Angela R. Mace (2009)
In Leipzig, near the Thomaskirche, there stands once again an imposing statue of Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, installed in October 2008. Designed to replicate the statue that had stood since 1892 before the Leipzig Gewandhaus, but torn down by the Nazis on the night of November 9, 1936, the new statue represents the progress, problems, and future challenges of Mendelssohn scholarship.
We can rejoice that Mendelssohn’s statue and music have returned to grace the city he loved above all others in Germany. We can celebrate the victories that made it possible—finally tearing down walls of prejudice and stereotypes to honor the man for his contributions to our world. But what if we forget? Will future generations walk by the statue without so much as a second thought about the significance of its presence there, perhaps not even realizing that it is not the original? There is, as of September 2009, no plaque informing the visitor about the history of the statue. Can more than 70 years of absence be wiped clean from the slate of memory? Will we forget the efforts of those scholars who strove to recover Mendelssohn from the ashes of World War II, forget those who had faith in the quality and variety of Mendelssohn’s music where others had only scorn, subscribing to the long-held notion of Mendelssohn as a facile composer of only a few popular works?
We cannot erase the events of the twentieth century, and we cannot recreate the Mendelssohn of the nineteenth century. But we also cannot take today’s Mendelssohn for granted, and Mendelssohn’s music and the scholarship presented in this book stand as testament that we will not. The future of Mendelssohn scholarship has a firm foundation upon which to build—we can now see and fully assess the pendulum-like swing in Mendelssohn’s reception over the past two centuries—and has a responsibility not only to keep moving forward, but also to remember.
In 2009, the 200th anniversary of Mendelssohn’s birth was celebrated by Mendelssohnians—scholars, performers, students, and amateur music lovers alike—with myriad festivals, concerts, symposiums, congresses, conferences, and new publications. Some of the publications (especially conference proceedings) for Mendelssohn’s bicentenary were, unfortunately, published too late to be included in this revision, but will appear in future updates in the online edition of this volume. The past decade, however, has seen numerous important and groundbreaking developments in Mendelssohn scholarship.
R. Larry Todd’s biography of Mendelssohn (Mendelssohn: A Life in Music, item 112), appeared in 2003 from Oxford University Press. This definitive biography, the result of years of painstaking research and analysis, solidified Mendelssohn’s status as a composer to be taken seriously, and provided a firm cornerstone on which much new Mendelssohn scholarship has been built. The excellent and beautifully produced German translation of Todd’s biography (Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy: Sein Leben, Seine Musik) was published by Carus-Verlag/Reclam in 2008 (item 113). Todd’s new biography of Fanny Hensel (Fanny Hensel: The Other Mendelssohn, item 892) now forms a companion volume to his biography on Mendelssohn, and establishes Hensel as a composer in her own right while shedding new light on Mendelssohn’s life and works.
Ralf Wehner’s long-awaited and much-needed comprehensive thematic catalog of Mendelssohn’s works (Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy: Thematischsystematisches Verzeichnis der musikalischen Werke (MWV), see item 1116), appeared in 2009, and has quickly become the standard reference in Mendelssohn scholarship.
As the facts of Mendelssohn’s life, music, and primary research sources have become more firmly established, scholars have been able to delve more deeply into special aspects of Mendelssohn’s life and works, as illustrated by the many new additions to Chapter 1: Life-and-Works Studies and Chapter 2: Studies of Individual Works and Repertoires.
Jason Geary and Monika Hennemann have reconsidered Mendelssohn’s stage and operatic works (see especially items 318, 319, 320); John Michael Cooper has investigated more closely Mendelssohn’s relationship with Goethe and German culture through the Walpurgisnacht cantata (Mendelssohn, Goethe, and the Walpurgis Night: The Heathen Muse in European Culture, 1700–1850, item 405); Jeffrey S. Sposato has proposed a new way to think about Mendelssohn’s religious identity through his oratorios (The Price of Assimilation: Felix Mendelssohn and the Nineteenth-Century AntiSemitic Tradition, item 928); Marian Wilson Kimber has offered new readings of Mendelssohn’s music for A Midsummer Night’s Dream in Victorian England (items 337 and 338); and Siegwart Reichwald has edited a much-needed collection of essays in performance practice (Mendelssohn in Performance, item 17).
