Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:05:25.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Josef Kainz: A Reassessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Simon Williams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The premature death of the Austrian actor Josef Kainz on 20 September 1910, was regarded by many of his contemporaries as the passing of an epoch in the history of the German and Austrian theatre. In obituary notices Kainz was described as the most representative actor of his generation, as the pioneer of a ‘modern’ style of acting which accurately and imaginatively communicated the experience of man during a period of transition and uncertainty, one ‘in which the old … was dead and the new not yet born’. Some notices included even more extravagant accolades; Kainz's death, it was claimed, had deprived the theatre of its most creative spirit and comparisons were made, somewhat indiscriminately, between Kainz and many of the greatest figures of Western civilization – Moses, Socrates, Molière, Voltaire, even Jesus Christ! In the years following his death writers continued to assert without qualification that Kainz had been the most important actor of his generation, the single giant among the moderns. Although some biographers, especially Helene Richter, denned precisely why this was so, others continued their flamboyant praises, one seeing him as the perpetuator of a ‘pythagorean’ tradition which included Giordano Bruno, Albrecht Dürer and Goethe. Kainz, it appeared, was more than just an actor, he was a great creator who profoundly influenced the art of acting in particular and the development of Western culture in general.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1981 , pp. 195 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Friedell, Egon, ‘Kainz’, Die Schaubühne, 6, II (1911), 1047.Google Scholar

2. Osborn, Max, ‘Kainz’, Die Schaubühne, 6, II (1911), 987.Google Scholar

3. Minor, Jakob, Aus dem alien und neuen Burg (Zurich: Amalthea, 1920), p. 207.Google Scholar

4. Helene Richter's substantial biography, Kainz (Vienna and Leipzig: Speidel, 1931) is still the standard work on Kainz's life and art.

5. Kober, Gustav, Josef Kainz: Mensch unter Masken (Vienna: Paul Neff, 1948), p. 157.Google Scholar

6. Kainz, Josef, Briefe, ed. Noa, Wolfgang (Berlin: Henschel, 1966).Google Scholar

7. Four articles have appeared on Kainz in the last fifteen years: Soltan, Otto, ‘Das “Neue Deutsche Theater” in Prag und Josef Kainz,’ Prager Nachrichten, 17, IV (1966), pp. 2–5.Google Scholar; Coblenzer, Horst, ‘Joseph Kainz – König der Sprache’, Maske und Kothurn, 14, I (1968), 84–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kindermann, Heinz, ‘Joseph Kainz und der Wandel der klassiker-Inszenierungen an der Jahrhundertwende’, Maske und Kothurn, 14, I (1968), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Josef Kainz in seinem Shakespearerollen’, Jahrbuch der Deutsche Shakespeare Gesellschaft West (1973), pp. 62–77.

8. Duerr, Edwin, The Length and Depth of Acting (New York: Holt, Rinehardt & Winston, 1963), p. 368 and 376.Google Scholar

9. Actors on Acting, ed. Cole, Toby and Chinoy, Helen Krich (New York: Crown, 1970), p. 289.Google Scholar

10. Speaight, Robert, Shakespeare on the Stage (Boston: Little Brown, 1973), pp. 110–12.Google Scholar

11. Kainz, , Briefe, p. 41.Google Scholar

12. The visit of the Meininger to Vienna had not been very successful, Ludwig Speidel of the Neue Freie Presse claiming that Kainz was merely the best of a mediocre bunch of actors. However, a letter from Kainz's father to Kainz, in Kainz: Ein Brevier, ed. Mautner-Kalbeck, M. (Vienna: Der österreichischen Staatsdruckerei, 1953), p. 16Google Scholar, describes how a distinguished member of the Literary Society felt that Kainz was extremely successful in interpreting a very ‘unpalatable’ part.

13. See Blunt, Wilfred, The Dream King: Lugwig II of Bavaria (New York: Viking, 1970), pp. 189–202Google Scholar, for an adequate account of the Ludwig-Kainz relationship.

14. Otto Brahm, rev. of Kabale und Liebe at the Deutsches Theater, Vossische zeitung, 1 October 1883. Inc. in Brahm, Otto, Kritiken und Essays, ed. Martini, Fritz, der Kritik, Klassiker (Zurich and Stuttgart: Artemis, 1964), pp. 101–11.Google Scholar

15. Brahm, Otto, Kainz: Gesehenes und Erlebtes, 1st ed. (Berlin: Fleischel, 1910).Google Scholar

16. Brahm, , Kritiken und Essays, p. 117.Google Scholar

17. Richter, , Kainz, p. 116.Google Scholar

18. Quoted in Drews, Wolfgang, Die grossen Zauberer (Vienna and Munich: Donau, 1953), p. 207.Google Scholar

19. Minor, , p. 207.Google Scholar

20. Bahr, Hermann, ‘Joseph Kainz’, Essays, introd. Kindermann, Heinz (Vienna: H. Bauer, 1962), pp. 308–9.Google Scholar

21. Brahm, Otto, ‘Der Fall Kainz’, Kritische Schriften über Drama und Theater, ed. Schlenther, Paul (Berlin: Fischer, 1913–1915), p. 309.Google Scholar

