Review

Author(s): Michael Graubart

Review by: Michael Graubart
Source: Tempo, New Series, No. 191 (Dec., 1994), pp. 46-47+49-51
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/945606
Accessed: 06-03-2015 20:28 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Tempo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.188.48.156 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:28:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

46

BookReviews

appropriateage for a book such as this detailing

his accomplishmentso far. Sculthorpe'seminence
amongliving composersis stillnot fully recognized
in Britain, though it was immediately obvious,
for instance, to audiences at the Vale of
GlamorganFestivalthis summer,where Sculthorpe
was featured composer: 18 of his works were
performed and their mastery plain to hear.
Mastery in the old-fashioned sense is rare
nowadays, for it depends on an unselfconscious
confidence in the musical language one is using.
Sculthorpe has that confidence: his language is
relaxed and communicative, straightforwardbut
not simplistic, deeply immersed in tradition, yet
fresh and new.
Deborah Hayes, in her compactbut extremely
informative biographical section, sheds much
light on how and why Sculthorpe has become a
majorartist.It isn't essential,but it certainlyhelps
to have been born in the right place at the right
time, and Sculthorpe was fortunate in both
respects.Before him, Australiahad produced no
outstanding composer other than the expatriate
PercyGrainger.The music thatwas being written
in Australiawhile Sculthorpewas growing up was
mostly a watered-down version of early 20thcentury English music. Most of Sculthorpe's
contemporariescommittedthemselvesto European
modernism,but againin a somewhat dilute form.
Sculthorpe instead was cleverly eclectic, taking
what he needed from Europebut relying more on
Asian melody and an Asian harmonic stasis. He
saw the flat Australianlandscape as a metaphor
for the non-developing musiche wanted to write.
Later, he incorporatedAboriginal melodies into
his language (he had at first been wary of doing
so, though he -used Aboriginal titles from the
start). His use of folk music as the basis of his
melodic language is similarto VaughanWilliams
or Bartok, andjust as the former'smusic seems to
most people to encapsulate Englishness, so
Sculthorpehas cannily succeeded in his intention
to create an authentic Australianmusic, without
in any sense sounding narrowly nationalistic.
The Greenwood Press's format (they have
now published over 50 bio-bibliographies of
20th-century composers) allows for a worklist,
discography, performance list and bibliography
in addition to biography. Deborah Hayes has
been indefatigable in pursuing every last detail
and the result is a model of scrupulousresearch.
The worklist includes all the composer's own
programme notes, which form a small musical
autobiographyin themselves. The bibliography,
which comprises 1200 items, contains many
quotations from reviews which again add
substantially to the biographical material. It

seems remarkablycomplete: the only omission I

noticed is an interestingif rathereccentric article
by Kelly Trench on Sculthorpe's early works,
published I believe some time in the 1970s in the
Tasmanianperiodical Ossa.
David Matthews

Instruction
in
Coherence,
Instrumentation,
Counterpoint,
Form(Zusammenhang,
Instrumentation,
Kontrapunkt,
by Arnold Schoenberg, Translated
Formenlehre)
by Charlotte M. Cross & Severine Neff. Edited
and with an Introduction by Severine Neff.
University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln and
London.
FormenInstrumentation,
Zusammenhang,
Kontrapunkt,
lehre('ZKIF') was Schoenberg'sfirst majorpiece
of theoretical writing since the Harmonielehre
of
1911. The manuscript consists essentially of
Schoenberg's notes, intended for his own use,
towards four projected text-books, which were,
however, never written. It mainly dates from
1917, but Schoenberg used it when working on
other, later, projects, and added two kinds of
materialto it in later years:firstlyaround1926, in
the section on counterpoint,some musicexamples
of 12-note hexachordalcombinatoriality(as well
as some of diatonic counterpoint),and of the first
sketches for the theme of the Orchestral
Variations,op.31; secondly - in order to facilitate
his use of the notes - his own indexes.
This is the first publication of ZKIF, and as
such is obviously of importance to anyone
interested in the development of Schoenberg's
aesthetic and didactic ideas. As Professor Neff
says in her introduction,
The sketchy,incompleteenunciationof Schoenberg's
can be
theory of coherencein "Zusammenhang"
in theHarmonielehre
fleshedoutfromideaspropounded
andlaterworks,andparticularly
by lookingcloselyat
notionof a musicaltheoryandhis ideas
Schoenberg's
"Zusammenof musicalform.Evenwithitsdeficiencies,
hang" is uniquely rich among Schoenberg'stheoretical
works in its many speculative comments on musical
In this work also he discusses the
perception...
principle of developing variation for the first time,
illustratingthat principle with an analysis of Mozart's
"Dissonant" Quartet, K.465.
(In view of my later comments about the
translation, it is noteworthy, incidentally, that
she only refers to the 'Coherence' part of
Schoenberg's text.)
It has at once to be said, though, that it is hard
going. Notes that trigger something in the mind
and memory of their author do not always yield
up their meaning easily to another reader. This is

