For free!

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Data
Title: For free!
Genus: Farce with song and dance in three acts
Original language: German
Author: Johann Nestroy
Literary source: Liliomfi by Ede Szigligeti
Music: Carl Binder
Publishing year: 1857
Premiere: March 7, 1857
Place of premiere: Theater an der Wien
Place and time of the action: The first act takes place in the city ​​of Steyr , the second and third in Braunau
people
  • Finster , factory owner of Regensburg
  • Anastasia Mispl , an old lady whose relatives in the city of Steyr
  • Emma Bush
  • Arthur, Pitzl, Müller, Meyr, Fischer , actors in the city of Steyr
  • Gschlader , coffee maker in the city of Steyr
  • Knapp , theater cashier
  • a marqueur
  • Wildner , agent
  • Sauerfaß , landlord in Braunau
  • Sali , his daughter
  • Georg , waiter
  • Maushuber , capitalist, formerly an innkeeper in Vienna
  • Ignaz Maushuber , his son
  • Mrs. Zepplmeyr , citizen woman in Braunau
  • Margaret [e] , cook
  • Jackl, Maz , farmers
  • Humpler, Pramper , two old citizens in Braunau
  • Kratz, Bimmel, Schreiberl , economic officials in Braunau
  • Full , judge
  • Radl , Müllner

For free! is a farce with song and dance in three acts by Johann Nestroy . The premiere took place on March 7, 1857 in the Theater an der Wien .

content

The actor Arthur is in love with Emma, ​​who is raised by Miss Anastasia on behalf of her guardian, the factory owner Finster. This is strictly against a connection between his ward and the actor and has already chosen his nephew and heir as her husband. Therefore Arthur wants to flee with Emma, ​​his theater colleague Pitzl should help him. But before that Finster leaves for Braunau with Emma after he wants to bribe the supposed lover that Pitzl plays:

"Well, they should have the hundred guilders, and they renounce my wards completely and at once." (Act I, seventeenth scene)

In the Gasthaus Sauerfaß in Braunau, the landlord's daughter Sali and the waiter Georg are also lovers, completely against the will of the father, who thinks he is very clever:

“But I'm someone who can find out everything. What? Harm me! There is nothing to be done here; I should 'learn English and see that I find a place to stay as Lord Chief Justice'. " (Act II, eighth scene)

Arthur and Pitzl attempt by a confusion with many theater costumes and -requisiten hoodwink the innkeeper that the space provided for Sali groom Ignaz an arrogant Vienna Schnösel was. When he arrives and is mistaken for Arthur by Sauerfaß, the confusion is complete, Ignaz's father also contributes his own. In the end, Sauerfaß even thinks Georg is Finster's nephew and has a quick wedding with Sali in order not to miss the wealthy heirs. Finally it turns out that the real nephew is Arthur and everything dissolves into pleasure. Pitzl, who seized every opportunity to get a few guilders, sums up:

"For free! In a word: the lovers have each other, everything else is completely free! " (III. Act, thirty-fourth scene)

Factory history

Although it was noted on the theater bill , "The plot is modeled on the French" , Nestroy's work is actually based on the Hungarian farce Liliomfi by Ede Szigligeti (pseudonym for Joseph Szathmáry). This farce was first performed at the Budapest National Theater on December 21, 1849 and has remained in the repertoire into modern times. It was presented by Hungarian actors on July 1 and 4, 1856, in the Josefstädter Theater , and on July 24 of the same year in the Theater an der Wien . Nestroy is said to have received the plot and translation from the Viennese dancer and ballet master Kaczér. In two letters from Reichenau an der Rax on July 16 and 21, 1856, Nestroy reported that he was already busy working on the play and hoped that Ms. Kaczér would not tell too much about it, otherwise "another stage could come before him" . Here Nestroy also claimed that the original was actually not of Hungarian but French origin. (More on this in the chapter Modern Interpretations )

The three-act version saw a total of 13 performances, the last on March 30th. Because of the public's expressions of displeasure over the length of the play, Nestroy (or one of his agents) shortened the text to one act, with scenes 1–5 and partly 9 of act 1 deleted, acts 2 and 3 compressed The final scene (now the 17th in the one-act play) remains with the text slightly changed. The location of the action was limited to the Gasthof Sauerfaß in Braunau. This one-act play was given from January 4, 1858 and had a total of 25 performances by 1860, from March 2, 1861 it was resumed at the Treumann Theater (Nestroy played in the first seven performances, the last on February 19, 1862).

