Schenker Correspondence Project

Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated May 2, 1914

Sehr geehrter Herr Direktor !

Soeben erhalte ich Ihr w[ertes] Schreiben von gestern¹ u. [ei]le mich, das Mscpt. einzusenden. Bei dieser Gelegen[heit] lege ich Fahnen 65–72 bei u. bemerke, daß der [....] ganz erschöpft ist, weshalb ich um die weiteren, letz[ten] Fahnen bitte. Der Umstand, daß mir die Korrekturen ni[cht] viel zu schaffen machen, sowie daß die unfreiwillige Pa[nik?] die soeben eingetreten,² lassen es als räthlich erscheinen, op. 111 in “Angriff zu nehmen,” woran ich im Grunde, w[ie] Sie sich denken können, schon seit längerer Zeit arbeit[e.] Mit anderen Worten: Es ist Zeit, daß ich mich auf das fo[lgen]de Werk einstelle, wofür ich als Vorlagen wieder [ 2 ] Autogr.,³ 1 rev. Abschrift⁴ usw, usw.⁵ erreicht h[abe,] u. bitte Sie deshalb, zum Zeichen des Beginns, mir 600 Kr. anzuweisen.

Indem ich an das 3. Werk der Serie herantrete, {2} wiederhole ich der Dringlichkeit halber, was ich Ihnen schon bei Einsendung des Msp. ad 110 mitgeteilt habe. U. zw: bis jetzt hat die Unentgeltlichkeit der Mscpt-Herstellung, (von der ich letzthin schrieb)⁶ sowie die vorhaltende Gesundheit es gestattet, daß ich Werke von solchem Umfange u. solcher Schwierigkeit bei so viel Schülern Ihnen um den Spottpreis überlassen konnte. Ich war mir immer [ corr ] des Widerspruchs von Werk und Honorar bewußt, aber ich setzte mich darüber selbst hinweg, weil ich die Arbeit getan haben wollte. Meinen guten Willen finden Sie ja auch noch darin bestätigt, daß ich, wie Sie sehen, an op. 111 unter denselben Bedingungen herantrete: es sind nur 2 Sätze, obendrein ein Variationensatz, die zwar keine mindere Intensität ^{voraussetzten}, aber mindestens kleineren Umfang haben. Zudem kommt, daß alles nötige schon in der “Vbmg. z. Einf.” in op. 110 gesagt worden ist, so daß das Risiko für die Gesundheit ein geringeres⁷ geworden.

Anders aber verhält es sich [ corr ] mit op. 101 u.106. Der Umfang u. die Schwierigkeit dieser Werke erfor-{3}dert ganz andere Arbeitsbedingungen. Da reicht mein Ihnen wiederholt bezeugter u. spontan eingestanden[er] ”guter Wille” ganz u. gar nicht aus, denn [ corr ] selbst der W[ille] ist zu schwach gegenüber den Anforderungen, die die ge[nann]ten Werke an Gesundheit u. Zeit stellen. Niemals würden meine Ärzte gestatten, daß ich jene Überanstre[n]gung wiederhole, die mich [ corr ] in die bei op. 110 schier i[n] die schwerste Krankheit [ corr ] gestürzt hat. Also meinen Willen sollen Sie nicht anzweifeln, aber der Körper fordert seine Rechte. Und da komme ich auf den bere[its] gemachten Vorschlag zurück.⁸

Sagen Sie nicht, damit habe es ja noch [ corr ] Zeit. Denn ähnlich, als wie ich op 109, 110 u. 111, fast gleichzeitig im Auge behielt, müßte ich mich schon jetz[t] auf die beiden letzten Werke einstellen, wenn sie [über]haupt gemacht werden sollen. Das Aut. zu 101 is[t] zwar gesichtet, aber ich kann es nicht kommen lassen, bevor die Frage der Arbeitsbedingungen gel[öst] ist.⁹

Mit ausgez. Hochachtung
I[h]r ergeb.
2. 5. 1914 [ sign'd: ] H Schenker

© Heirs of Heinrich Schenker.
© Transcription Ian D. Bent 2005.

Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated May 2, 1914

Dear Director,

I have just received your valued letter of yesterday,¹ and hasten to send over the manuscript. In doing so, I enclose galley-proofs 65–72, and note that the [supply?] has completely dried up. For this reason, I ask for the next, the last [batch of] galleys. The fact that the corrections alone do not give [me] much to do, as well as the involuntary pa[nic?] that has just set in,² make it appear advisable to “get to grips with” Op.111, on which I have in reality, as you can image, already long been at work. In other words, it is time that I got myself geared up to the next work, for which I have again established the existence of [two] autographs,³ one revised copy,⁴ etc., etc.⁵ as models, and I ask you therefore to authorize 600 Kroner as a signal of the beginning.