This content downloaded from 192.188.48.156 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:28:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews 47

have come acrossof Schoenberg'sconcept of

'developingvariation'.Schoenbergpicked up
this analysis again in his later study, Der
musikalische
Gedankeunddie Logik,Technik
und
Kunst
seiner
(1934-36),
recently
published
Darstellung
asTheMusical
IdeaandTheLogic,Technique
andArt
editedand
of itsPresentation
byArnoldSchoenberg
translatedby PatriciaCarpenterand Severine
writings.
The notes sometimes include lists, both Neff (New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress,
exhaustive and exhausting, of all possible 1994).His theoryof coherence
had evolvedinto
of compoundtopics- someof the thatof the primary,generativeandunifyingidea,
permutations
shorteronestendingtowardsthe hilarious:p.35: andSeverineNeff expandsthe analysisfoundin
to belong,it will consist ZKIF in her introductionin the presentbook.
'I) If a piece is supposed
eitherof a) manyshortparts,or b) a few large
Thebookis lavishlyandbeautifullyproduced,
parts,or c) manylargeparts.(thepartscanthen with attractive (though doubtfully relevant)
be keptat a lengthlikethoseof theirkind)II)If a photographs
of Schoenberg
in likelyandunlikely
to be short,then it will consist companyanda colourreproduction
of his littlepiece is supposed
eitherof a) a few long parts,or b) a few short known abstractexpressionistpainting Vision
[parts,or] c) onlyone short(orlong)part.'(One (very differentfrom the well-knownseriesof
recallsthe old Tyroleseproverb,trottedout to Gazes).It consistsof a preface;a verysubstantial
amazetourists:'Whent'cockon t'rubbish-heap introductionandnote on the textsby the editor;
do crow,the weather'llchange- or on like it is the text itself, namely Schoenberg'snotes,
nowgo!'.)Theselistsmaybe revealingof aspects presentedwithparallelGermanandEnglishtexts
of Schoenberg's
mentality,thoughevenhereone on facingpages,butin the caseof the sectionson
mustrememberthata check-listmadeto ensure coherence and instrumentationreorderedby
thatwhenthe eventualbookcomesto be written subject-matter
in accordancewith Schoenberg's
all possibilitieswill be scrutinizeddoes not own indexes(the originalorderbeing given in
necessarily
presagea ploddingly
pedanticworking- Appendix2); five appendices:1. Schoenberg's
throughof all the possibilitiesin the book itself. own indexes, 2. A table of contentsof each
But mixedin with thesesometimeshermetic, notebook, 3. Two bibliographic lists of his own
sometimestedious jottings are to be found writingscompiledby Schoenberghimself,4. A
brilliant,succinctdefinitionsof conceptslike comparisonof Schoenberg'slists with Rufer's
discussions
of organic- catalogue,and 5. A comparisonof Christensen
'development',
fascinating
ismin generalandof coherencein termsof what and Christensen(Christensen,
Jean, andJesper
is varied and what is kept the same between Christensen:FromArnoldSchoenberg's
Literary
successivestatementsof a musicalfigure,of the Legacy:
A Catalogue
Items.Warren,
of Neglected
natureandfunctionof motives,of therelationship Mich.: HarmonieParkPress,1988)with Rufer
between theory in science and in art, and andwithSchoenberg;
a list of workscitedin the
importantstatementssuchas thatthe purposeof presentbook;anda rathercuriousindexto this
theoryis to explicatespecificworks,not to lay book, in which only Englishwords are listed
down general, asynchronic,immutablelaws apart from German titles of Schoenberg's
(note the relevanceto criticismsof atonality!). writings,musicalcompositionsare not listedat
(It is interesting,though, to see how often all, andwhich,to confusethe eye, is printedin
Schoenbergis temptedinto andcarriedawayby two columnswithouta verticaldivider.
ProfessorNeff s introductionis a majoressay
self-sustaining,
general,even abstract,speculations, often carried on in terms of entirely of greatinterestand importance.It is in three
nonmusical,metaphoricalimages,only to pull parts.Thefirstis anindispensable
contribution
to
himselfup shortwith 'Thisis probablynot true' the bibliography
of Schoenberg's
prosewritings
or 'Is probablynot relevant to the musical (takenfurtherby the editor'sinvaluable
footnotes
or 'Itis necessarythat in the main text itself, citing the places in
questions'[mytranslation]
I confinemyselfto the musical'.)
Schoenberg'sother writingswhere the same,
Aboveall, the 'Coherence'notes,asProfessor similarorrelatedtopicsaretakenup).Thesecond
Neff says,containSchoenberg's
firstmajorpiece discussesthe examplesof 12-notehexachordal
of written-downanalysis,a short but brilliant combinatoriality,
andof the firstsketchesfor the
motivicanalysisof the bridge-passage
in the first themeof the OrchestralVariations,
op.31. Here
movement of Mozart's'Dissonances'quartet there is an obscurestatementto the effect that
whichis at the sametimethe clearestdefinitionI thefirstsketchesaretriadic,whentheyarein fact
the casewhen,as often, Schoenberg
particularly
lists topicsto be discussedand questionsto be
answered,but leaves the discussionsand the
answersto thestage- neverreached- of actually
writingthe four books; thoughsome of these
matters- andheretheeditoris of greatassistance
- were picked up in others of Schoenberg's

