Notes to pp. 157–162 521critique in 1937 for the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, but it was not
published out of consideration for the plight of the émigrés, even though
the article was already typeset. For the first version of his criticism of
Mannheim, see Adorno, ‘Neue wertfreie Soziologie: Aus Anlaß von
Karl Mannheims Mensch und Gesellschaft im Zeitalter des Umbaus’, GS,
vol. 20.1, p. 13ff.
90 Karl Mannheim, ‘Heidelberger Briefe’, p. 75.
91 See Benjamin and Adorno, The Complete Correspondence 1928–1940,
p. 55f.
92 Adorno to Horkheimer, 19 February 1937, Adorno and Horkheimer,
Briefwechsel, vol. 1, p. 288ff.
93 Adorno to Horkheimer, 28 February 1937, ibid., p. 301f.; see also
Horkheimer, Briefwechsel, GS, vol. 16, p. 69f.
94 A letter from Adolf Löwe, an economist who had been on the faculty at
Frankfurt University and who, having emigrated to Britain in 1933, worked
as a lecturer in Manchester and London, makes it clear that Horkheimer
was not averse to a rapprochement: ‘I was in London last week and dis-
cussed the matter with Mannheim, putting your point of view. Although
Mannheim had no objection to the publication of the critical article [by
Adorno], and would even welcome the publication of a dispassionate dis-
cussion, he understands your formal reservations entirely. He especially
appreciates the friendly feelings which led you to embargo the article,
even though he would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues of
substance in some form or other. Perhaps you could find the time to write
to him directly about the matter. I myself think it highly desirable to keep
talking, particularly when there are serious disagreements. Otherwise,
there is a danger that our family quarrels will make us forget the common
front that we have been placed in by inclination and fate.’ Horkheimer,
GS, vol. 16, p. 387.
95 Ibid., p. 370f.
96 Adorno, ‘Neue wertfreie Soziologie’, GS, vol. 20.1, p. 31.
97 Adorno, ‘The George–Hofmannsthal Correspondence, 1891–1906’, Prisms,
p. 204.
98 Rolf Tiedemann reports that forty-five notebooks have survived among
his unpublished works. The earliest is dated 1932, the others were written
between 1938 and 1939. These exercise books constitute a kind of
philosophical diary, even though they also contain addresses, telephone
numbers and appointments, as well as observations and ideas. According
to Tiedemann, these notes ‘appear shapeless, but in fact possess a form
which is not unlike that of the fragments written by Novalis and Friedrich
Schlegel. They might also be compared to the notes found in Nietzsche’s
posthumous papers.’ Frankfurter Adorno Blätter VII, 2001, p. 9.
99 Adorno and Berg, Briefwechsel 1925–1935, p. 263.
100 Ibid., p. 263f.
101 See Adorno, Kompositionen, vol. 2, pp. 63–72.
102 In a letter to his closest friend, Gershom Scholem, on 28 February 1933,
Benjamin wrote that, since ‘the new regime’ had seized power, ‘it was
scarcely possible to breathe any more; admittedly, this was a circumstance
of diminished significance now that they had their hands round your throat.’
Benjamin, Gesammelte Briefe, vol. IV, p. 162f.