Adorno

Between Oberrad and Amorbach 43

as the advocate of the avant-garde, to arrange for private performances
of works of the Second Viennese School in middle-class Frankfurt houses.
These works would be performed by the quartet led by the violinist
Rudolf Kolisch, whom he personally thought outstanding. And when
his initiatives met with success his commitment knew no bounds. Even
while he was still at school, he would let no opportunity pass for a
conversation about philosophical or literary subjects. Siegfried Kracauer
is just one of those, albeit one of the most important, who would discuss
philosophy with him at school. ‘For years Kracauer read the Critique
of Pure Reason with me regularly on Saturday afternoons. I am not
exaggerating when I say that I owe more to this reading than to my
academic teachers.’^59
This statement confirms that, while still at school and during his
early years as a student, Adorno was strongly influenced by Kracauer’s
opinions. Kracauer, who, like his pupil, never respected the boundaries
between the different disciplines, was born in 1889 into the family of
a Jewish businessman in modest circumstances. He grew up in the home
of an uncle who taught at the Philanthropin, the Reform Gymnasium of
the Israelite community, and who also documented the history of the
Jews in Frankfurt. In order to have a profession that would give him
material security, Kracauer first studied architecture in Darmstadt and
subsequently philosophy and sociology in Berlin, where he came into
contact with Georg Simmel.
There was an age difference of fourteen years between Kracauer and
his protégé. This difference was no obstacle to their lifelong friendship,
difficult though the relationship became at times. The correspondence
between the two men extends over almost forty years and shows in
quite a painful way that, despite their mutual attachment, there were
repeated disagreements and conflicts triggered by feelings of jealousy.
Hurt feelings and differences of opinion led to their breaking off con-
tact from time to time. These disagreements had little to do with the
age difference between these two highly self-willed men, but rather with
the fact that neither liked to give way on a point of principle. In an
article entitled ‘Thoughts on Friendship’, Kracauer reflects on friend-
ships between people of different ages:

The young man who is still developing looks to his friend for

confirmation of his plans, of his spiritual nature. He leans on

the older man even as he contradicts him. His as yet undefined

character experiences pleasure at encountering fixed boundaries....

He speaks without restraint, expresses his opinions in lengthy

monologues... ; he places himself at the centre of interest.^60

For the older man, in contrast, the urgent questions of his younger
partner are a constant challenge. They ‘keep his mind alert, free him
from the fetters of his daily concerns and lead him back to his own