Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated January 4, 1912 Sehr geehrter Herr Direktor! Anbei sende ich retour:
Die 2 Korr. des zuletz von Ihnen mir zugeschickten 3. Bg. hat mich entsetzt u. in die peinlichste Situation gebracht, aus der Herauskommen irgend ein Mittel zurecht gefunden werden muß. Da nämlich die Rubriken der Analyse u. des Vortrages nicht weiter auch durch verschiedenen Druck einander entgegengestellt wurden, habe ich die Anweisung zum 1. Bg. gegeben, die Marginalzahlen nur bei der “Analyse” Desto mehr überrascht war ich, als plötzlich die 2. Korrektur, entgegen deutlich ausgesprochener genereller Anweisung u. demgemäß von meiner Seite selbst peinlich beobachteter Haltung in der 1. Korr., Marginalzahlen auch innen vorfand. Daher dürfte, wie Sie einsehen, fast keinen Fall bleiben, das ist drucktechnisch weder schön noch usuell. Dementsprechend habe ich eine III Corr. erbeten u. an jeder einzelnen Stelle die Transferierung der Sehen Sie selbst die Korrekturen an, ob die Setzer das Recht hatten, aus Eigenem Veränderungen zu treffen. Sehen Sie auch z.B. bei Fig. 7 ff.4 in der 1. Korrektur (1. Bg), ob die vertikale Linie (bezüglich der Schlüßel) eingehalten wurde. Sehen Sie Fig. 65 in der 1. u. 2. Korr.;5 trotz Angabe vom Mit ausgez. Hochachtung Hoffentlich kommt es jetzt zum ersten Imprimatur der Bg. 1. u. 2! [double-sidelined:] Auf S. 36 des 3. Bogens fangen plötzlich die Setzer an, statt oben rechts den Ziffern unten zu setzen im Widerspruch zum Manuscript, 1. Korrektur u. der eigenen Setzweise bis dahin! Erklären Sie das! © In the public domain. |
Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated January 4, 1912 Dear Director, I am sending you, enclosed:
The 2nd proof of the 3rd gathering, which you sent me most recently, filled me with dismay and has put me in a most awkward situation from which some way must be found. Namely, because the Analysis and “Performance” sections were no longer even being differentiated by different typeface, I instructed, for gathering 1, that the marginal numbers be placed outside the text area only for the Analysis section and not for the “Performance” section.1 Otherwise, the reader trying to locate this or that passage would be confronted with the same numbers twice over, when only the one category of numbers leads to the presentation of content. I admit that my instruction regarding the marginal numbers did not actually spell out that the numbers should always be set in the outer margin and never in the inner margin. Such a thing {2} ought to have been self-evident to any printer of the caliber of Breitkopf & Härtel, and neither here nor in Stuttgart2 were there every any infractions against this.3 I was all the more surprised when suddenly on the 2nd proof, contrary to a clearly worded general instruction, and my own meticulous practice consistent with this on the 1st proof, marginal numbers appeared in the inside margin as well. This ought, as you can see, to have left virtually nothing that is typographically inelegant or untoward. Accordingly, I have called for a 3rd proof, and in each instance have myself indicated that numbers set in the inner margin should be transferred to the outer margin. Then, out of the blue, something completely new occurs. Suddenly, in the 3rd gathering, the numbers in the “Performance” section are set out as marginal numbers as well, which was not the case in the 1st or 2nd gatherings or in any of the corrected proofs, introducing an inconsistency between the 3rd gathering and the 1st and 2nd gatherings. Now that there will be a third proof to supersede the second, I have brought the second proof of gathering 3 typographically into line with gatherings 1 and 2, i.e. the numbers in the “Performance” section must on no account be set out as marginal {3} numbers, but must appear at the beginning of the paragraph within the text area! Take a look at the proofs for yourself and see whether the type-setters had the right to introduce changes on their own. See, too, for example, at Fig. 7ff4 on the first proof (gathering 1), whether the vertical alignment (with reference to the clefs) is maintained. Take a look at Fig. 65 in the first and second proofs;5 despite the indication ‹ › ‹ › ‹ › these signs are lacking on the second proof; and even more extraordinary is that Fig. 66 still does not include the #, even though the type-setter’s or corrector’s own sign in the margin gives it for it a second time!6 In addition, there are still further surprising errors, about which I wrote recently.7 I think you should direct the typesetters to observe my instructions to the letter, even when they suspect me of having made a mistake. The work is extraordinarily exacting as to its content, and, with the assistance of two highly competent, knowledgeable people, I am taking the utmost conceivable pains to present the work in all its glory. So once again: {4} the type-setters have no right to make changes! With kind regards, Let us hope that we will soon be able to give the imprimatur to gatherings 1 and 2! [double-sidelined:] On p.36 in gathering 3, the type-setters suddenly start setting the [page-]numbers at the bottom, instead of the top right, contrary to the manuscript, the first proof, and the way they have themselves been printing them up to this point! Explain that, if you can! © Translation Ian Bent, 2006. |
COMMENTARY: FOOTNOTES 1 The “Secondary Literature” sections are differentiated by smaller type, and Schenker implies here that he had expected the “Performance” sections also to differ typographically from the Analysis (i.e. the untitled first section of each formal unit) sections. The “Performance” sections in these gatherings appear on pp. 14–20 and 40–44, the “Secondary Literature” sections on pp. 20–29 and pp. 44–54. The gatherings are: 1 = pp. [1]–16; 2 = pp. 17–32; 3 = pp. 33–48. 2 Stuttgart: i.e. J. G. Cotta, the publisher of S’s Harmonielehre (1906) and Kontrapunkt I (1910), for which S always shows a preference. 3 No paragraph-break in original. 4 Figs 7–11 appear one below the other on p.8, presenting “motivic units” of measures 17–35. They are all inset, and in the final publication vertically aligned at the left. 5 Fig. 65 appears on p. 44, and S is referring to the short crescendo and diminuendo signs with sf on the second beat of each measure. 6 Fig. 66 appears on p. 44, at the beginning of the “Secondary Literature” section; a sharp sign appears on the last eighth of measure 2, and is then canceled on the first beat of measure 3. 7 Presumably in WSLB 90, January 1, 1912. SUMMARY © Commentary, Footnotes, Summary Ian Bent 2006.
|
|