The section on Mendelssohn and the music of the past (Chapter 3) has been greatly enhanced by numerous fine essays in the volume “Zu groß, zu unerreichbar”: Bach-Rezeption im Zeitalter Mendelssohns und Schumanns, edited by Anselm Hartinger, Christoph Wolff, and Peter Wollny (item 8). In Germany, scholars such as Wolfgang Dinglinger, Hans-Günter Klein, Christian Martin Schmidt, Roland Schmidt-Hensel, Ralf Wehner, and many others continue to publish articles on the holdings of the Mendelssohn Archiv at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin–Preußischer Kulturbesitz, still rich with new discoveries to be made (see especially item 12, Mendelssohn-Stu dien and Chapter 6: Documentary Studies). French Mendelssohn scholarship has expanded with several new biographical studies (e.g. items 28, 46, and 85). New to this revised edition is a selection of Japanese sources, for which I thank Hiromi Hoshino at Rikkyo University, Tokyo.
These are just a few salient examples of the new and exciting publications in twenty-first-century Mendelssohn scholarship to be found in this revised and enlarged volume. With this momentum, enthusiasm, and knowledge of the history of Mendelssohn scholarship, we can be confident that when we wish to lay a wreath at the new Mendelssohn monument, we will not find, like Sir Thomas Beecham did on the morning of November 10, 1936, that it has disappeared.
J. Michael Cooper (2001)
Mendelssohn scholarship has experienced prodigious growth, both in volume and in quality, since World War II. One might even suggest that the state of Mendelssohn research has not only regained much of the territory lost during the nadir of the second third of this century, but has opened up new horizons that probably were unforeseeable in the pre-war period. Such optimistic observations seem to be corroborated by the slowly but steadily increasing presence of the names of Felix Mendelssohn and his older sister, Fanny Hensel,1 in concert and recital programs, recordings, and general music-historical literature.
This book, like all volumes in the Composer Resource Manuals series, documents the principal achievements of Mendelssohn scholarship. In so doing, it reveals that much remains to be done before the general body of knowledge and information concerning these two important nineteenth-century composers can begin to rival the general quality of scholarship concerning many of their contemporaries. More importantly, it facilitates an overview of the enormous qualitative vacillations that have characterized scholarship concerning the musical prodigies of the Mendelssohn family, and thereby underscores the need for researchers to approach any given source with a critical understanding of how that source fits into these vacillations. The following is a brief sketch of the dynamics of this convoluted scholarly reception history.2
For the eldest siblings of the Mendelssohn family,3 fame during one’s own time was both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, Felix’s international celebrity as composer and conductor and the widespread attention commanded by Fanny Hensel’s presence as the organizer of Berlin’s leading salon led contemporaries to approach their lives and works with an usually high level of scholarly rigor and thoroughness. Both composers were the subject of brief and generally accurate biographical sketches in contemporary periodicals in Germany and England, and by 1847 no fewer than three catalogs of Felix’s compositions had appeared in print (see Chapter 6, pp. 228–30). Few other composers of their generation achieved a level of virtually unanimously granted fame that justified such scholarly attention before 1847.
On the other hand, the success both siblings achieved during the Vormärz and the fact that both died before the wave of revolutions that swept the continent in 1848–49 resulted in a highly polarized posthumous reception history. In England, where the Mendelssohn cult had grown to virtual idolatry in the mid- and late 1840s,4 and in many quarters within Germany and France, admirers of Felix Mendelssohn’s music treated his memory with the sort of reverence generally accorded a fallen hero. As it became known in the years 1848–70 that Mendelssohn had left a sizable number of his works unpublished, his admirers’ assertions that those works, like his memory, belonged to “the world”5 led initially to the posthumous publication of a number of compositions he had suppressed (all works with opus numbers higher than 72), and then to the so-called Gesamtausgabe published by Breitkopf & Härtel under the general editorship of Julius Rietz in 1871–74. These posthumous publications—which presented many of the composer’s youthful compositions with misleadingly high opus and serial numbers to a public that wanted to see more of his mature style—combined with the highly charged and increasingly anti-Semitic political atmosphere to produce a strong consensus that Schumann’s frequent descriptions of Mendelssohn as “modern” had been wrong; that this music belonged to the past rather than the future; that while it was perhaps adequate for the (perceived) tranquility of pre-revolutionary Europe,6 it no longer met the challenges of the present.
