Walter Meyer replies to me:

>>I do and I am at least one listener.  I don't read a Henry James novel
>>without thinking of the historical gap between him and me - it would
>>be intellectual nonsense to do so since you are are missing on a very
>>important layer of meaning.
>
>And yet we read or watch plays by the ancient Greek dramatists, like
>Euripides' *Trojan Women*, Sophocles' *Oedipus* trilogy, or Aristophanes'
>*Lysistrata* because what those dramatists had to say about the
>universality of the human thoughts, reactions and emotions, have the same
>validity today as when these works were written over two thousand years
>ago.  I, for one, do not think of any historical gap between the authors
>and me when reading or attending their plays but rather of how similar
>their views of the world were to mine today.

I think it is the characteristic of a great work of art that it can
transcend its own tie to history.  Le Nozze di Figaro tells us about
strange historical things but at the same time about universal human
feelings.  But it remains a work of the 18th century since it was simply
not written in the 15th or 20th century.  It is fascinating to experience
that an 18th century artist could feel things in a similar way as we do.
At the same time it is highly interesting to see that Mozart's opera,
despite its capacity to transport universally valid feelings, emotions
and idea, is bound to its time.  It is a window into time and eternity at
the same time.  Eternity because of its universally valid statements, time
because it was written at a distinctive point in history and is therefore
bound to this time forever.  (And to complicate things further: we will
never know if we understand Mozart the way he wanted to be understood.  We
are 20th century people, he was an 18th century man.  Generations to come
will maybe find totally different things in his works "universally valid"
than we do.)

>>I think to listen to Bach without giving credit to the fact that we listen
>>to a musical testimony of the past is a strange thing to do.
>
>Can you explain why you would not be able to listen to Mozart's g minor
>quintet (K516) "without giving credit to the fact that we listen to a
>musical testimony of the past", assuming that you, like me, consider the
>work a sublime masterpiece?

This may be just me.  When I listen to this work (or to any other) I am
aware that I listen to a human being that is not me.  Someone talks to me,
I listen.  There is a tie between us, at the same time we are separated
forever (man is a lonely hunter, you know).  We are separated in many ways,
one of this ways is time.  I love Virginia Woolf's novels and every time
I listen to Mrs Woolf it is a marvel that I can listen to such a sublime
and sensitive voice from the past, can (this is maybe only my illusion)
understand her.  It is like watching the stars: the light that we see
is light from the past, not present light.  Nevertheless it touches us,
touches us deeply.  It may sound awfully romantic but what a privilege it
is that we can, by listening to K516, still hear late Mozart telling us how
he sees the world.

Robert