Schenker Correspondence Project

Handwritten letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated May 26, 1909

Sehr geehrter Herr !

Der Abschluß des ersten Abschnittes – Mitte des Bg. 10|¹ – giebt mir Gelegenheit, eine alte Frage² neuerdings aufzurühren: ob es nicht doch zweckmäßig wäre, den Bd. II in zwei Halbbänden, oder gar in 4 Lieferungen erscheinen zu lassen, in welch letzterem Falle es nämlich schon den ersten Abschnitt allein hinauszuschicken wünschenswert wäre. Indem ich vorausschicke, daß ich unter allen Umständen Ihren Entschluß als maßgebend erkennen u. Ihren Rath aufs dankbarste annehmen werde, will ich nur einige Momente anführen, die mich zur Erneuerung des Vorschlages bestimmen.

Wie beiliegende Notiz aus der „N. Fr. Presse“ vom 23. d.M.³ zeigt, ist ein älteres Werk von mir in den Lehrplan der neuen K. K. Akademie⁴ aufgenommen worden, was ^auch ich selbst erst aus der Notiz erfahre. Diesen Erfolg, der still u. ohne Presse heraufkam, möchte ich höhe insofern höher eingeschätzt wissen, als ich in steter Fehde mit allen maßgebenden Beamten u. Musikern lebe, oder mindestens in Rufe bin, von meinen {2} scharfen Ansichten nichts zu opfern. Auch jenes opus enthält eine Menge Ausfälle u. dennoch war die Sache stärker, als die Rücksicht auf den Ruf der Lehrer.⁵ (Das Büchlein ist übrigens auch an ausländischen Konservatorien eingeführt.) H. Director Bopp, den ich persönlich gar nicht kenne, is ein starker Anhänger meiner Lehre, wie mir das der Direktor unserer „Universal-Edition“ schriftlich,⁶ u. der bekannte Komponist Prof. Heuberger mündlich zu bestätigen Gelegenheit hatten.⁷ Der erste Band, die Harmonielehre, hat auf ihn so starken Eindruck gemacht,⁸ daß er meiner Kritik der alten Kirchentonarten folgend, nach Möglichkeit ^bei den ^noch nach Bellermann’s Kontrapunkt|⁹ abgierenden KontrapunktsLehrern seiner Anstalt den Unterricht in den Kirchentonarten zu reduzieren sucht. Er war es auch, der indirekt durch den Leiter der „Universal Edition“ eine neue Ausgabe des „Wohltemperierten Klaviers“ von J. S. Bach|¹⁰ mit Erläuterungen ^{bei mir} bestellte, (ähnlich wie Bülow’s Ausgabe der Beeth.’schen Sonaten in Ihrem Verlage¹¹), – eine Aufgabe, die wohl zum ersten Mal zu lösen wäre. Entsprechend der großen, intensiven Arbeit stellte ich die Forderung eines hohen Honorars, das der Verlag – trotz der Bestellung des Direktors der Akademie – nicht zu zahlen in der Lage war,¹² u. da stellte ich den Gegenvorschlag, {3} ein einzelnes Werk, ein viel, – aber[ corr ] ebenso regelmäßig schlecht gespieltes Konzertstück von S. Bach, die „chromatische Fantasie“ mit Erläuterungen neuer Art hinausgeben zu dürfen.¹³ Leider besitzt unsere “Universal-Edition“ nicht weniger als 3 Ausgaben desselben Werkes: von Bülow, Busoni, u. Röntgen,¹⁴ so daß sie meinen Vorschlag nicht acceptieren konnte, u. wir uns erst bei einen anderen Auftrag ^zu einigen konnte in der Lage waren. Dazu kommt, daß eine im Herbst vorigen Jahres[ corr ] in der „U.E.“ ausgegebene pseudonyme Arbeit ^{von mir} so starken Erfolg hatte, daß binnen 3 Wochen in Wien allein 300 Exemplare verkauft wurden u. nach 2 Monaten bereits eine 2. Auflage erscheinen müßte.¹⁵ (Auch eine französische u. englische Ausgabe sind in der „N. Fr. Presse“ angekündigt worden). Ich will nun mit all dem sagen, daß der Boden für meinen Bd. II immerhin ein sehr günstiger zu nennen ist.