This content downloaded from 192.188.48.156 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:28:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews 49
for the most part barred tetrachordally (and
dodecaphonic);only the later examples, in which
four-voiced canons are derived from pairs of
hexachordally-combinatorialrows, could be said
to be triadic - or, less misleadingly, trichordal.
The third summarizesand explicates the contents
and philosophical implications of the notebooks
that make up ZKIF.
Despite the book's luxurious production,
errors in English ('become' instead of 'became'
on p.liv; 'principle' instead of 'principal' on
p.lviii); a musical one ('tritone' - augmented
fourth - instead of 'diminished fifth' on p.lxvii;)
and a caption printed twice in two different
places in a musical example ('d.i: The first
appearance ...' in Example 7, p.xlviii), have
slipped through the proof reading. (These are
only mentioned here because, ironically, Dr.
Cross and ProfessorNeff three times in the main
text wrongly 'correct' Schoenberg's admittedly
elsewhere often slap-dash and misspelt German
where it happens to be right: on p.16, 'bekannt'
refers to the singular noun 'Beziehung', and
Schoenberg correctly writes 'ist', not 'sind'; on
p.2 Schoenberg's 'fur einen ..., der sich
freiwillig, selbst verbannt hat' deliberately
emphasizes 'selbst': '. . . for one who has
voluntarily exiled himself, as againstthe blander
editorially-changed word-order, translated as
'. . . for someone who voluntarily has gone into
exile'; footnote 10 on p.66 creates a similar
situation: Schoenberg's sentence means 'It is
wrong for already such a voice to be called
melodic; it is merely not unmelodic', implying a
threefold gradation between unmelodic and
melodic; the revised word-order leads to a quite
wrong 'quite' in the translation. On the other
hand, on p.104, the translators miss a golden
opportunity to correct Schoenberg's repeated
misspelling: 'Symetric', etc.!)
It is the translation of Schoenberg's text,
though, that is the real problem. It is claimed to
be almost literal and word-for-word. As an
excuse for its inelegance, this might do if it were
true. Unfortunately, often as a result of attaching
an adjective or adverb to the wrong word or
phrase within a sentence, it frequently modifies,
and in some importantpassagesactually reverses
or makes nonsense of Schoenberg's meaning.
(The title itself gives warning of this; whereas
'Lehren' does indeed mean 'To teach' or 'To
instruct', '. .. lehre' - compare 'lore' - means a
body of knowledge: 'science of . . .' in the old
sense; the word-ending '.. .logy'; sometimes
'theory of . It is not till Note 35 on p.li thatwe are
given a rationale for divergent - but not even
then consistently used - translations of '. .

