Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated January 11, 1912 Sehr geehrter Herr Direktor! Indem ich hiemit Bg. 1 u. 2,1 sowie das Schema2 als vollständig fertig retourniere, nehme ich an, daß sich die Druckerei irgendwelche eigene Gedanken darüber gemacht hat, wie sie die 4 Sätze der Symph. von einander drucktechnisch unterscheiden will. Meine Notizen im Mscr. I Satz., 2. Satz., 3. Satz, 4. Satz sind als Kopf nicht mitgedruckt worden3 u. daraus schließe ich eben, daß die Druckerei irgendwas besonderes statt dessen vor hat. Ich ahne es nicht, aber vielleicht tut[?] es ein leeres Blatt, dazwischen gelegt, am schönsten? Oder [mit?] der Aufschrift: I Satz, u. dgl.?4 Oder war es nur ein Versehen? Letzteres kann ich, da es mehrere Male geschieht, doch kaum annehmen. Sollte es, wider Erwarten, dennoch nur ein Versehen u. kein Plan sein, so müßte auf Bg. 1 über dem ersten Titel noch höher: “Erster Satz” angebracht werden.5 Die Druckerei muß also darüber eine Entscheidung treffen, ehe sie Bg. 1 druckt! Wie gesagt, ein Blatt dazwischen scheint[corr] mir das Beste. {2} Wollen Sie die Freundlichkeit haben, irgend eine Auskunft von der Druckerei hierüber für mich zuerbitten. Und Vorsicht! denn ist einmal Bg 1. gedruckt, so bleibt nur eine andere Auskunft mehr übrig, eben das leere Blatt, oder ähnliches. Besten Dank. [para.1 overwritten in crayon:] Erl [/] 12/I [/] 1912[?] © In the public domain. |
Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated January 11, 1912 Dear Director, In returning herewith gatherings 1 and 21 together with schema,2 all done, I assume the printers have had some ideas of their own as to how the four movements of the Symphony will be differentiated from one another typographically. My annotations in the manuscript, “1st Movement”, “2nd Movement”, “3rd Movement”, “4th Movement”, have not been printed as headings,3 and I conclude from this that the printers have something particular in mind instead of that. I have no idea what, but perhaps a blank sheet between them would have the best effect? Or [with] the label “1st Movement” and so forth.?4 Or was it merely an oversight? The latter I really can hardly credit, since it happens several times. Should it nevertheless be, contrary to what I imagine, merely an oversight and not intentional, then “First Movement” would have to be inserted on gathering 1 above the first title and further up.5 The printers must therefore make a decision on this before they print gathering 1! As I say, a [blank] sheet between seems to me the best way. {2} Please be so kind as to ask the printer to let me have any outcome on this is. And watch out!—for once gathering 1 is printed, only one outcome is possible, the blank sheet or something similar. With many thanks, [para.1 overwritten in crayon:] Dealt with [/] January 12, [/] 1912[?] © Translation Ian Bent, 2006. |
COMMENTARY: FOOTNOTES 1 Of S’s Beethovens Neunte Sinfonie: gathering 1 = pp. [1]–16; gathering 2 = pp. 17–32; these are presumably second proofs (cf. WSLB 91, January 4, 1912). 2 “Schema”: presumably the formal diagram, which S usually calls “Plan” (diagram) for one of the four movements. (That on p. 2 is headed “Plan des ersten Satzes.”, the others merely “Zweiter/Dritter/Vierter Satz.”). 3 OJ 17/1 is described as “Symphony No. 9. Op. 125. Ms. in Jeanette Schenker's hand (revisions in Heinrich Schenker's hand) for Beethovens neunte Sinfonie (1912)“; 435 leaves in all, this must be the manuscript referred to here, the four movement headings appearing on pp. 1b, 159, 233, and 284. OJ does not appear to have the proofs. OC B/88–96 comprise lists of “corrections,” and OC Books and Pamphlets/3 Schenker’s copy of the published work. 4 “Aufschrift” (label): by this, S could perhaps mean a running head. The end-product was a separate recto title-page at the front of each movement, reading, e.g. “I. SATZ. / ALLEGRO MA NON TROPPO, / UN POCO MAESTOSO.” 5 Presumably p. [1], the corresponding other points being pp. 135, 193, and 243. SUMMARY © Commentary, Footnotes, Summary Ian Bent 2006.
|
|