As I embark on the third work of the series, {2} let me reiterate for reasons of urgency what I already communicated to you when sending the manuscript for Op. 110, namely that up to now, the fact that manuscript production (about which I wrote recently)⁶ has been free of charge, as well as that my health has held up, has permitted me to entrust to you works of such scope and difficulty for a trivial sum while maintaining so many pupils. I have always been conscious of the discrepancy between work and honorarium, but I put it out of my mind it because I wanted to do the work. You have confirmation of my undiminished good will in the fact that, as you can see, I am embarking on Op. 111 under the same conditions: there are only two movements, one of them a variation movement, into the bargain; true, they ^presuppose no less intensity, but they are at least smaller in scale. What is more, all that needs to be said has already been said in the “Preliminary Remark to the Introduction” in Op. 110, so that risk to my health is smaller.⁷

But with Opp. 101 and 106 it is another matter. The scope and difficulty of these works {3} calls for quite different conditions of work. For my “good will,” repeatedly demonstrated to you and spontaneously avowed, is utterly insufficient, for the will on its own is too weak when faced with the demands that these works place on health and time. My doctors would never permit me to repeat the over-exertion that plunged me precipitously into severe illness while working on Op. 110. My will on its own you need not doubt, but the body asserts its rights. And so I come back to the proposal that I have already made.⁸

Don’t say that there is still plenty of time. For, in the same way that I had Opp. 109, 110, and 111 at my command almost simultaneously, I would already now have to be gearing myself up for the last two works if they are ever to get done. I have admittedly had sight of the autograph of Op. 101, but I cannot get involved in it before the question of my conditions of work are resolved.⁹

With kind regards,
Yours truly,
May 2, 1914 [ sign'd: ] H. Schenker

© Translation Ian D. Bent 2005.

COMMENTARY:
Format: 3-p letter, single sheet, oblong format; holograph message and signature

FOOTNOTES:

¹ OC 52/145.

² Panic: what is he referring to?

³ Op.111 has two autographs, one of the entire sonata, the other of the first movement alone; by “again” Schenker is alluding to the fact that Op.110 likewise has two autographs, one of the entire sonata, the other of the final movement alone. [communication from William Drabkin]

⁴ revidierte Abschrift: the more usual current term is überprüfte Abschrift, ie a copyist's manuscript bearing autograph corrections/markings by Beethoven. The op. 111 MS in question here is Bonn, Beethovenhaus, Mh 54, formerly in the collection of Hans Bodmer. [communication from Nicholas Marston]

⁵ i.e. the printed editions.

⁶ i.e. the writing-out of the material by a “third person” as referred to in WSLB 209, April 30, 1914 and mentioned again in WSLB 211, May 5, 1914. [communication from Nicholas Marston]

⁷ originally written ein geringeres für die Gesundheit, then marked by S to be interchanged.

⁸ in WSLB 200, February 19, 1914.

⁹ The autograph of Op. 101 (now in Bonn, Beethovenhaus) was in the collection of Carl Meinert at the end of the 19th century, passed at some point to that of Siegfried Ochs, and thence to Louis Koch. A letter [OC B/273] from Koch to Schenker dated October 23, 1913 lists the Beethoven MSS in Koch's possession: Op. 101 is not included. Schenker secured photographs from Koch, who had by then acquired Op. 101, only in 1919-20 [OC, B/268, 267, 266]. I wonder whether Schenker really had had sight of the Op. 101 autograph at this point in 1914, or whether his 'gesichtet' means rather that sightings have been reported (which they had, eg. from Karl Krebs: OC B/277, where Op. 106 is inaccurately substituted for Op. 101. [communication from Nicholas Marston]

SUMMARY:
[ LfS 110:] Acks OC 52/145, sends MS and galley-proofs 65-72 and requests further galleys. — [ LfS 111:] Is turning attention to; requests first half-honorarium. — [ LfS 101, 106:] Scope and difficulty necessitate higher honorarium.

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

Bent, Ian
Schenker, Heinrich
[ LfS 110:] Acks OC 52/145, sends MS and galley-proofs 65-72 and requests further galleys. — [ LfS 111:] Is turning attention to; requests first half-honorarium. — [ LfS 101, 106:] Scope and difficulty necessitate higher honorarium.
DE
Cambridge University Faculty of Music-Ian Bent
IPR: Heirs of Heinrich Schenker; Transcription, Translation, Commentary, Footnotes, and Summary: Ian D. Bent 2005.
Schenker, Heinrich; Hertzka, Emil; UE; Die letzten fünf Sonaten ... 110; Die letzten fünf Sonaten ... 111; Die letzten fünf Sonaten ... 101; Die letzten fünf Sonaten ... 106; Erläuterungsausgabe; MS; galley-proofs; honorarium; good will; ill-health; proposal
Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated May 2, 1914
letter
academic; musicology; music theory
WSLB 210
1914-05-02
2005-11-17
UE
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
Universal Edition Archive (1914-1976)—on permanent loan to the Stadt- und Landesbibliothek Wien (1976-)
IPR: Heirs of Heinrich Schenker; Image: Universal Edition, A.G.; Transcription, Translation, Commentary, Footnotes, and Summary: Ian D. Bent.
Vienna
1914