{recto}
[printed:] Postkarte
[top-left, picture captioned: Paznauntal, Tirol]
[Absender:] Schenker,
Wien, III, Keilgasse 8

[An:] H Prof
Felix v. Cube
Duisburg (Rhld)
Pulverweg
41
[postmark:] || 3 WIEN 40 | -9.VI.30-8 | * 4c * ||
[for continuation of message from verso, see below]
{verso}


Lieber Professor v. Cube ! 1

Gleichzeitig mache ich Sie mit der jüngsten Auslassung H. Vrieslander ’s (s. Drucksache) bekannt. 2 Es wird Ihnen sogleich auffallen, daß er zur „Urlinie“ u. zu allen ihren Zusammenhangsherrlichkeiten noch immer nicht Zutritt erlangt hat. Das Eigentlichste – mit „Synthese“ ist es nur sehr vag, überflüssig vag, wiedergegeben – fehlt also. Umso kräftiger hole ich es selbst in dem nächstens zur Ausgabe gelangenden Werk („Eroica,“ dazu als Vorwort: Rameau oder Beeth. ?, „Vermischtes“) nach. 3 Sonst freilich ist Vr ’s Aufsatz sehr glücklich.

Was hören Sie von Ihrem Aufsatz? 4 Und sonst? Ist Herr {recto} Voß 5 bei Ihnen eingekehrt?


Besten Gruß
Ihr
[signed:] H Sch

(vom 24. ab
in Galtür)

© Transcription William Drabkin, 2006

{recto}
[printed:] Postcard
[top-left, picture captioned: Paznauntal, Tirol]
[Sender:] Schenker,
Vienna III, Keilgasse 8

[To:]Prof.
Felix v. Cube
Duisburg (Rhineland)
Pulverweg
41
[postmark:] || 3 WIEN 40 | -9.VI.30-8 | * 4c * ||
[for continuation of message from verso, see below]
{verso}


Dear Professor von Cube, 1

At the same time [that I am sending this card], I am acquainting you with Vrieslander's latest utterance (see the printed paper). 2 It will strike you immediately that he has still not gained access to the "Urlinie" and all the splendors of its cohesiveness. That which is unique – the concept of "synthesis" is explained only very vaguely, superficially vaguely – is thus missing [from his account]. I myself review the topic all the more potently in the next work to be published ([my analysis of the] Eroica [Symphony] , which includes "Rameau or Beethoven?" as foreword and a "Miscellanea"). 3 Otherwise, of course, Vrieslander's essay succeeds well.

What have you heard about your article? 4 Anything else? Has Mr. {recto} Voss 5 returned to you?


Best greetings.
Yours,
[signed:] H. Sch[enker]

(From [June] 24th
[we shall be] in Galtür.)

© Translation William Drabkin, 2006

{recto}
[printed:] Postkarte
[top-left, picture captioned: Paznauntal, Tirol]
[Absender:] Schenker,
Wien, III, Keilgasse 8

[An:] H Prof
Felix v. Cube
Duisburg (Rhld)
Pulverweg
41
[postmark:] || 3 WIEN 40 | -9.VI.30-8 | * 4c * ||
[for continuation of message from verso, see below]
{verso}


Lieber Professor v. Cube ! 1

Gleichzeitig mache ich Sie mit der jüngsten Auslassung H. Vrieslander ’s (s. Drucksache) bekannt. 2 Es wird Ihnen sogleich auffallen, daß er zur „Urlinie“ u. zu allen ihren Zusammenhangsherrlichkeiten noch immer nicht Zutritt erlangt hat. Das Eigentlichste – mit „Synthese“ ist es nur sehr vag, überflüssig vag, wiedergegeben – fehlt also. Umso kräftiger hole ich es selbst in dem nächstens zur Ausgabe gelangenden Werk („Eroica,“ dazu als Vorwort: Rameau oder Beeth. ?, „Vermischtes“) nach. 3 Sonst freilich ist Vr ’s Aufsatz sehr glücklich.

Was hören Sie von Ihrem Aufsatz? 4 Und sonst? Ist Herr {recto} Voß 5 bei Ihnen eingekehrt?


Besten Gruß
Ihr
[signed:] H Sch

(vom 24. ab
in Galtür)

© Transcription William Drabkin, 2006

{recto}
[printed:] Postcard
[top-left, picture captioned: Paznauntal, Tirol]
[Sender:] Schenker,
Vienna III, Keilgasse 8

[To:]Prof.
Felix v. Cube
Duisburg (Rhineland)
Pulverweg
41
[postmark:] || 3 WIEN 40 | -9.VI.30-8 | * 4c * ||
[for continuation of message from verso, see below]
{verso}


Dear Professor von Cube, 1

At the same time [that I am sending this card], I am acquainting you with Vrieslander's latest utterance (see the printed paper). 2 It will strike you immediately that he has still not gained access to the "Urlinie" and all the splendors of its cohesiveness. That which is unique – the concept of "synthesis" is explained only very vaguely, superficially vaguely – is thus missing [from his account]. I myself review the topic all the more potently in the next work to be published ([my analysis of the] Eroica [Symphony] , which includes "Rameau or Beethoven?" as foreword and a "Miscellanea"). 3 Otherwise, of course, Vrieslander's essay succeeds well.

What have you heard about your article? 4 Anything else? Has Mr. {recto} Voss 5 returned to you?


Best greetings.
Yours,
[signed:] H. Sch[enker]

(From [June] 24th
[we shall be] in Galtür.)

© Translation William Drabkin, 2006

Footnotes

1 Writing of this postcard is recorded in Schenker's diary at OJ 4/3, p. 3483, June 8, 1930: "An v. Cube (K.): Begleitworte zum Aufsatz; was ist aus dem angekündigten Aufsatz geworden?" ("To von Cube (postcard): comment on the article; what happened to the article that was announced?"). This entry provides the date proposed for this document.

2 Probably Vrieslander, "Heinrich Schenker," Der Kunstwart XLIII (June 1930), pp. 181–89. Jeanette made a note of this essay in Schenker's Scrapbook (OC/2, p. 80); the article survives, part-photocopy, in OJ 58/21.

3 These are the essays that make up the third and final "yearbook," Das Meisterwerk in der Musik III (Munich: Drei Masken-Verlag, 1930). The word Synthese appears throughout the analysis of the Eroica; but in a more extended discussion of musical cohesiveness, in the "Rameau" essay (pp. 19-21; Eng. trans., pp. 7-8), Schenker uses the German Zusammenhang rather than its Greek-derived equivalent.

4 Probably Cube's intended pedagogical essay on the C major Prelude from Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, Book 1. See Cube's letter, OJ 9/34, [20], January 2, 1930.

5 Erich Voss, a young musician who encountered Schenker's theories through Cube's visit to Cologne, and who went to Vienna in the hopes of studying with Schenker: see also OJ 9/34, [18], May 14, 1929; OJ 5/7a, [23], May 15; OJ 5/7a, [24], July 6, 1929; OJ 5/7a, [25], July 14; OJ 9/34, [19], July 18, 1929. Voss does not appear in Schenker's Lesson Books.