During the preparatory work, Nestroy tried different "speaking" names - for the manufacturer Finster: Pimpl, Schlapp, Stutzig, Angstmeyer, Zeberl, Watschler, Schandler, Angstiger ; for the host Sauerfaß: beer head ; for Mrs. Zeppelmeyr: Mrs. Sandl .

At the premiere on March 7, 1857, Johann Nestroy played the Pitzl, Karl Treumann the Arthur, Wenzel Scholz the Sauerfass, Alois Grois the Finster, Friedrich Hopp the Gschlader, Franz Gämmerler the Meyr. Dlle. Zöllner dropped out at the last moment and, according to a review by Moritz Gottlieb Saphir, was "very uncomfortable and repulsive" . At the premiere of the one-act play on January 4, 1858, Nestroy, Treumann, Scholz, Grois and Gämmerler stayed in their roles, Dlle. Zöllner played along this time. At this premiere the shortened piece was given together with three other one-act plays: It started for free! , Followed Beautiful souls can be found by Louis Julius, Othellerl, the Moor of Vienna of Karl Meisl , the conclusion made rooms and Cabinet to leave by Anton Bittner .

Few remnants of Nestroy's manuscripts have survived. A draft, titled Comödiant with the scenes 1–4 and partly 5, as well as the scenes 6–9 of the 1st act in the concept, all with not yet final naming of the people; an untitled manuscript with scenes 10–12 of act 1; two untitled sheets with the incomplete scenes 14, 15 and 16 of the 2nd act; a fleeting scenario, also entitled Comedian .

From the abridged one-act version, titled Umsonst , there are still two manuscripts by an unknown hand, the prompting book and a theater manuscript with some differences from the other versions.

A copy of the score entitled Umsonst. by Director Johann Nestroi (sic!) Music. by Carl Binder. Kapellmeister has been preserved, as is a copy for 24 instrumental parts.

Contemporary reception

The reception by the audience - especially after the shortening - was thoroughly approving, especially the good cast was well received; the press votes were rather cautiously negative to neutral.

On the day after the premiere, the Wiener Vorstadt-Zeitung wrote (March 8, No. 66) with this in mind:

"The success of yesterday evening was, let us confess it frankly, a dubious and the favorable part of it is mostly due to the excellent cooperation of all those involved."

The Wiener Theaterzeitung (No. 56, p. 239) by Adolf Bäuerle gave some praise reviews, as did the Fremd-Blatt (No. 55) and the Blätter für Musik, Theater und Kunst (No. 20, p. 80), all three from March 10th.

The Wanderer of March 10, 1857 (No. 111) particularly criticized the ominous indirect influence of Karl Treumann on the piece:

"[...] which only seem to have been written to give Mr. Treumann the opportunity to produce his well-known and unduly praised arts. From the very cheap consideration of the abilities of the individual actors in drawing the characters, the bad habit of role-writing, which must become the ruin of all dramatic poetry, has long since emerged everywhere. […] The posse lacks the tying of the knot, lacks original comical situations, lacks the humorous dialogue, in a word everything that stimulates and entertains and what one was used to find in his [Nestroys] pieces. "

Saphir's magazine Der Humorist , otherwise rather critical of Nestroy, published a rather casual short report on March 11th (No. 67, p. 268):

"Nestroy's newest product: 'Umsonst', which was cut immediately after the first evening, is enjoying ever-growing applause."

