Summer reading

Now that summer is almost here (I still have some grading to do), I'm looking forward to reading a few things that have been on my bookshelf for awhile. So, I was particularly happy to begin reading Eric Siblin's, Bach's Cello Suites between games at my son's soccer tournament this past weekend. Siblin's work usually focuses on contemporary rock. He came to the Cello Suites by accident when he attended a recital on a whim. In the book, he weaves together the story of J. S. Bach's composing of the Suites (itself a mystery as there is some question of whether his second wife, Anna Magdalena, had a role in composing the suites) with their accidental recovery by Pablo Casulis, the son of a anti-monarchist Republican Catalan. According to Siblin, Casulis discovered the then unknown Bach cello suites at age thirteen while on a walk with his father.  He carried on his father's politics in his adult life by resisting Franco and eventually facing exile. Sibin writes that Causlis brought an unwavering commitment to his music and his politics. In an interview with Harpers (contains link to Youtube of Casulas playing Suite No. 1), Siblin suggests that "For Casals, the sovereignty of Catalonia was as natural and correct as infusing Bach with earthiness, dance, and humanity."

Aesthetic theory has been on my mind quite a bit lately, and the nature of the inexpressible in music, art and language. Last fall I read Fergus Kerr's Theology after Wittgenstein. Kerr speaks favorably of Stanley Cavell and his influence on Kerr's understanding of Wittgenstein. And so I picked up Cavell's The Claim of Reason and Must We Mean What We Say. 

Now, after reading Cavell, I am looking for something in Siblin's book that might help me understand the Cello Suites and a person like Casulis, who could blend his passion for music and his politics so totally. There seems to be an aspect of language and of the mystery of the person that is methodologically excluded in philosophy today, even as it becomes more focused on consciousness.  Can we doubt that it is significant for jurisprudence?