This transformation in reception history soon engendered one of the most notorious chapters in music history. A number of highly polemical and pseudo-scholarly essays—including Wagner’s and Liszt’s writings on Jews in music (items 932 and 915) along with a number of similar writings that are less familiar today, but were equally widely circulated and influential at the time—asserted, in concurrence with contemporary racial and evolutionary theories, that the composer’s Jewish heritage had led ineluctably to recidivist and atavistic traits after the mid-1830s.7 In this view, Mendelssohn had devolved rather than evolved after completing his early masterpieces (including the Octet for Strings, the Overture to A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and the posthumously published “Italian” Symphony). The political and personal attacks leveled by composers who had been unable to fully challenge his fame or integrity during his lifetime thus found ostensible validation in the anti-Semitic pseudo-science of the day, and the supposed scholarly authority of these writings led to the incorporation of these judgments in a number of general histories of music. (Indeed, the notion of his compositional decline remains intact—albeit without the original anti-Semitic rationalizations—in a number of scholarly and general musicological writings even today.)8
The descent from plausible scholarship to ludicrous lionization and polemical pseudo-research did not go unnoticed. As early as 1865, the great patron of English musical lexicography, Sir George Grove, pointed out that Mendelssohn was ill-served by the bowdlerized but widely disseminated editions of his correspondence that had appeared in print under the editorship of his brother and his nephew; Philipp Spitta and others voiced similar criticisms in the 1880s.9 Grove also extensively researched the available primary sources— epistolary as well as musical—and published a number of insightful essays and reviews of important familiar and unknown compositions by Mendelssohn.
The culmination of these efforts was Grove’s essay on Mendelssohn for the first edition of his Dictionary of Music and Musicians, first published in 1880 (item 50). Although some of the information contained in it is now dated, this essay still stands as one of the finest achievements of Mendelssohn scholarship and of musical scholarship in general: it draws extensively and accurately on a wide variety of sources; offers detailed biographical information and correlates the compositions with contemporaneous events; and provides an overview of the composer’s contemporary and posthumous reception. It was revised for the second edition of the Dictionary and reprinted, with minor modifications, for Grove’s widely disseminated book Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn (item 51).
The last decade of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth were in many ways a high point for early Mendelssohn scholarship. In addition to Grove’s numerous other contributions, these years witnessed the appearance of several more reliable collections of correspondence,10 as well as the biography by Ernst Wolff (item 120). Because of these and other, smaller publications, the quality of Mendelssohn scholarship at the centennial of the composer’s birth was generally on a par with scholarship concerning other composers, and generally representative of musical scholarship as a whole.
It is worth noting that the late nineteenth century was also a flowering period for research concerning Fanny Hensel. Although the volume and overall quality of research devoted to Fanny never rivaled that of Felix, the last years of the century—which, after all, were precisely the years in which the concept of feminism as we now understand it emerged and gained a widespread foothold in society11—witnessed a proliferation of surprisingly substantive scholarly examinations and critical writings, as well as performances of her music. It is no exaggeration to state that general knowledge of Hensel and familiarity with her works in 1900 was at a level appreciably higher than in 1970, when the modern Hensel revival began.
But the period 1914–45 witnessed a precipitous decline. The heyday of Wagnerism, rampant anti-Semitism inside and outside Western Europe, and the ascendance of nationalistic musicology12 left the German-Jewish Mendelssohns vulnerable to ceaseless tropes on the vitriolic dismissals of the New German School. Monuments and important scholarly documents13 concerning Felix Mendelssohn were destroyed throughout Germany and elsewhere; his music was banned in Germany and his presence in the concert repertoire diminished to only a few pieces; and venerable scholars succumbed to the condescending negative generalizations of Wagner and Liszt, often in verbiage remarkably similar to their overtly anti-Semitic writings.14 This period did produce some important documents—such as Köffler’s dissertation (which has since been destroyed) and Rudolf Werner’s important study of Mendelssohn’s sacred works (which fortunately survives; see item 796 in this book)—but on the whole, these years represent a considerable retreat from the level of scholarship attained in the early years of the century. Historians seemed uninterested in a critical evaluation of mid- and late-nineteenth-century polemics, the concert-going public had little repertoire upon which to formulate any more substantive views, and the general trajectory of musicological inquiry discouraged serious research on “homeless Jews” cum cosmopolitan composers such as Felix Mendelssohn and Fanny Hensel.
