis that the strict sexual morality they had long believed in was being fundamentally challenged. Furthermore, the anti-Semitism widespread at the time played a major role in amplifying the backlash by framing the work as an “obscene piece” by a Jewish author.
‘Reigen’ offers a valuable opportunity to examine the discourse on sexuality in the German-speaking world at the turn of the century and the social conflicts surrounding it. The work’s reflection on human sexual instincts remains highly relevant today. More than a century after ‘Reigen’ was first published, how is sexuality addressed socially and culturally in Korea today? ‘Reigen’ poses questions that remain valid even within the multifaceted and Janus-faced nature of contemporary sexual culture.

Anatole (1893)

“Anatole” is a series of plays consisting of seven independent one-act plays; it was published as a collection of seven out of ten one-act plays featuring “Anatole” as the protagonist, written between 1889 and 1893. For a long time after its publication, many people tended to equate the character Anatol with the author Schnitzler himself. This was because Schnitzler had used the pen name “Anatol” early in his literary career, and it was widely known that, like the character, he had engaged in numerous casual romantic relationships with women.
However, as is generally accepted today, Anatol cannot be equated directly with Schnitzler. Of course, it is clear that the character of Anatol is based to some extent on the author’s personal experiences, but his way of thinking and lifestyle are less the traits of a specific individual and more representative of the typical young man from the middle class who was common in Viennese society at the time. Therefore, Anatol is regarded as the archetype of a decadent figure from the turn of the century.
In the seven one-act plays that make up the series, Anatol appears each time with a different lover. Each one-act play is a short, independent episode, and the only continuity linking the entire series comes from Anatol and his friend Max. The short duration and the fleeting nature of love and life are representative characteristics of the decadent trend found in German-language literature around 1900.
Anatol’s decadent character is revealed in various episodes. In the first episode, “A Question to Fate,” Anatol has the opportunity to use hypnosis to uncover his girlfriend Cora’s true feelings. Around this time, Schnitzler was actually very interested in hypnosis and had even published medical papers on the subject. However, rather than confirming that Cora’s love was not genuine, Anatol chooses to forgo this opportunity. He opts for momentary satisfaction over the truth.
Anatole’s attitude, which prioritizes momentary sensual ecstasy, becomes even clearer in “Episode.” Knowing full well that he will soon leave the city, he engages in a brief romance with Bianca, a member of a circus troupe. What matters to him is not the permanence of love, but the intense sensation of the moment. Anatole is aware of the pain he has caused and feels heartbroken, but he rationalizes that such sacrifice is inevitable and something an inferior being must endure.
However, when Bianca returns to Vienna, Anatol’s self-justification is revealed as a complete delusion. Bianca does not even remember Anatol. In this scene, we can see that Schnitzler portrays Anatol with a certain degree of sympathy, yet does not endorse his attitude toward life. This critical perspective is also clearly evident in ‘The Farewell Dinner’ and ‘The Morning of Anatol’s Wedding’. In both one-act plays, Anatol fails to assess the situation objectively and appears ridiculous as he tries to flee to avoid the difficulties right in front of him.

Lieutenant Gustl (1900)

The plot of ‘Lieutenant Gustl’ is very simple. Gustl, a rookie lieutenant, attends a concert and gets into a quarrel with the baker Habetzwaller, during which he is severely humiliated. Although no one else noticed what happened, Gustl worries that Habetzwaller—a regular at the café he frequents—might spread the rumor. Overwhelmed by the situation and unable to stand up for himself, and unable to restore his honor through a duel because his low social status disqualified him from one, Gustl decides he cannot live with his honor lost and resolves to commit suicide.
Lost in his thoughts, Gustl falls asleep on a bench in the Prater Park; when he wakes up at dawn the next day, he postpones his suicide for a short while and goes to his favorite café for breakfast. At the café, he learns that Habetzwalner had suffered a stroke and died the previous night; rejoicing inwardly, he energetically plans his day.
In this novel, Schnitzler shows that while Gustl deceives himself into believing he is committing suicide for the sake of “honor,” he actually resolved to take his own life out of fear of others’ judgment and social failure. This work, which contains criticism of the reckless and vain young officers of the time, caused a scandal, though it was not as dramatic as ‘Reigen’. Following the publication of ‘Lieutenant Gustl’, the Austro-Hungarian Army stripped Schnitzler of his officer’s rank, accusing the author—a former officer himself—of insulting the military.
However, what is more significant about this work is its narrative technique. ‘Lieutenant Gustl’ is the first German work to be written entirely as an “inner monologue” (innerer Monolog). The inner monologue is a technique in which the first-person narrator transcribes their thoughts exactly as they occur in their mind; sentences are often written in the present tense and may be grammatically incomplete. This technique is effective for psychological portrayal because it directly conveys the character’s mental state and stream of consciousness.
A prime example of a work written in inner monologue is James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’ (1918), but there are differences between ‘Lieutenant Gustl’ and ‘Ulysses’. In Schnitzler’s work, Gustl’s psychology and thoughts are conveyed directly, and the logical progression of his thoughts is relatively clear; in contrast, in ‘Ulysses’, the logical structure of the content—which is conveyed as if the actual thoughts in his mind were transcribed verbatim—is far more disrupted.

Schnitzler’s Controversies and Literary Significance

Among Schnitzler’s works, there were some that caused an unusually large number of social and cultural scandals. This was likely because he sought to actively confront the social, cultural, and intellectual issues of his time. His works did not merely stir up controversy; they served as a mirror reflecting the conflicts of the era.
Furthermore, the fact that these works remain masterpieces and continue to provide fascinating topics of discussion for readers today is deeply significant in relation to the question, “What should literature truly be?” Schnitzler’s explorations—which grapple with social taboos and personal desires, falsehood and truth, and the fleeting moment versus eternity—remain well worth reading even today.