AUSTRIAN STUDIES, II, 2OO3 223 of personal history over thewider cultural matrix, Freud is seen asmissing the trick with Dora. Concerned only with her family situation and relations with men, he overlooks her thwarted lust for emancipation and education. Following Toril Moi, Michael sees a conflict between the liberating potential of psychoanalysis and Freud's application of the technique to return his patients successfully to the marriage market. This is well-trodden ground, but deftlydone. In a tellingquotation here, Freud suggestively compares psychic repression topolitical censorship. If there isa faultwith Michael's chapters on Schnitzler and Freud, it is that she repeatedly invokes the term 'censorship' without defining it.Sometimes she refers to theofficial 'Zensur' of literature, at other times to self-censoring. A brief account of the operation of book censorship would have been helpful. We must deduce that medical publications were exempt from theprocess, enabling Freud to raise sexual issueswith a freedom not permitted to Schnitzler. With Hofmannsthal, the subject of two final chapters, we have an author to whom self-censorship isa way of life.But inElektra he permits himself a rare degree of sexual explicitness, one motive surely being the desire to fit the play intoMax Reinhardt's racy repertoire. The actress Tilla Durieux tells of Reinhardt's stratagems forhoodwinking the theatre censor. However, we hear none of thisfrom Michael, forby this stage the theme of censorship has disappeared from her book and the limitations of its scope become apparent. Elektra, a work of 'reactionary gynophobia' advocating 'violence against women and Jews' by the 'misogynist' Hofmannsthal, isa 'socially repressive' play inwhich she detects a nexus familiar to readers of Sander Gilman: an equation linking 'Oriental', 'Jewish', 'hysterical', 'feminine' and 'homosexual'. Her close reading of the play is doggedly sustained but it fails to yield the evidence that she hopes to find of anti-Semitism and homophobia. Ironically, her account confirmswhat a densely imaged text this is,an artefact knowingly manipulating the tropes of the fin de si?cle,perhaps one where we need to separate the author from the authored (a courtesy she ishappy to accord Schnitzler), at any rate a play that does not so easily dissolve under thewithering gaze of political correctness. Wolfson College, Cambridge Philip Ward Les R?f?rencesanglaises de lamodernit?viennoise. By Silvie Arlaud. (S?rie germanique 7). Paris: Editions Suger. 2000. 447 pp. 15,00. isbn 2-912590-16-7. Journaux intimes viennois. By Jacques Le Rider. (Perspectives critiques). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 2000. 438 pp. 25,00. isbn 2-13-050566-x. Silvie Arlaud's book is themost thorough and detailed investigation to date of the debt toEnglish literature owed byViennese modernism between 1890 and 1914. It aims to identify the specificity ofmodernist Austrian literature via its response to literature in English: 'la r?f?rence anglaise d?livre les contours du probl?me identitaire viennois, elle permet aux modernes de penser leur identit? esth?tique, leur identit? priv? [. . .] et leur identit? nationale' (p. 16). Writers conscious of the fluidity of theirown Austrian national identity,according toArlaud, were drawn to a Utopian view ofBritain as a strong and confident nation; theverymeans bywhich Austria's modernist generation sought to achieve an equivalent uniqueness were a re-valorization of form and style (inspired by Emerson and theVictorians) and the 224 Reviews development of a self-image that exploited Vienna's ideal position as the interpreter of other cultures bymaking deliberate intertextual reference amark not of epigonal derivativeness but of cultural distinctiveness. English literature was an ideal candidate for such attention above all because itoffered a powerful alternative to German naturalism. 'La r?f?rence n'est donc jamais innocente, et ce d'autant moins que son utilisation est pr?cis?ment consciente et belliqueuse' (p. 14). This thesis is illustrated firstby investigations into thenature of criticalwriting in the early 1890s as itwas inspired by Swinburne, Pater and the English Pre Raphaelites, and into thedebate inVienna surrounding Oscar Wilde's trial in 1895. Arlaud skilfully shows how the issues of homophobia and anti-Semitism became intermingled in the critical responses to Wilde, and to Salom? inparticular. She then spins a sophisticated web to show how the business of translation, reception, transposition...