{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029917726252804786, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004487658937920718, 'mean_word_length': 4.9, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Life of Mendelssohn (review)

to point to more recent literature, but mainly just to reference material such as the new Beethoven-Haus edition of Beethoven’s letters (Briefwechsel Gesamtausgabe, ed. Sieghard Brandenburg, 7 vols. to date [Munich: Henle, 1996–]). There has also been some occasional minor rewording, and the name of the former Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz has been changed to its present form (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz), but any further updating has been confined to the Nachwort. This Nachwort, however, is quite helpful, not merely citing the important literature published on each subject since Gülke wrote his articles, but briefly discussing any significant new conclusions. For example, Gülke points out that according to current thought, Beethoven’s final intention for the scherzo of the Fifth Symphony was that it be a three-part structure, not a five-part one as Gülke had proposed, although the latter scheme still cannot be excluded with certainty. And whereas his original 1977 article on the Eighth Symphony had discussed the chronology of the scherzo theme in relation to the canon on which it was supposedly based, Gülke reminds us that more recent work suggests that the canon is a fabrication (though he omits to tell us that its composer is now thought to be the notorious Anton Schindler). The sole new article is the one that confusingly provides the title for the whole volume: “ ‘. . . immer das ganze vor Augen,’ ” distinguishable from the book’s title by the lowercase instead of capital g. This takes as its starting point Beethoven’s comment, written in 1814 when he was revising Fidelio, that even when composing instrumental music he had “always the whole in view.” The context surrounding the quotation, however, is largely bypassed, as the author sets out on a discussion of the relationship between the whole and its parts—within movements, works, work groups within an opus, and an entire output—and of whether the whole may be more than the sum of its parts. He displays a very thorough knowledge of Beethoven’s major works (though the lesser-known ones are virtually ignored) and a wide range of reading, with many citations. The main drawback, as in the other ten articles, is his longwinded and convoluted prose style, with its quasi-philosophical underpinning, so that it generally takes him a long time to communicate his ideas; and these, though mostly reasonable and uncontentious, never seem to have any great significance. For example, he observes that an opening movement in a work may be initially “unlegitimated,” and that within the opening fast movement of the Piano Sonata in E Major op. 109, an “adagio espressivo” passage enters the constitution of the movement and later reappears in a reprise, “so dass Legitimierendes und Legitimiertes kaum noch unterschieden werden können” (so that the legitimating and the legitimated are scarcely able to be distinguished [p. 23; my trans.]). This may indeed be so, and it does seem to belong with the general issue of the relationship between the whole and its parts, but there are surely more revealing ways of exploring the particular discontinuities and cohesive forces of this particular movement. Most crucial, the volume lacks any index —a vital feature for any such collection of essays. There can be no excuse for such an omission (as there can for not updating previous work), and there are not even any subheadings within the articles to help guide the reader as to subject matter. Thus, in an article such as the one described in the previous paragraph, there is no way of knowing whether the author has anything significant—or indeed anything at all— to say about a particular work or concept except by reading the entire article; and doing this is likely to be a frustrating, timewasting experience for at least some readers. One fears, therefore, that even those who would benefit most from studying this book may not have the stamina to do so.