International Mendelssohn-Schumann Conference University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Duke University 1-3 April, 1982

Abstract

T he week of March 29th, 1982, was one which the state of North believed to be its own. Spring was upon us (a false start, alas); the sky was truly Carolina blue, and the euphoria following Chapel Hill's triumph in the NCAA tourney remained in the air. Oddly enough, it seemed in keeping with the exhilaration of the season that a small group of scholars would gather first in Chapel Hill, then Durham for an International Mendelssohn-Schumann sponsored jointly by the music departments of University of North at Chapel Hill and Duke University. The National Endowment for the Humanities and the Mary Duke Biddle Foundation provided additional support. Since the level of the studies presented was unusually fine, the publication of a volume containing these papers will be indispensable for all 19th-century specialists. The commentary that follows can only touch upon the richness of the materials offered. The invitation to participate went originally to selected scholars currently involved in Mendelssohn-Schumann research. Currently meant working and publishing on Mendelssohn and/or Schumann within the past five years. Other offerings were considered once plans became public and proposals submitted. A new generation of scholars, possessing different orientations toward time-honored materials and personalities on the one hand and a copious amount of new information now available on the other, is now involved in this work. R. Larry Todd of Duke University, and Jon Finson of UNC-Chapel Hill, the organizers of the Conference, are two of the leading young scholars in Mendelssohn and Schumann studies, respectively. Their doctorates were completed within the last five years, and research has broken new ground. Owing to geographical proximity, to say nothing of willingness and ability to cooperate, a new focal point for 19th-century studies has emerged, and their conference was a significant personal and professional achievement. Interestingly enough, there was no special reason for such a conference, no centenary, anniversary or special commemoration. Perhaps the Conference was so successful simply because it could be itself, there being no built in biases. Almost immediately certain themes emerged which reached across the arbitrary boundaries of the individual sessions. I noted at least six major areas of interest which permitted me to appreciate the cohesive qualities of the work at hand. For convenience sake papers related to a given theme are cited at the beginning of the commentaries. Obviously, categories are not frozen, and there was much more communality of purpose and intent than the separation into rigid compartments may suggest.