Ich kann es als sicher voraussagen, daß der Bd. II, – da er völlig vom schwierigen Bd. I verschieden u. als Lehrbuch mit Aufgaben (auch für den Selbstunterricht) durchgeführt ist, – alle Lehrbücher dieser Disziplin schlagen wird. Insbesondere ist es ein neuer Stoff, der von den Lehrern so heiß erwartet wird: „die Über-{4}gänge zum freien Satz.“¹⁶ Hier am Ende des strengen Satzes war die Verlegenheit der Lehrer am größten, wie der Schüler nun[?] in den freien Satz hinüberzuführen wäre. Mit größter Sorgfalt habe ich nun gerade diesen wichtigsten Abschnitt herausgearbeitet, mit vielen Aufgaben versehen, u.s.w.

So viel also von den psychologischen Momenten, die ein Erscheinen des Werkes in Lieferungen möglich machen könnten. Aber noch entscheidender erscheinen wenigstens mir die rein technischen Gründe. Bedenke ich, daß wegen der vielen, des Lehrzweckes aber unentbehrlichen Aufgaben, das Werk zunächst blos im Umfange des Ihnen zuzukommenen Manuscriptmateriales schon allein an 500–550 Seiten betragen wird, u. dann noch der 3-, 4-Satz (allerdings wesentlich kürzer), u. die “Übergänge zum freien Satz“ (stattlicher Abschnitt!), sowie endlich der „Freie Satz“ selbst mit sehr wichtigen Erörtungen (noch stattlicher) sammt Epilog zu folgen haben werden, so neige ich zu glauben, daß das ganze Material in einem Bande kaum vereinigt werden kann. Und gerade in dieses Werk, das sicher das Hauptwerk über {5} Contrapunkt bleiben wird, möchte ich alle Liebe des Künstlers zu seinen Material hineintun, eine Liebe, mit der ich heute so ziemlich allein bin. Vielleicht gelingt es mir doch die Prophezeiungen des H. Prof. Rudorff aus Berlin zu erfüllen, der meint, ich könnte, wenn ich so fortfahre, der neuen Jugend das bringen, was seinerzeit Winkelmann|¹⁷ im XVIII. Jahrh. gebracht hat: eine Erlösung von der Unkunst zur Kunst unserer Meister. Auf dem solid durchgeführten Kontrapunktsband mich stützend, werde ich leichter haben, den „Niedergang der Komposition“¹⁸ hineinszuschleudern.

Ich denke, ich möchte das Alles zur Begründung meines Vorschlages sagen, – wenn ich auch gestehe, daß es mir über mich selbst zu sprechen nicht gerade angenehm fiel, (da ich weder Sänger noch Dirigent bin) u. ich am liebsten Ihnen Briefe u. Zuschriften an mich statt meiner eigenen Worte geschickt hätte.

Indem ich zum Schluß vermelde, daß ich den eventuell kritischen Bg. 10 gestern retour schickte, zeichne ich in Erwartung einer gef. Auskunft

Ihr hochachtungsvoll
ergebener
[ sign’d: ] H Schenker
26. 5. 09.

© Heirs of Heinrich Schenker, reproduced here by kind permission of the Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Cotta-Archiv (Stiftung der Stuttgarter Zeitung), Marbach am Neckar.
© Transcription Ian D. Bent 2005.

Handwritten letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated May 26, 1909

Dear Sir,

The completion of Section I—middle of gathering 10|¹—provokes me to bring up once more a familiar question²: whether it might not in fact be appropriate to release vol. II in two half-volumes, or even in four installments, in which latter case it would in fact be desirable to put out Section I on its own at this stage. While saying right away that whatever happens I shall respect your decision as authoritative and shall be heartily grateful for your advice, I should like to set out just a few factors that prompt me to revive my proposal.