lehre': 'instruction in . . .' and 'theory of.)

The bilingualpresentationof the maintext goes
some way towardsamelioratingthe consequences
of the errors of translation;but only for those
readers whose own German is good. Space
preventsthe correctingof the mistranslationsand
other confusionshere, but this reviewer would be
pleased to supply a list of the more important
ones to any interested reader.
On pp.8/91, Schoenberg enunciates some
important and provocative principles of art and
its comprehension:'coherence ... bindsindividual
phenomena intoforms.','A form (the form of the
phenomena) is an artisticformif the recognizable
connections. . areessentialin the same wayfor the
partasfor thewhole','The degreeof comprehensibility
depends on the type and number of connections
used .. .'; 'The limits of comprehensibility are
not the limits of coherence . . .'. Another
provocative statement- and a mistranslationthat
almost reverses Schoenberg'smeaning - is to be
found at the top of p.10/11: 'Even without a
shared content coherence may be direct if the
purposeis held in common.' is the translator's
version. But 'mittelbar' means 'indirect'. What
Schoenberg says is 'There can be an indirect
coherence even without shared content if the
purposeis shared.'
On pp.12/13, Schoenbergintroducesa curious,
lengthy parable about a wardrobe whose key is
lost, intended to explicate the processof reaching
understanding,with 'If I make this statement[this
refers to the previous sentence, in which the
recognition that parts of a thing are similar to
those of an already familiar thing is made the
prerequisite for understanding]the basis of my
following considerations, I do not mean that it
states conclusively and completely what understanding is. Rather, it is as though: . . .'. But a
redundant comma tempts the translatorsinto a
reversal of the logical structure: 'If I base this
statement upon my ensuing observation, .'
On pp.26/27, Schoenberg enters into an
argument with himself: 'A motive is something
that gives rise to a motion.' This fascinating
dynamic view leads him to play with ideas of
motionand motor,only to decide that he might be
wrong to equate motiveand motor.This leads to a
discussionof rhythmin which Schoenbergseems,
surprisingly (or, as they might have said in
Darmstadt, not surprisingly) to equate rhythm
with regularrepetition and relatesit to 'Takt'- an
unfortunately ambiguous word, meaning both
'bar' and 'beat', which creates inconsistencies in
the translation.
1This notationrefersto the pairsof pagesof the parallel
texts.

This content downloaded from 192.188.48.156 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:28:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