After World War II, the growing awareness of the transgressions of the recent past gradually began to encourage a reappraisal of pre-war verdicts on Felix Mendelssohn. Initially, progress was slow—the most far-reaching scholarly achievements were two new, more critical editions of the letters from the composer’s Italian sojourn of 1830–31 (items 1070 and 1072)—but the sesquicentennial of his birth generated considerable momentum. A flurry of scholarly articles on a variety of topics, together with the initiation of a new critical edition of his complete works in 1960, was supplemented by Donald Mintz’s seminal dissertation in 1960 (item 833), as well as the first version of Eric Werner’s important biography in 1963 (item 118), the founding of the Mendelssohn-Gesellschaft in 1967, Susanna Großmann-Vendrey’s important dissertation on the organ sonatas in 1965 (item 531), and her important book and essay on Mendelssohn’s relationship to the musical past in 1969 (items 682 and 683). In brief, these years signaled a new and committed attempt to come to grips with the nature and consequences of the scholarly abyss into which Mendelssohn scholarship had descended since 1914—and, more importantly, with Mendelssohn’s life, works, and influence.
It was in the wake of this renewal of serious inquiry that Mendelssohn research, in the early 1970s, entered the ongoing phase of high-quality scholarship that continues today. In 1972, the first issue of the Berlin Mendelssohn-Studien (item 12) appeared, a journal that has functioned as a clearing house for research of all aspects of the Mendelssohn family’s illustrious history. Also in 1972, Carl Dahlhaus directed a symposium on the subject of “Das Problem Mendelssohn” in Berlin, and the papers from this conference were published two years later in Dahlhaus’s important volume by the same title (item 4). The late 1970s brought a host of small-scale but substantive inquiries, as well as two important dissertations on Felix’s compositional process (Douglass Seaton, item 837 and R. Larry Todd, item 840), followed in the 1980s by Karl-Heinz Köhler’s Mendelssohn article in the New Grove (item 60), the revised version of Werner’s biography (item 119), a flurry of studies on the life and works of Fanny Hensel, the first major published edition of Hensel’s correspondence (item 1034), and a number of style-studies of specific genres within both composers’ oeuvres. In the 1990s, these trends continued, accelerating toward the sesquicentennial of both siblings’ deaths in 1997; but the decade also witnessed the appearance of a number of collections of essays, many of which attempted—for the first time in the history of Mendelssohn scholarship—to address “the Mendelssohn problem” in terms of both Felix and Fanny. The revival of the new Gesamtausgabe of Felix’s works, the first publications of a number of compositions by Fanny, and the appearance of a separate set of critical editions of Felix’s complete sacred music provided further impetus for a revival of the composers’ music in concert life.
[NB: Cooper pointed out several future developments in Mendelssohn scholarship in 2001 which have since taken place; here is the final paragraph of his introduction, updated. A.R.M.]
This ongoing accelerando in scholarship concerning Felix and Fanny has resulted in many important developments. Plans have now been implemented for a number of substantial scholarly contributions that proceed from traditional lines of musicological inquiry: a complete and reliable thematic catalog with source information (Wehner, item 1116); a complete critical edition of his ca. 5,000 surviving outgoing letters (item 1071), a new, critical biography of Fanny Hensel (Todd, item 892), and so on. In addition to the much-needed flow of these contributions, new scholarly approaches are steadily appearing, opening up fresh avenues as the reappraisal gains momentum and Mendelssohn research gains pace with other lines of musicological scholarship of the last few decades.15
This volume is organized with an eye to an optimal balance between user-friendliness and a sufficiently comprehensive coverage to convey the most important low and high points of literature concerning the Mendelssohns. To the former end, the overall organization draws upon arrangements represented in several important previous Mendelssohn bibliographies: that of the New Grove and its revised and updated counterpart in The New Grove Early Romantic Masters 2; that of Ralf Wehner’s important study of the early sacred works (item 794); and that included in the congress report based on the Berlin Mendelssohn Symposium held in 1994 (item 18). Because many items might fit equally well into two or more of these content-units, the reader is encouraged to consult the indexes closely.