As the enclosed announcement from the Neue Freie Presse of May 23³ shows, an earlier work of mine has been adopted for the curriculum of the new Imperial-Royal Academy [of Music and Performing Arts]⁴, a fact that ^even I myself learned first from this announcement. In my view this success, having come about silently and unheralded, ought to be valued all the more highly for the fact that I live in a constant state of feud with all officialdom, administrators and musicians alike, or at least have a reputation for not yielding from my {2} sharply-held opinions. Even that opus contains a host of shortcomings, and nevertheless its subject-matter was stronger by comparison with the repute of the teachers.⁵ (Furthermore, the booklet has been introduced into conservatories in other countries.) Director Bopp, with whom I am not at all personally acquainted, is a strong supporter of my theory, as the director of our Universal Edition had occasion to impress on me in writing⁶ as did the well-known composer Prof. Heuberger in conversation.⁷ Vol. I, Harmonielehre, made so powerful an impression on him⁸ that, following my critique of the old church modes, he sought to reduce as far as possible the teaching of the church modes ^by the counterpoint teachers at his institution, who ^still relied slavishly on Bellermann’s Kontrapunkt.⁹ It was he, too, who indirectly through the head of Universal Edition ordered ^{from me} a new edition of J. S. Bach’s Well-tempered Clavier|¹⁰ with elucidations (similar to Bülow’s edition of the Beethoven Sonatas published by you¹¹). This would have been the first time that the task had been tackled. In keeping with the huge amount of intensive work entailed I demanded a large honorarium, which the publishing house, despite the order’s having come from the Director of the Academy, was not in a position to pay.¹² So then I put the counter-proposal: {3} that they ought to publish a single work, a frequently (but as often as not badly) played concert piece by J. S. Bach, the Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue, with elucidations of a new kind.¹³ Unfortunately, our Universal Edition already had on its books no fewer than three editions of the work, by Bülow, Busoni,¹⁴ and Röntgen, so they could not accept my proposal, and only later, in the context of another commission, were we in a position to reach agreement. Thus it came about that a pseudonymous work ^{of mine} published by UE last Fall had such success that it sold 300 copies within the space of three weeks in Vienna alone, and after only two months a second edition had to be produced.¹⁵ (Even French and English editions were announced in the Neue Freie Presse.) With all this, I venture to say that the prospects for my vol. II seem highly favorable.

I can confidently predict that vol. II—since it is completely different from the difficult vol. I, and is cast as a manual with exercises (also for independent study)—will knock all other manuals in the discipline for six. In particular, it is some new material, “The Bridges {4} to Free Composition,” that is so eagerly awaited by the teachers.¹⁶ Here, at the end of strict counterpoint, the predicament of teachers was at its most acute, just where the student had to be guided over into free composition. With painstaking care, I have now worked out precisely this section, provided with many exercises, etc.

So much, thus, for the psychological factors that could facilitate issuing the work in installments. But even more crucial, at least to my eyes, are the purely technical arguments. When I consider that in view of the exercises—numerous but indispensable for instructional purposes—the book as it stands, comprising just the manuscript material soon to be on its way to you, will amount to 500–550 pages; and after that, the [sections on] three-part and four-part counterpoint (though essentially shorter), and the “Bridges to Free Composition” (a magnificent section!), as well as at long last “Free Composition” itself, containing very important arguments (even more magnificent), not to mention an Epilogue, are still to come—when I consider all of this, then I am inclined to think it will barely be possible to encompass all the material within a single volume. And I should like to imbue precisely this work, which will surely take its place as the leading work on {5} counterpoint, with all the artist’s love for his material, a love in the harboring of which I am quite alone these days. Perhaps I may actually succeed in fulfilling the prophesy of Prof. Rudorff in Berlin, whose opinion it is that I could if I persevere provide for the next generation just what Winkelmann¹⁷ in his day provided in the eighteenth century: salvation from non-art to the art of our masters. On the basis of the solidly worked out counterpoint volume, it will be easier for me to fling my Decline of Composition|¹⁸ upon the world.

I say all of this in justification of my proposal—even though I confess that I was not exactly comfortable with having to speak about myself (since I am neither a singer nor a conductor), and I would have much preferred to send you letters and messages that have come to me, rather than blowing my own trumpet.

In closing, let me report that yesterday I returned what is perhaps the critical gathering 10. I remain, in anticipation of the favor of a reply,

With kind regards,
Yours truly,
[ sign’d: ] H. Schenker
May 26, 1909

© Translation Ian D. Bent 2005.

COMMENTARY:
Format: Holograph letter and signature, oblong format, 5pp
Sender address: --
Recipient address: --

FOOTNOTES:

¹ Abschnitt I ends on p.151 of the published volume, in which gathering 10 occupies pp.145–160.

² The issue was raised previously in CA 85, October 8, 1908, to which Cotta replied advising against in OJ 12/27, [9] = CA 86, October 9, 1908; S touched on the matter again in CA 87, October 13, 1908, to which Cotta replied in OJ 9/31, [20] = CA 88, October 15, 1908, confirming that the work would be published as a single volume.

³ Preserved in S’s scrapbook, OC 2/p.21, review of Ein Beitrag zur Ornamentik, 2nd edn. (1908). To see this document: Click here.

⁴ The old private Conservatory of Music of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde had become a public institution, the K. K. Akademie für Musik und darstellende Kunst, on January 1, 1909, and Universal Edition had for some months been heavily involved in planning to provide editions and manuals for the new curriculum.