50

BookReviews

Now we come to some stimulating and

illuminatingmotivic analysis,first of an example
of Schoenberg's,then of the previouslymentioned
Mozartbridge-passage,together with discussions
of liquidationand developing variation.On p.38,
Schoenberg explains the derivation of motifs
from each other by writing 'b1=-2, where a is a
motif consisting of one crotchet and b one of two
quavers;in bar 3, b1 changes the latter into two
pairs of semiquavers, and Schoenberg is saying
that these derive from the second half of al, a
variantof a at the beginning of bar 2 which turns
the crotchet into a quaver and two semiquavers.
By writing 'a' in the above equation instead of
'a1', Schoenberg already introduces a degree of
mystification,which is then compounded by the
editor's explanatory footnote on p.39, which
refers to bar 2 instead of bar 3.
There follows a discussion of the function of
tonality, which includes the significant remark
that in certain cases it can be dispensed with,
and of its establishment;which, Schoenbergsays,
can sometimes be achieved merely by noncontradiction;plagal ('weak') final cadences are
cited as proofs of this. But then examples of
harmonically unsuccessful closes are cited as
proofs of the opposite: Schumann(unspecified),
and - revealingly - the end of the second
movement of Beethoven's Eighth Symphony,
with its in principle classical but exaggeratedly
strong and sustainedsubdominantdigressionjust
before what Schoenbergcalls 'the coincidentalBflat major' of the end. Revealing, because of
Schoenberg'sFreudianslip (or is this a consequence
merely of early 20th-century performance
practice?)in calling the movement 'the Andante
movement'; it is marked 'Allegretto scherzando'
in Beethoven's score, andjust as for Schoenberg
'Scherzo' means a form, not a piece of joky
character, so here he seems to betray his
discomfort at the witty, irreverent nature, both
harmonically and in matters of tempo, rhythm
and figuration,of what 'ought to be' a symphonic
slow movement.
Finally, Schoenbergreverts to a consideration
of rhythm and metre. Here (as is even more
strikingly the case in the section of the notes
dealing with 'Form')he speculatesabout origins,
without examining historical and ethnomusicological data. '2-beat rhythm (original rhythm)
comes from our two legs (hands) and from our
gait'. True; though he might have added that our
experience of breathing,of sleeping and waking,
of all our physical and psychic processes of
mounting tension and its release are binary, and
that many of them contain a much stronger
feeling of (sometimes prolonged) anacrusisand

the discharge of energy in the downbeat. But

then he continues with a speculative, contingent,
mechanistic (and military!) hypothesis: 'The 3beat rhythm ... could come from a change of
step', without consideringthe evidence (musicological and psychological) that it arose first,
through agogic accentuation reinforcing or
replacing dynamic, in the form of 'long-short,
long-short', and then.through the reassertionof
binary rhythmin the form of the bisection of the
long sounds into two short ones.
The 'Coherence' section of ZKIF is by far the
longest and most rich. The 'Counterpoint' notes
are sketchy and brief. First, a discussionof what
independent voices and melodic voices are,
complete with an interesting,if slightly pedantic,
demonstrationthat the second voice of a canon
can logically be considered independent.
Complete, too, on pp.66/67 with an example of
the sense being fundamentally distorted in the
translationby the association of an adverb with
the wrong verb: the English text says 'The
of developmentin a voice merely
independence
andpossibilities
consistsof following the requirements
of its motive.' (Emphases original.) What
Schoenbergsaysis 'The independence
ofdevelopment
of a voice lies in its only following the requirements
and possibilitiesof its motive.' The former
trivializes both the criterion for independence
and the concept of independence itself; the latter
emphasizes the freeness of the voice, and
provides a strong and active criterion for
independence. After a sketch for a teaching
syllabus, there are the music examples, added
laterwithout any explanations.The dodecaphonic
ones are followed by four very brief diatonic
ones, one of which is curious: the rest are either
written in C and F (bass) clefs and with keysignaturesof two or four flats, or follow on from
these with the implication that the clefs and
signaturesremain the same; but the second one,
without clefs or signatures,can only be made to
follow from the firstby an improbablerearrangement of voices andstaves.ProfessorNeff supplies
G (treble)and bass clefs, which creates a fourvoiced mensuralcanon in which all the voices are
plain arpeggiations of an A-minor triad, with
parallel unisons at one point; since the following
two examples seem to be sketches for mensural
canons, it seems likely that the second one is a
mere rhythmicsketch without pitch implications.
The third section of the notes, on 'Instrumentation', is substantial(though not as much so
as the 'Coherence' part), and stresses the idea
that, whereastraditionalorchestrationbooks deal
mainly with the ranges and capabilities of
individual instruments, instrumentation should