For items that have appeared in multiple editions, the page-count is provided after the bibliographic information that applies to the edition most directly discussed. ISBN numbers are provided when the primary bibliographic entry is for a book to which an ISBN has been applied; as with information concerning the page-count in books, the ISBN numbers apply to the editions immediately preceding. ISSN numbers are not provided. Finally, it should be noted that while this volume attempts to be thorough and comprehensive, it cannot be complete. Sources that are generally inaccessible or are too derivative or insignificant to warrant the term “research” are tacitly omitted; the same is true of general period-histories and general histories of music, even though such sources may include useful information, and often function as important documents of reception history. Coverage is limited to materials available in English, German, French, Italian, Japanese, and Spanish.16 Titles of Mendelssohn’s works cited in book or article titles have not been regularized.
The chapters have been reordered but their internal organization and titles have been retained so users accustomed to the 2001 edition will be able to easily navigate the revised edition. The entire text has been edited and updated, but the original annotations have for the most part been retained, either in whole or part. Annotations have been added to new resources where needed, as well as to some older and international sources that were unavailable for review in 2001. Endnotes, except for those following this Introduction, have been absorbed into the text.
Because Fanny Hensel scholarship has grown exponentially in the past decade, “Appendix A: Bibliographic Introduction to Research Concerning Fanny Hensel” has been omitted. A new Guide to Research dedicated entirely to Fanny Hensel is in planning. “Appendix B: Principal Editions, Facsimiles, and Publications of Mendelssohn’s Works” has also been omitted since many other such lists now exist (see especially Wehner, item 1116). A new sectioh has been added: “Appendix: Introduction to Internet Resources,” where users will find websites for information on the Mendelssohn family, as well as online articles and other resources. Because websites and URLs can be ephemeral, users are encouraged to reference the online edition of this book for the most current information and live links.
LC library call numbers are not given, since this information could not be included for all sources, not all libraries catalog with exactly the same numbers, and this information is easily obtained through institutional library catalogs. ISBN numbers are retained, where available. This book will be published online, and updated to avoid the immediate obsolescence of a printed book in a constantly growing research field.
The chapters are organized as follows: Chapter 1, Life-and-Works Studies. This chapter surveys three principal types of sources: (1) collections of specialized essays; (2) general surveys of Mendelssohn’s life and works; and (3) studies of special aspects of Mendelssohn’s biography (including Mendelssohn’s relationships with specific persons, places, and contemporary topics). Chapter 2, Studies of Individual Works and Repertoires is organized primarily along the division of secular vs. sacred works. The secular works are organized according to the following categories: stage works (including incidental music), orchestral works (including symphonies, overtures, and concertos), accompanied secular choral works, concert arias, choral songs, songs and vocal duets, chamber music, music for solo piano, and organ works. The sacred works are grouped into studies of the oratorios, studies of the chorale cantatas, studies of the psalm settings, studies of other accompanied sacred choral works, and studies of other unaccompanied sacred choral works. The final section offers studies of Mendelssohn’s arrangements and editions of other composers’ works. Chapter 3, General Studies of the Music of Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy explores a variety of issues and groups of works from two or more genres. The sources consider the composer’s aesthetics, musical style, compositional process, and performance practice. Chapter 4, Sociological and Cultural Studies includes three principal varieties of study. “The Mendelssohn Family” includes general overviews of the family history, as well as studies specifically devoted to the musical and/or biographical relationship between Felix and Fanny. The second group, “Studies of Jewish Issues,” includes inquiries that take Felix Mendelssohn’s Jewish heritage as their primary point of departure. Finally, there is a section devoted to studies of reception history. Most of these sources relate to the composer’s contemporary and posthumous reception, as well as later composers who were influenced by Mendelssohn’s music. Chapter 5, Memoirs, Recollections, and Editions of Letters includes sources written or compiled by a first-hand acquaintance of Felix Mendelssohn, or emphasizes summaries or reproductions of documents and events from a first-hand perspective. Many of these sources are also biographical, while some biographies draw heavily upon primary sources and first-hand anecdotes. In such ambivalent cases the sources are situated according to their primary focus. Chapter 6, Documentary Studies presents sources broadly described as source-inventories: they document the existence and history of music manuscripts, papers, letters, pictures, portraits, and library and archival resources.