22. Friedell, , p. 1048.Google Scholar

23. Duerr, , pp. 376–7.Google Scholar

24. Kober, , p. 227.Google Scholar

25. Richter, Helene, ‘Josef Kainz’, Schauspieler-Charakteristiken, Theatergeschichtliche Forschungen, 27 (Leipzig and Hamburg: Voss, 1914). p. 47.Google Scholar

26. Stahl, Ernst Leopold, Shakespeare und das deutsche Theater (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1947), p. 524.Google Scholar

27. Martersteig, Max, Das deutsche Theater im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1904), p. 667.Google Scholar

28. Kainz, , ‘Aus einem Aufsatz’, Kainz: Brevier, p. 46.Google Scholar

29. Gregori, Ferdinand, Kainz.Google Scholar

30. Quoted Bahr, , p. 305.Google Scholar

31. Winds, Adolf in Der Schauspieler (Berlin: Schuster and Loeffler, 1919), p. 254Google Scholar, compares the musical innovations Kainz brought to the art of verse-speaking to similar concerns with the musical potential of language in the plays of Maeterlinck and Strindberg.

32. Kainz, , ‘Leitfaden für das Rollenstudium’, Kainz: Brevier, p. 31.Google Scholar

33. Kainz, , ‘Aus einem Notizbuch’, Kainz: Brevier, p. 64.Google Scholar

34. Kober, , p. 329.Google Scholar Richter also tells the same story, with some variations, pp. 312–3. The point over Kainz's knowledge of Nietzsche is not disputed.

35. Handl, Joseph, ‘Josef Kainz’, Schauspieler des Burgtheaters (Vienna and Frankfurt: Humboldt, 1955), p. 101.Google Scholar

36. Kerr, Alfred, ‘Die Tote’, Die Welt im Drama, Das neue Drama, 5 (Berlin: Fischer, 1917), p. 359.Google Scholar

37. Bahr, , pp. 298–309.Google Scholar

38. Bab, Julius, Was ist uns Kainz? Ein Wort aus der jungen Generation, 2nd ed. (Berlin and Leipzig: 1910).Google Scholar

39. von Hofmannsthal, Hugo, ‘Josef Kainz zum Gedächtnis’, Kainz: Brevier, p. 8.Google Scholar

40. An excellent account of Nietzsche's influence on German literature can be found in Kummel's, Richard F.Nietzsche und der deutsche Geist (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974).Google Scholar

41. Collected in Bang, Hermann, Josef Kainz (Berlin: Bondy, 1910).Google Scholar

42. Goldman, Michael, The Actor's Freedom (New York: Viking, 1975).Google Scholar

43. Coquelin, , ‘The Dual Personality of the Actor’, Actors on Acting, pp. 192–202.Google Scholar

44. I have not included a discussion of Hamlet, considered by many to be among his finest roles. Interested readers will find a brief account in English in Speaight, pp. 111–2.

45. Richter, , Schauspieler-Charakteristiken, p. 61.Google Scholar

46. Gregori, Ferdinand, ‘Josef Kainz: Romeo’, Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, 40 (1904), pp. 89–94.Google Scholar

47. Schlenther, Paul, rev. of Kainz's Romeo in Monty Jacobs, Deutsche Schauspielkunst (Berlin: Henschel, 1954), p. 466.Google Scholar

48. Fuerst, Norbert, Grillparzer auf der Bühne (Vienna and Munich: Manutius, 1958), p. 209.Google Scholar

49. Precisely who is at the centre of the play has been a subject of long, critical controversy. See Thompson, Bruce, A Sense of Irony: An Examination of the Tragedies of Franz Grillparzer, Literaturwissenschaftliche Texte: Theorie und Kritiz, 4 (Berne: Lang, 1976), pp. 89–91Google Scholar, for a summary of the different views.

50. Lindner, A., quoted in Fuerst, p. 215.Google Scholar

51. Richter, , Kainz, p. 127.Google Scholar

52. Bang, , p. 54.Google Scholar

53. Richter, , Kainz, p. 128.Google Scholar

54. Ludwig Speidel, the Viennese theatre critic, felt that Kainz's performance made the play more acceptable but that he did not save it. See Speidel, Ludwig, ‘Joseph Kainz’, Kritische Schriften, Klassiker der Kritik (Zurich und Stuttgart, Artemis, 1963), p. 295.Google Scholar

55. My account is based mainly on Richter, Helene in Schauspieler-Charakteristiken, pp. 59–62.Google Scholar

56. Carlson, Marvin, Goethe and the Weimar Theatre (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1978), pp. 247–9.Google Scholar

57. Minor, , p. 211.Google Scholar

58. Kainz, , ‘Aus einem Notizbuch’, Kainz: Brevier, p. 64.Google Scholar

59. Once again I am indebted to a detailed description of Kainz's performance by Richter, Helene in Goethe-Jahrbuch, 40 (1909), pp. 180–6.Google Scholar

60. As my account of Kainz's Tasso is more extended than my other accounts, I have included line references to Goethe's text. They are taken from Goethe, Poelische Werke, Complete ed. 5 (Stuttgart: Cotta, n.d.), pp. 841–954