⁵ Sentence difficult to construe. S may be saying that the content of Ornamentik was of higher quality than the minds of either those who taught from it, or those who taught the subject of ornamentation, or those who wrote about the subject (e.g. Dannreuther (1893–95), Goldschmidt (1907), and especially Beyschlag (1908), toward whom he felt hostile). If “der Lehrer” were to be read in the singular as “des Lehrers,” then he would be saying that the content of Ornamentik was stronger that its author’s (S's) own reputation.

⁶ Emil Hertzka first set out Bopp’s proposal in OC 52/399–401, December 18, 1908. Wilhelm Bopp ... [biog.]

⁷ Richard Heuberger (1850-1914), Austrian critic, composer, and conductor, who succeeded Eduard Hanslick at the Neue Freie Presse (1896-1901), and with whom S had corresponded occasionally between 1899 and 1905. He had been a teacher at the Vienna Conservatory (dramatic composition) since 1902, and Director of the Wiener Männergesang-Verein, 1902–09. On December 21-22, 1908, S had suggested him ironically as a possible editor for WTC II, insinuating that he was a slavish adherent of Hugo Riemann (OJ 5/15, [5]; WSLB 31). Heuberger had done some editing for UE in its pre-Hertzka days.

⁸ Hertzka’s phrase in OC 52/399–401, December 18, 1908, is simply: “Director Bopp, who holds you in high regard [...].”

⁹ Heinrich Bellermann, Der Contrapunct; oder, Anleitung zur Stimmführung in der Musikalischen Composition (Berlin: Julius Springer, 1862, 4/1901—S owned the 3rd edition, 1887 ( Musik und Theater: enthaltend die Bibliothek des Herrn Dr. Heinrich Schenker, Wien, Antiquariat Heinrich Hinterberger)), in which the teaching of the church modes as a basis for counterpoint had been restored after its abandonment by Cherubini in 1835. (For adherence to the modal system or adoption of the major-minor system since Fux, see Ian D. Bent, “_Steps to Parnassus_: Contrapuntal Theory in 1725,” The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 554–602, esp. 575–594.) Schenker, in Harmonielehre, taught that the modes were an unnatural system surviving beyond the Middle Ages only through inertia and church dogma, and that the major-minor system of tonality was given to man by “Nature’s secret directives” (pp.70–97, trans. 55–76).

¹⁰ In fact only Book II of the WTC, and it was to be done as a completion of Busoni’s edition of Book I, hence following the latter’s editorial principles. Schenker refused to take it on. For a brief discussion of this and related incidents, see Ian D. Bent, “That Bright New Light”: Schenker, Universal Edition, and the Origins of the Erläuterung Series, 1901–1910,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 58/1, Spring 2005, 69–138, esp. 81–87.

¹¹ L. van Beethoven, Sonaten und andere Werke, 5 vols, vol. 4 & 5 ed. Hans von Bülow.

¹² In November 1905, S had demanded a higher honorarium for a second volume of Handel Organ Concertos (missing communication of November 25, 1905), and UE had stated that its rules did not permit this (OC 52/395, July 5, 1906; undated note OC 52/390; WSLB 236, January 18, 1915.) Where WTC II was concerned, Hertzka wrote to S on Friday December 18, 1908 (OC 52/399–401), Schenker drafted a reply on the Monday and finalized the letter on the Tuesday (OJ 5/16, [5], WSLB 31, December 21, 22) without mention of honorarium: he rejected the plan on grounds of editorial principle and (ironically) that he was too heavily committed with NMTP II. Is S misremembering (very unusual for him), or is he adjusting the facts to suit his purpose?

¹³ Word obscured by document number written across page. The Chromatic Fantasy & Fugue proposal was first indicated in WSLB 37, March 28, 1909 (final paragraph), and the matter was discussed face-to-face on April 1, 1909, as recorded in Hertzka’s letter OC 52/920, April 1, 1909. The editing work was evidently underway by late June, occupied S over the Summer, and was finished by September 20, WSLB 42.

¹⁴ Click on Julius Röntgen.

¹⁵ Niloff: Instrumentations-Tabelle, issued in a first “small edition” as a trial to schools and conservatories on or by October 29, 1908 (OC 52/421), which quickly ran out and was replaced by a second “large edition” with a print-run of 2,000 copies, released February 6, 1909 (Verlagsdruckbuch UE 1999). Thus S’s “last Fall” is correct, and his “after only two months” is almost correct, since the new edition was called for on November 23, 1908 (OC 52/29) with a view to publication in the December, but delayed because of overlong supplement by S which was eventually not published until the 1912 edition.

