Gershom Scholem, “Against the Myth of the German-Jewish Dialogue,” in On Jews and Judaism in Crisis, ed. Werner J. Dannhauser (New York: Schocken Books, 1976), pp. 61–2.46 46. See Zadoff, Gershom Scholem: From Berlin to Jerusalem and Back.
47 47. Letter 32, 9.7.1953.
48 48. Letter 53, 9.3.1956.
49 49. Adorno, “The Meaning of Working through the Past,” p. 90.
50 50. Adorno, “On the Question: ‘What is German?” in Critical Models, pp. 205–14, and “The Meaning of Working through the Past.”
51 51. Letter 23, 13.4.1952, p. 60 in this volume.
52 52. Adorno, Negative Dialectics, p. 365.
53 53. Adorno, “Resignation,” in Critical Models, pp. 289–93.
54 54. Letter 216, 11.12.1968, p. 380 in this volume.
55 55. Letter 191, 18.9.1967 – annotation, p. 323 in this volume.
56 56. Letter 220, 21.3.1969, p. 387 in this volume.
57 57. Ibid., p. 388 in this volume.
58 58. Tiedemann, “Erinnerung an Scholem,” in Scholem, Walter Benjamin und sein Engel, ed. Rolf Tiedemann (Frankfurt am Main: Surhkamp, 1983), p. 213.
59 59. See Benjamin Lazier, God Interrupted: Heresy and the European Imagination between the World Wars (Princeton, NJ, and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008), pp. 191–200.
60 60. Tiedemann, “Erinnerung an Scholem,” p. 215; citation from Benjamin’s “Goethe’s Elective Affinities,” trans. Stanley Corngold, in Walter Benjamin, Selected Writings (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 5 vols, 2004–6), Vol. 1, p. 356.
61 61. Just as he writes of Scholem, Tiedemann himself also preferred to read the published book rather than page proofs. Upon the publication of the German edition of the correspondence, he enthusiastically commented on the edition and commented that the annotation regarding the history of the Angelus novus after Adorno’s death, based on available sources, is incorrect. He then elucidated the matter in an e-mail to me from May 2015 – a month after the publication of the German original edition – which is the source and the basis of the full account of the painting’s history, published here for the first time.
62 62. See annotation to letter 110, 24.10.1961.
63 63. Letter 110, 24.10.1961.
64 64. Available sources on the matter all include misguided information. For example, even Stefan Müller-Doohm’s outstandingly erudite and lucid biography of Adorno inaccurately notes that he owned only a reproduction of the painting, while the original was in the possession of Gershom Scholem (Stefan Müller-Doohm: Adorno: A Biography, trans. Rodney Livingstone, Cambridge, UK, and Malden, MA: Polity, 2005, p. 571n92).
65 65. Rolf Tiedemann in a letter to the editor, May 2015.
66 66. See Uwe Johnson and Eberhardt Klemm, Brief vom 19. Juli [1972], cited in Erdmut Wizisla, “Ossian an Béla: Über Benjamin und Bloch – Aus dem Briefwechsel zwischen Uwe Johnson und Eberhardt und Erika Klemm,” in Michael Hofmann, with Ingo Breuer and Torsten Pflugmacher (eds), Johnson-Jahrbuch, Vol. 11, 2004, pp. 11–28 (here p. 23). I thank Erdmut Wizisla, director of the Bertolt Brecht and the Walter Benjamin Archives in Berlin, for this information.
67 67. Walter Benjamin, “On the Concept of History,” in Selected Writings, Vol. 4, p. 392.
68 68. Tiedemann, “Erinnerung an Scholem,” p. 214. Tiedemann intersects here thesis A from the supplement to the text (Benjamin, Selected Writings, Vol. 4, p. 397), dropped in its final version, with thesis IX (p. 392); see also note 28 on the text (p. 400).
69 69. Benjamin, “On the Concept of History,” Vol. 4, p. 397.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
