^{page 8 note 1} This statement is refreshingly contradicted by a recent notice in The Manchester Guardian of 9th September (Neville Cardus) in which an admirably outspoken corrective is administered to the popular conception of a much over-praised conductor's maltreatment of the classics. For the importance of this task, see my next paragraph.

^{page 10 note 1} After the completion of this article an example of the very synthesis I have in mind appeared in the shape of Martin Cooper's review of Dr. H. F. Redlich's new book on Bruckner and Mahler (c.f. ‘Two Giants Compared', Daily Telegraph 10th September).

^{page 11 note 1} Or as Proust puts it in La Recherche du Temps Perdu, “What artists call posterity is the posterity of the work of art. It is essential that the work … shall create its own posterity. For if the work were held in reserve, were revealed only to posterity, that audience, for that particular work, would be not posterity but a group of contemporaries who were merely living half-a-century later in time”. Earlier in the same passage Proust has remarked that “It was Beethoven's [late] Quartets themselves … that devoted half-a-century to forming, fashioning and enlarging a public for Beethoven's characters …“ [Ivans, C. K. Scott Moncrieff.]