¹⁶ This material forms the sixth and final section of Kontrapunkt, appearing in vol. II/2 (1922).

¹⁷ Ernst Rudorff (1840-1916), German pianist, teacher, composer, and member of the Brahms circle, who was at this time a professor at the Berlin Hochschule für Musik (1867-1910), with whom Schenker corresponded between 1908 and 1916. In a letter of September 24, 1908, he had remarked: “When I put together what you tell me of your plans and what I have now already read in your Harmonielehre, I believe and hope that you are the long-awaited messiah who will at long last hurl the flaming torch into the Tower of Babel [i.e. of Wagner].” (Federhofer, Nach Tagebüchern, p. 200). Winckelmann, Johann (1717–1768), German archaeologist and art history, author of, among other works, the influential Reflections on the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks (1765).

¹⁸ Über den Niedergang der Kompositionskunst: eine technisch-kritische Untersuchung (The Decline of the Art of Composition: a Technical-Critical Inquiry), which had begun life in 1905–06 as the Nachwort (Afterword) to his Harmonielehre, but increased so greatly that it became an independent piece of writing at first destined to be released by Easter 1907, was later envisioned as NMTP III, was never published in its own right, and survives as an edited typescript, OC 31/28–153, produced between 1905 and 1909. For a critical edition with translation, introduction and commentary, by William Drabkin, see Music Analysis 24/1–2, March–July 2005.

SUMMARY:
[ NMTP = Kontrapunkt:] Argues for splitting vol. II into two half-volumes or four installments; instances the success of Ornamentik at the Vienna Conservatory and of the Instrumentations-Tabelle with the public in support of his argument.

© Commentary, Footnotes, Summary Ian D. Bent 2005.

Bent, Ian
Schenker, Heinrich
[ NMTP = Kontrapunkt:] Argues for splitting vol. II into two half-volumes or four installments; instances the success of Ornamentik at the Vienna Conservatory and of the Instrumentations-Tabelle with the public in support of his argument.
DE
Cambridge University Faculty of Music-Ian Bent
IPR: Heirs of Heinrich Schenker; reproduced here by kind permission of the Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Cotta-Archiv (Stiftung der Stuttgarter Zeitung), Marbach am Neckar; Transcription, Translation, Commentary, Footnotes, and Summary: Ian D. Bent 2005.
Schenker, Heinrich; Cotta, J. G.; NMTP; vol.II; Kontrapunkt; Counterpoint; half-volumes; installments; Neue Freie Presse; Akademie für Musik und Darstellende Kunst; Vienna Conservatory; success; Ornamentik; Niloff; Instrumentations-Tabelle; Table of Instrumentation; Bopp, Wilhelm; Heuberger, Richard; Bellermann, Heinrich; Bach, Johann Sebastian; Wohltemperiertes Clavier; Well-tempered Clavier; Chromatische Phantasie und Fuge; Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue; vol. I; Harmonielehre; Harmony; Bülow, Hans von; Rudorff, Ernst; Winckelmann, Johann; Busoni, Ferruccio; Röntgen, Julius; Universal Edition; Beethoven; church modes; translation; French; English; Übergänge zum freien Satz; Bridges to Free Composition; Freier Satz; Free Composition; Epilogue; Niedergang; Decline of Composition
Handwritten letter from Schenker to Cotta, dated May 26, 1909
letter
academic; musicology; music theory
CA 96-98
1909-05-26
2005-07-27
Cotta
All reasonable steps have been taken to locate the heirs of Heinrich Schenker. Any claim to intellectual rights on this document should be addressed to the Schenker Correspondence Project, Faculty of Music, University of Cambridge, at schenkercorrespondence@mus.cam.ac.uk.
letter; holograph message and signature
J.G. Cotta’sche Nachfolger/Stuttgarter Zeitung (1909-c.1954); Cotta-Archiv, Schiller-Nationalmuseum, Marbach a. N., Germany (c.1954-)
IPR: Heirs of Heinrich Schenker; reproduced here by kind permission of the Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Cotta-Archiv (Stiftung der Stuttgarter Zeitung), Marbach am Neckar; Transcription, Translation, Commentary, Footnotes, and Summary: Ian D. Bent.
Vienna
Stuttgart
1909</dcterms:temporal