The monthly newspaper Hans-Jörgel von Gumpoldskirchen , popular at the time, reported on March 16 (11th issue, p. 22) in the diction that is used for this magazine:

"Nestroy's new farce: 'In vain' is probably not the best farce that the grandmaster of the farce wrote, but it does not deserve that the stick is broken so hard here and there."

The one-act version was only discussed in a few magazines, and the charity evening for Karl Treumann received negative reviews overall.

The humorist of January 5, 1858 (No. 3, p. 4) wrote:

“The need for novelties, the traditional addiction to make the benefit evening a special one, surely led the benefit to one of the most colorful combinations this time as well. [...] Nestroy's ‚Umsonst 'and the old‚ Othellerl', both newly staged, aroused the most laughter. The former has quite drastic details, [...] "

In the press , also from January 5th (No. 3), the criticism was even stronger:

"The first act of 'Umsonst' and Nestroy's performance in the same were received with great approval, [the other pieces] were very boring, so that the performance ended in a most unpleasant way."

In the East German Post (No. 3) on the same day, only Nestroy's play that evening received a somewhat positive assessment; The Wiener Vorstadt Zeitung , the Morgen-Post (No. 3) and the Fremd-Blatt (12th year, No. 3) also judged .

Later interpretations

Otto Rommel places this work by Nestroy among those he describes as "actors' pieces", as well as the theater stories (1854) and the unlisted "Nur keck!" (1855). The author would remain in a subject that is all too well known to him, the theater. These works have no other task than to show Nestroy and Treumann in particular the opportunity to depict as many different roles and disguises as possible in one piece, while Scholz embodies the static element as a counterpoint. However, got it for free! the reaction of the audience, tired by the original long-windedness, forced to drastically reduce it to one act.

In Fritz Brukner / Otto Rommel is particularly pointed out that the question of the original was not clarified, as Nestroy possibly was entitled to consider that it was not of Hungarian origin; the motives of the farce would undoubtedly be evidenced in the French and German antiquity literature. Nestroy's attempt not to publicly state the Hungarian provenance of the play on the theater ticket could be explained by his disapproving attitude towards Hungarian nationalism. In a number of anecdotes from this time, this attitude, which in Hungary is by no means friendly, is pointed out. According to a note in the Budapest magazine Hőlgyfutár, he behaved quite correctly against the author of Liliomfi, in that he had paid him significant compensation on his own initiative . Nevertheless, there were sharp attacks in the Hungarian press until the beginning of the 20th century: Pester Lloyd (1908, no. 73) wrote “A Plagiarism by Nestroy” ; another voice from the same year read: "Nestroy 'free' - ja és a 'Liliomfi'" (Nestroys 'free' - is the 'Liliomfi') .

A criticism by the literary historian Elemér Császár (1874–1940), the uncle of the mathematician Ákos Császár , complained that “the best Hungarian antics and this totally insignificant farce by Nestroy […] are one and the same” .

Helmut Ahrens also points out the discussions about the origin of the piece, especially the sometimes quite violent reactions in Hungary. The fact that the author wrote leading roles for himself, Treumann and Scholz in the sense of an "actor's piece" is also mentioned.

Rio Preisner writes on the same topic that Nestroy had denied the Hungarian origin, among other things, in the opinion that this too had a French model, but sees an even more essential reason for it: “The cause was purely political.” He judges the role of Pitzl :

