Handwritten letter from Schenker to J. G. Cotta, dated November 22, 1905 Sehr geehrter Herr! Über die angenehme neue Wendung sehr erfreut, erlaube ich mir hiemit das Manuskript zu Ihrer Einsicht einzusenden.1 Ich habe nur das Nachwort hier zurückbehalten, um es einer zweiten Redaction zu unterziehen: es ist etwa einen Druckbogen stark, u. beschäftigt sich mit der leider verloren gegangenen cyklischen Technik unserer großen Meister.2 Wenn ich nunmehr eine Bitte äußern darf, so wäre es diese: nicht allzuviel Fachleute[ corr ] das Manuscript einsehen zu {2} lassen. Handelt es sich doch um die Priorität der Idee, die ich eben durch die Comm[i]sion|3 so gut als möglich geschützt wissen möchte. Insbesondere[ corr ] befürchte ich jeden Cont[act] mit Prof. Dr. Riemann, oder einem „Riemannianer,“ – gerade Lassen Sie mich, bitte, auf Ihre Entscheidung nicht allzulange warten. {3} Der Inhalt des Buches ist in einem Schreibmaschine–Exemplar extra beigegeben, damit die Übersicht über die § u. die Marginalrubriken (wie sie auch gedruckt werden) erleichtert ist. In ausgez. Hochachtung © Heirs of Heinrich Schenker; reproduced here by kind permission of the Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Cotta-Archiv (Stiftung der Stuttgarter Zeitung), Marbach am Neckar. |
Handwritten letter from Schenker to J. G. Cotta, dated November 22, 1905 Dear Sir, I am delighted at the latest welcome turn of events, and take the liberty of submitting to you herewith my manuscript for your inspection.1 The only thing I have retained is the Afterword so that I can give it a second reworking. It is about one gathering long, and deals with the cyclical technique—regrettably now lost—of our great masters.2 If I may at this point express one wish, it is that you not let too many specialists examine my manuscript. {2} The issue is really one of the priority of my idea, which I should like to be sure is safeguarded as completely as possible though the commission.3 In particular, I fear lest Professor Riemann or any “Riemannian” might get his hands on it. It is precisely against “musical mathematics” as represented by Riemann that my book is expressly directed. There is no one in the world more eager than Professor Riemann to appropriate to himself every new idea, only to present it as his own.[??] He currently commands the marketplace, and no longer allows anyone even a small patch. Please do not keep me waiting too long for your decision. {3} I am also enclosing the Table of Contents of the book in a typewritten copy, so as to facilitate control of the paragraphs and marginal subheadings (and how they are printed). With kind regards, Vienna, November 22, 1905. |
COMMENTARY: FOOTNOTES: 1 See OJ 9/31, [3], November 15, for Cotta’s change of heart in the light of a letter of recommendation received on S’s behalf from Eugen d’Albert. S had initially proposed the publication to Cotta on November 8 (CA 1-2), and received a rejection from them on November 9 (OJ 9/31, [1]). 2 This Afterword was not included in the eventual publication of Harmonielehre. It was dropped after it became too long (see OJ 9/31, [8], May 31, 1906), at which point S expressed the intention of publishing it separately under a title “along the lines of ‘Beethoven or Wagner’.” It is mentioned in the Foreword to Harmonielehre (p.VII, trans. xxvi) and given the predictive title of Über den Niedergang der Kompositionskunst,—eine technisch-kritische Untersuchung (The Decline of the Art of Composition–a Technical-Critical Inquiry). The work was never published, but survives in a typescript draft with S’s corrections as OC 31/28–153. There is no evidence in the latter of there having been a one-gathering-length version. For an edition with translation and commentary, by William Drabkin, see Music Analysis, 24/1–2 (March–July 2005). 3 i.e. presumably Cotta’s commission-publishing house. SUMMARY: © Commentary, Footnotes, Summary Ian D. Bent 2005.
|
|