Notes to pp. 189–194 529take part in University life in either place. A great deal would depend
on the attractions of his own personality – of which I have no knowledge.
He should I think come over to England as he suggests and be provided
with introductions to proper persons, and left to find or create a place for
himself. Professor Cassirer might be willing to introduce him to Oxford.’
Bodleian Library, MS SPSL, 322/2, No. 56.
12 Bodleian Library, MS SPSL, 322/2, No. 81.
13 Adorno to Horkheimer, 24 November 1934. Horkheimer, Briefwechsel,
GS, vol. 15, p. 272; Adorno and Berg, Briefwechsel 1925–1935, p. 297.
14 Adorno to Horkheimer, 2 November 1934. Horkheimer, GS, vol. 15,
p. 262.
15 Bodleian Library, MS SPSL, 322/2, No. 94.
16 Adorno and Berg, Briefwechsel 1925–1935, p. 295.
17 His correspondence gives some indication of the constraints that he
experienced. He frequently mentions that, like ordinary undergraduates,
he had to ‘keep terms’, a concept unfamiliar to his correspondents in
Germany. Similarly, the Oxford practice of ejecting students at the end of
term meant that he, like them, had to return home for the vacations, and
this was a financial necessity for him too. See Andreas Kramer and Evelyn
Wilcock, ‘A Preserve for Professional Philosophers’, p. 127.
18 Alfred J. Ayer, Part of my Life, p. 153.
19 Bodleian Library, MS SPSL, 322/2, No. 153/155.
20 Adorno and Horkheimer, Briefwechsel, vol. 1, p. 85.
21 Ibid., p. 92.
22 Ibid., p. 66f.
23 Ibid., p. 92.
24 Adorno to Horkheimer, 24 November 1934 and also 21 March 1936.
Horkheimer, Briefwechsel, GS, vol. 15, pp. 276 and 496.
25 It is true that his Husserl critique still contains ‘Hegelian overtones. But
over the next two-and-half years, Adorno largely frees himself from this
even though this exposes him to some sharp criticism from Horkheimer.’
Despite a certain amount of common ground in their criticism of Husserl,
major differences separate Ryle and Adorno. While Ryle develops his
arguments epistemologically, the critique of ideology stands at the forefront
of Adorno’s analysis. See Kramer and Wilcock, ‘A Preserve for Professional
Philosophers’, pp. 154 and 160.
26 Oxford University Archive, Board of the Faculty of Literae Humaniores,
File ‘Wiesengrund-Adorno’.
27 Adorno to Horkheimer, 24 November 1934. Horkheimer, GS, vol. 15,
p. 274. See also Adorno to Benjamin, 6 November 1934. Benjamin and
Adorno, The Complete Correspondence 1928–1940, p. 55. He writes there:
‘As far as my work on Husserl is concerned, I have simply marched on
with my eyes blindfolded as if to the place of execution, which is perhaps
not so entirely inappropriate for a logical contribution of this kind.’
28 Adorno and Krenek, Briefwechsel, p. 44.
29 See Andreas Kramer and Evelyn Wilcock, ‘A Preserve for Professional
Philosophers’, p. 136ff.
30 See Evelyn Wilcock, ‘Adorno in Oxford 1: Oxford University Musical
Club’, p. 11f.
31 Adorno and Berg, Briefwechsel 1925–1935, p. 296.