“Even with this single figure of an actor, whose all-penetrating mind continually destroys the illusion of pathos and phrase, Nestroy far surpassed the tame Hungarian model. Pitzl's acting bankruptcy is marked by the irreconcilable contrast between the illusionary bourgeois theater of the 19th century and Nestroy's hardly tolerated disillusionism. "

text

literature

  • Otto Rommel: Nestroys Works. Selection in two parts, Golden Classics Library, German publishing house Bong & Co., Berlin / Leipzig / Vienna / Stuttgart 1908.
  • Fritz Brukner / Otto Rommel: Johann Nestroy, Complete Works. Historical-critical complete edition, fourteenth volume, Verlag von Anton Schroll & Co., Vienna 1930.
  • Helmut Ahrens: I'm not auctioning myself off to the laurel. Johann Nestroy, his life. Societäts-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1982, ISBN 3-7973-0389-0 .
  • Peter Branscombe (Ed.): Johann Nestroy; Pieces 35. In: Jürgen Hein / Johann Hüttner / Walter Obermaier / W. Edgar Yates : Johann Nestroy, Complete Works, Historical-Critical Edition. Deuticke, Vienna 1998, ISBN 3-216-30315-2 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Pitzl, Pizerl = small remnant; see also piz'ln = annoy oneself (or someone else)
  2. ↑ Gschlader, Gschloder = Viennese for bad, thin coffee
  3. ↑ scoring a billiard game; here in the sense of waiter
  4. ↑ Capitalist = at that time someone who lives on the interest of his capital without working
  5. ↑ 1 gulden was 120 kreuzers, a twenty kreuzer, a groschen 3 kreuzer
  6. ^ Branscombe: Johann Nestroy; Pieces 35, p. 44.
  7. ↑ Lord Chief Justice = either the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales or The Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain meant
  8. ^ Branscombe: Johann Nestroy; Pieces 35, p. 58.
  9. ^ Branscombe: Johann Nestroy; Pieces 35. p. 110.
  10. ↑ comparative table of contents of the pieces by Szigligeti and Nestroy in Branscombe: Johann Nestroy; Pieces 35. pp. 124-131.
  11. ↑ not to be confused with the journalist Illés Kaczér (1887–1980)
  12. ^ Brukner / Rommel: Johann Nestroy, Complete Works. P. 680.
  13. ↑ Dlle. or Dem. is the abbreviation for Demoiselle (= Fräulein), the name used to describe the unmarried women of an ensemble; the married actresses were titled Mad. (Madame)
  14. ↑ It is almost certain that Emma Zöllner was meant and not her older sister Elise
  15. ↑ Facsimiles of the two theater bills in Branscombe: Johann Nestroy; Pieces 35. pp. 217-218.
  16. ↑ Manuscript collection in the Vienna City Hall , shelf marks IN 33.440, 33.441, 33.442, 35.041, 94.281 and 161.327.
  17. ↑ Manuscript collection in the Vienna City Hall, shelf marks IN 142.415, Jb. 198.685.
  18. ↑ Manuscript collection of the Austrian National Library , signature WTh NB MS 1003.
  19. ↑ Manuscript collection of the Vienna library in the town hall, call number Jb. 75.954.
  20. ↑ Music collection of the Austrian National Library, shelf marks Suppl. Mus. 8285, Sm 8286.
  21. ^ Branscombe: Johann Nestroy; Pieces 35. pp. 135-149. (for the entire chapter on contemporary reception )
  22. ↑ The reviewer had apparently overlooked or did not know that it was the compressed version of the former three-act act
  23. ^ Rommel: Nestroys Works. S. LXXXII-LXXXIII.
  24. ↑ When a guest performance in Budapest was canceled, he wrote that he was “so sick of it” - an allusion to “ Szózat ” (appeal), the “Hungarian Marseillaise ” that was often sung at the time.
  25. ^ Brukner / Rommel: Johann Nestroy, Complete Works. Pp. 684-687.
  26. ^ Császár Elemér: A német Liliomfi (Ein German Liliomfi), Egyetemes Philológiai Közlöny, 1908, pp. 202–204.
  27. ↑ Helmut Ahrens: I'm not auctioning myself up to the laurel. Pp. 343-344.
  28. ^ Rio Preisner: Johann Nepomuk Nestroy. The creator of the tragic farce. Carl Hanser Verlag, Munich 1968, pp. 165–166.