1 Throughout this book Fanny’s name will be treated as she gave it in her own publications: Fanny Hensel. Although many different approaches to her name are represented in recent writings (including flatly misleading ones such as “HenselMendelssohn” and “née Mendelssohn-Bartholdy”), Fanny’s own clear wish was that she be represented by her married name. See item 1034 in this volume.
2 An excellent overview of this variety, focusing primarily on twentieth-century scholarship, has also been provided by Friedhelm Krummacher (item 964).
3 It is often overlooked that Fanny (1805–47) and Felix (1809–47) had two younger siblings. Rebecka (1811–58) and Paul (1812–74) were both musically gifted (she sang and played piano, and he was an accomplished cellist), but neither achieved the musical distinction of their elder siblings. There is some scholarly literature on Paul (see items 850, 858, and 891), but Rebecka’s contributions to the Mendelssohn family’s legacy remain largely unexplored (see items 855, 856, 871).
4 For an important example of the posthumous English adulation for Mendelssohn, see Henry Chorley’s memoir (item 1004), which describes the composer as “humanly speaking[,] perfect.”
5 For an overview of the posthumous debate over the release of Mendelssohn’s previously unpublished works, see John Michael Cooper, “Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy and the Italian Symphony: Historical, Musical, and Extramusical Perspectives” (item 345), pp. 342–55.
6 See Donald Mintz’s essay on “1848, Anti-Semitism and the Mendelssohn Reception” (item 971).
7 For a thorough examination of the mechanisms by which this pseudo-science acquired scholarly legitimacy and crucially informed Mendelssohn reception history, see Marian Wilson Kimber’s essay on “The Composer as Other: Gender and Race in the Biography of Felix Mendelssohn” (item 996).
8 For examples of how the verdict based on these arguments endures, see Charles Rosen, “Mendelssohn and the Invention of Religious Kitsch” (item 641) and Greg Vitercik, The Early Works of Felix Mendelssohn: A Study in the Romantic Sonata Style (item 655).
9 See J. Rigbie Turner, “Mendelssohn’s Letters to Eduard Devrient: Filling in Some Gaps”, pp. 200–03 (item 1097).
10 Especially important in this regard are the collections edited by Julius Schubring (item 1028), Eduard Hanslick (item 1056), Ernst Wolff (item 1101), Karl Klingemann, Jr., (item 1065), and L. Dahlgren (item 1036).
11 For most of the century, the prevalent variety of feminism was what Karen Offen has called “relational feminism,” but the last years of the century witnessed a pronounced cultivation of the individualist variety most commonly associated with the term today. For an overview of these concepts, see Karen Offen, “Liberty, Equality, and Justice for Women: The Theory and Practice of Feminism in Nineteenth-Century Europe,” in Renate Bridenthal, Claudia Koonz, and Susan Stuard, eds., Becoming Visible: Women in European History, 2nd edn. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987), pp. 335–73.
12 See Pamela M. Potter, Most German of the Arts: Musicology and Society from the Weimar Republic to the End of Hitler’s Reich (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998).
13 Among those destroyed was Johannes Köffler, “Über orchestrale Koloristik in den symphonischen Werken von Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1923). See item 351 for a similar topic.
14 See, for example, Alfred Einstein’s view: “What Mendelssohn lacked, for the attainment of true greatness, is the courage to say the ultimate in love, or in tragedy … While Wagner was thinking about “Siegfried’s Death” and Verdi of Macbeth, Mendelssohn was thinking about the Loreley of the tender-souled and patriotic phrase-maker Emanuel Geibel.” (Greatness in Music, trans. César Saerchinger [New York: Oxford University Press, 1941], p. 580) See also Paul Henry Lang’s verdict that “There can be no doubt that in many of Mendelssohn’s works there is missing that real depth that opens wide perspectives, the mysticism of the unutterable” (Music in Western Civilization [New York: W. W. Norton, 1941], p. 811).
15 See, for example, James Garratt’s essay on “Mendelssohn’s Babel: Romanticism and the Poetics of Translation” (item 622), a landmark conceptual breakthrough.
16 There are some useful items in Dutch, Polish, and Russian which could not be included here. For a bibliographic inventory that includes these items, the reader is encouraged to consult the “Literaturanhang” to Ralf Wehner, Studien zum geistlichen Chorschaffen des jungen Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy (item 794), or Wehner, “Bibliographie des Schrifttums zu Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy von 1972 bis 1994” (item 1124).