This content downloaded from 192.188.48.156 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:28:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews 51
be seen not as a 'penny plain, tuppence coloured'
addition, but an integral part of the composition
process that begins with considerationsof types
of texture and goes on to questionsof balanceand
clarity. It is, therefore, a pity that at this point the
translatorsseem to have lost interest in trying to
understandwhat Schoenbergis saying, or at least
to ensure that their versions make corresponding
(or any) sense.
Thus, paragraph 3) on p.78 specifically
complains of the old methods that they are
- the knowledgeof
mainly 'Instrumentenkunde'
- which the translatorsrender on p.29
instruments
as 'instrumentation',
thus making nonsense of
Schoenberg'scentral point: that it is necessaryto
teach the art of instrumentation
(as a branch of
composition) and not just the knowledge of
instrumentsas such. And in the next sentence, 'II.
The main defect of the old method: the truebasis
is composition
itself . . .', we
for all instrumentation
fall foul of the multiple meanings of 'Satz':
'setzen'means'to set'; 'Satz'can mean 'movement'
(as in 'second movement'), 'texture' (as in
'polyphonic texture'), or 'composition'itself, and
the following table of kinds of texture makes it
clear that here it means 'texture' and not
'composition'. The same is true of the next
sentence, which in any case has lost the crucial
subject of the second clause and therefore makes
no sense, right or wrong: 'Therefore the student
must first choose: what is the nature of a
composition, so that [?] may be suitablefor this or
that instrumental combination' (my questionmark) should read 'Therefore the student must
first choose: what should the character of
a texture that is suitable for this or that
instrumentalcombination be'. Yet again, in the
second line of the following list, and on much of
p.81, 'texture' should replace 'composition'. At
last, on p.81, footnote 51 addressesthe possibility
of an alternative translationof 'Satz', but offers
'Setting' rather than 'Texture'.
A marginalnote on pp.84/85, the lines running
vertically along the margin, has been completely
corrupted in the translation. It refers to a very
long list of conditions under the heading 'What
conditions
doinstruments
imposeon a setting?'and, in
the translators'version, reads 'It is not necessary
to considerthese conditions [!]. Often one choice
suffices because the instrument is not exposed,
often because it is supported by other (more
capable) linstruments}'.What the original says is
'Not all these conditions need to be considered.
Often a selection[of conditions!]suffices, because
...' (the italics and the parentheses in square
brackets are mine).
It is the succinctenunciationon pp.98/99-100/

101 of Schoenberg's views on transposing

instruments that provides the clearest evidence
that by this stage the process of translationhas
become a mechanical one. 'In learning the C
major scale, the horn player (or trumpeter or
clarinettist)should not play the key in which no
valves are depressed (as has been the practice
until now), but should use instead the key that
really sounds C major' is, to this reader at least,
fairly impenetrable.But what Schoenberg says is
perfectly clear: 'The horn player (or trumpeteror
clarinettist)should learn as the C major scale not
that key in which no valves are depressed (as has
been the practice until now), but that scale that
actually sounds C-major'. The final substantive
remark of the 'Instrumentation'section relates
the style of piano reductions (a better term than
to the way pianistsare accustomed
'arrangements')
to play them.
Surprisingly, 'Instruction in Form' is the
shortest section. It consists merely of the
beginning of a sketchy attempt at a classification
of forms, with some speculation (again without
historical data) about origins. Nevertheless, the
following has resonance: 'NB. How is it that: in
undergoing dissolution, every theme or motive
loses individuality (harmonic and rhythmic),
becomes more ordinary, and ends up as a
structurewith relativelyuncharacteristicfeatures'.
One turns with some relief to the useful
appendices, already listed above. Appendix 1, A
Indexes,is presented
of Schoenberg's
Transcription
with parallel texts, but has been rearrangedin
the alphabetical order of the English words;
Appendix 2 is the editor's table of the order in
which topics appear in Schoenberg's original
manuscript.The two bibliographicallists of his
own writings that form Appendix 3 were
compiled in the 1940s - in English - by
Schoenberg himself, while Appendices 4 and 5
collate the various catalogues and methods of
identification of Schoenberg'sprose manuscripts
by Rufer, Schoenberg himself and Christiansen
and Christiansen, and are, like the editor's
introduction to the whole book, indispensable
bibliographically.
A curate's egg, then: a central text mixing
stimulating, provocative and enlightening statements and discussionswith private aidesmemoires,
jottings and lists of topics tending to the tedious if
not hermetic, beautifully presented, but marred
for readers without excellent German by an
increasingly misleading translation;and a major
introductoryessay and appendicesof great value
and importance.
MichaelGraubart

This content downloaded from 192.188.48.156 on Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:28:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions