-
BNba 304g, [1] Handwritten letter from Schenker to F. A. Schmidt (Beethoven-Haus), dated November 27,
1913
Schenker asks the Beethoven-Haus to prepare and supply him with photographs of
the autograph manuscript of the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata in C minor, Op. 111,
and announces the publication of his Erläuterungsausgabe of Op. 109 and monograph on Beethoven's
Ninth Symphony.
-
OJ 15/16, [22] Handwritten letter from Weisse to Schenker, dated July 7, 1914
Weisse reports that he is engrossed in reading Jean-Paul, is resting, practising
piano, and studying Brahms's Second Symphony.
-
OC B/269a-b Postal receipts for a letter and other item from Schenker to Louis Koch, dated November
15, 1915
Postal receipts for letter of November 14, 1915 and separate item to Louis
Koch.
-
OC B/270 Typewritten letter from Louis Koch to Schenker, dated November 29, 1915
Koch thanks Schenker for a copy of his elucidatory edition of Op. 111, and
reports his Chopin holdings.
-
OJ 10/1, [14] Handwritten field postcard from Dahms to Schenker, dated January 8, 1916
Dahms is able to do some work, longs for peace, looks forward to Op.
111.
-
OJ 10/1, [15] Handwritten field postcard from Dahms to Schenker, dated January 15, 1916
Dahms cannot write openly because of censorship.
-
OJ 10/1, [16] Handwritten field postcard from Dahms to Schenker, dated February 21, 1916
Visit to Vienna has to be deferred.
-
OJ 10/1, [18] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, dated March 31, 1916
Dahms acknowledges Op. 111; Schenker's achievement will outlive the "moderns". —
Reports on a Brahms concert attended. — He is in a rest home and working.
-
OJ 15/16, [25] Handwritten letter from Weisse to Schenker, dated April 7, 1916
Weisse extols the virtues of Schenker's monograph on Beethoven's Piano Sonata
Op. 111, but expresses reservations about the political footnotes. He asks to bring a new
song to Schenker, since he is about to go to the battlefield.
-
OJ 10/1, [20] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, dated June 15, 1916
Dahms may be transferred to Wilna. — Has reviewed Op. 111 for the
Kreuz-Zeitung.
-
WSLB-Hds 95654 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Seligmann, dated July 24, 1916
Schenker tells Seligmann that he has arranged for copies of his critical
editions of Beethoven’s Op. 110 and Op. 111 to be sent to him. He speaks of the positive
interest his works have received in Germany, and about Hugo Riemann asking him to provide
autobiographical material for an entry in the next edition of his music
lexicon.
-
OJ 14/23, [18] Handwritten lettercard from Seligmann to Schenker, postmarked August 1, 1916
Seligmann thanks Schenker for sending him the critical editions of Beethoven’s
Op. 110 and Op. 111. He enjoyed reading the attacks on Schenker’s rival authors, but he also
thinks that a more conciliatory language would be more appropriate for such publications. He
looks forward to the publication of Op. 106.
-
WSLB-Hds 95655 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Seligmann, dated August 5, 1916
Schenker explains why he is reluctant to produce a critical edition with
commentary for Beethoven’s Op. 106: he would wear himself out working on it unless he could
be freed from some of his teaching obligations, and also the autograph manuscript and other
sources are missing. He also defends his sharp tongue in discussions of the secondary
literature in his “paradigmatic” works ("Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony" and the critical
editions of the late Beethoven piano sonatas).
-
OJ 14/33, [3] Handwritten letter from Steglich to Schenker, dated February 15, 1918
Steglich accepts Schenker's offer of a copy of the Op. 111 Erläuterungsausgabe;
he is a Riemann pupil, and has a keen interest in analyses.
-
WSLB 294 Handwritten postcard from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated February 23, 1918
Requests a copy of Op. 111 to be sent to Rudolf Steglich.
-
WSLB 295 Handwritten postcard from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated March 3, 1918
Schenker notifies Hertzka of an unfavorable review of the Beethoven edition in
Lausanne, and asks to see it.
-
OC 52/559 Typed letter from Hertzka (UE) to Schenker, dated March 5, 1918
Hertzka will inquire about a review published in Lausanne; has dispatched Op. 111
to Steglich and encloses invoice and payment order; in light of Brest-Litovsk, he inquires about
Kontrapunkt2 and the Kleine Bibibliothek.
-
WSLB 296 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated March 8, 1918
Schenker thanks Hertzka for dispatching Op. 111 to Steglich, but baulks at paying
the specified amount and sends less. -- Must finish Kontrapunkt 2 and will then return to the
Kleine Bibliothek.
-
OJ 6/6, [7] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Moriz Violin, dated March 20, 1918
[50th Festschrift:] Schenker intends not to influence anyone in their decision to
contribute or not. — [Personal issues:] Schenker agrees to draw a line under issues discussed in
OJ 6/6, [6]; however, he accounts for his epistolary silence regarding Valerie Violin, including
the possible contact with Seligmann; he attempts to explain the matter of the jars of jam and
the absence of visits to Schönbrunn, describing vividly how tirelessly Jeanette works and how
dependent they both are on Sunday for work time; he expresses outrage that he and Jeanette live
so poorly while his pupils live lives of luxury, commenting bitterly on state of play over the
Sofie Deutsch stipend; he wishes the Violins well for their 6-month stay in Marburg.
-
OJ 14/33, [4] Handwritten field postcard from Steglich to Schenker, dated March 25, 1918
Steglich, on the battlefront in the Ukraine, acknowledges receipt of Schenker's
Erläuterungsausgabe Op. 111, and hopes to study it when things are quieter.
-
OJ 8/3, [58] Handwritten postcard from Schenker to Moriz Violin, dated April 13, 1918
Schenker reports on Kufferath's article in the Gazette de Lausanne discussing the
polemical materials in Die letzten fünf Sonaten ... op. 111, and on the treasonous stance of the
Arbeiterzeitung.
-
OJ 14/33, [5] Handwritten letter from Steglich to Schenker, dated July 22, 1918
Steglich has studied the Op. 111 Erläuterungsausgabe. Rejecting the polemic as
redundant, he makes detailed suggestions concerning the relationship of the Arietta to the coda
of the first movement.
-
OJ 13/10, [6] Handwritten letter from Oppel to Schenker, dated February 19, 1919
Oppel thanks Schenker for EA, Opp. 110 and 111, which he has enjoyed, inquires
after EA, Opp. 101 and 106, and Kontrapunkt 2, and raises a possible thematic link between two
movements of Op. 110 (music example). His plan to study with Schenker has to be deferred; he
will soon send compositions, and asks for unsparing criticism.
-
OC 52/923 Typed letter from Hertzka (UE) to Schenker, dated June 6, 1919
Hertzka acknowledges receipt of WSLB 302; he cannot entertain early publication
of Weisse's work but wishes to get to know it now. — He hopes to have work from Schenker's pen
as soon as work for Cotta is finished. — He proposes that the Foreword to Die letzten fünf
Sonaten von Beethoven ... op. 111 be omitted [in an future edition].
-
OC 1 B/35-40 Handwritten draft letter, in Jeanette Kornfeld/Schenker's hand, from Schenker to
Hertzka (UE), undated [June 10, 1919]
Schenker promises to send Hans Weisse to see Hertzka. In reacting unfavorably to
Hertzka's suggestions that the Foreword to Die letzten fünf Sonaten von Beethoven ... op. 111 be
discarded for its second edition, Schenker puts up a stout defense of his use of polemic in his
writings, contending that art and all manifestations of human life are inextricably
interconnected. He claims that his pronouncements on politics now will prove correct in the long
run. His sole concern is with the truth; he is not interested in pandering to his readers.
-
WSLB 303 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated June 12, 1919
Schenker promises to send Hans Weisse to see Hertzka. In reacting unfavorably to
Hertzka's suggestions that the Foreword to Die letzten fünf Sonaten von Beethoven, Op. 111 be
discarded for its second edition, Schenker puts up a stout defense of his use of polemic in his
writings, contending that art, life, and politics are inextricably interconnected. He claims
that his pronouncements on politics now will prove correct in the long run. His sole concern is
with the truth; he is not interested in pandering to his readers.
-
WSLB 307 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated November 13, 1919
Schenker teases Hertzka over his offical's price calculation for Beethovens
Neunte Sinfonie; asks for Die letzten fünf Sonaten ... op. 111 for Dolfi Baudrexel; comments
caustically on the first issue of Musikblätter des Anbruch.
-
OC 52/211 Typed letter from Hertzka (UE) to Schenker, dated November 14, 1919
Hertzka will correct the price of Beethovens Neunte Sinfonie and send a copy of
Die letzten fünf Sonaten von Beethoven ... op. 111 to Dolfi Baudrexel. He hopes that Schenker
will contribute to Musikblätter des Anbruch.
-
WSLB 308 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated November 22, 1919
Schenker sends adjusted payment for two items received; his Kleine Bibliothek
will shake up the contributors to Musikblätter des Anbruch.
-
OC 24/20 Handwritten letter from Frimmel to Schenker, dated August 1, 1921
Frimmel acknowledges receipt of a complimentary copy of Tonwille 1, comments
neutrally on Schenker's incursions into politics, imagines something rather different by the
concept of "Tonwille," and while agreeing with the criticism of Riemann thinks it could have
been done more gently. — He asks for review copies of Schenker's editions of Beethoven Op.
110 and 101.
-
OJ 11/10, [16] Handwritten letter from Frimmel to Schenker, dated September 26, 1921
Frimmel thanks Schenker for delivery of the latter's elucidatory editions of
Beethoven's piano sonatas Opp. 101 and 111, and expresses admiration.
-
OJ 14/45, [12] Handwritten letter from Moriz Violin to Schenker, dated October 30, 1921
Violin reports on his work, and on musicians in Hamburg, and congratulates
Schenker on his (publication) successes.
-
OC 12/10-12 Handwritten letter from Halm to Schenker dated dated February 1–6, 1924
Halm offers to send two of his books in return for Schenker's Opp. 109, 110, 111;
he discusses the role of improvisation in his own music; he seeks "corporeality" in music, and
its absence in Brahms troubles him; argues the case for Bruckner; asks Schenker to choose a
passage exhibiting non-genius in his or Oppel's music and discuss it in Der
Tonwille.
-
OJ 5/9a, [1] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Georg Dohrn, dated April 5, 1926
Schenker answers Dohrn's inquiry as to the performance of the opening of the
second movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.
-
OJ 9/12, [6] Handwritten letter from Carl Bamberger to Schenker, dated June 15, 1926
Bamberger has introduced pianist Stefan Askenase to Schenker's
Erläuterungsausgabe of Op. 111, to the latter's delight. He would like to visit the
Schenkers in Galtür.
-
OJ 15/15, [21] Handwritten postcard from Weisse to Schenker, dated January 21, 1927
Weisse provides Schenker with Gerald Warburg's address in New York City. He
also asks a question about Schenker's fingerings for the trills in the second movement of
Beethoven's Op. 111.
-
WSLB 403 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated December 23, 1928
Schenker reports on the autograph manuscript of Beethoven Op. 79. — He is
"convinced" that the autograph of Op. 106 is in England.
-
WSLB 414 Handwritten letter from Schenker to UE, dated July 27, 1929
Schenker comments on Schmid's remarks; inquires after editorship of Mozart
edition.
-
OC 52/853 Typed letter from Ernst Roth (UE) to Schenker, with enclosure, dated August 5,
1929
Encloses additional remarks by Edmund Schmid.
-
Sbb 55 Nachl. 13, [3] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Wilhelm Furtwängler, dated April 19,
1930
Schenker is willing to hand over an unidentified "book" [Meisterwerk III] to
Breitkopf & Härtel on condition that publication not be delayed; he refers to dealings with
other publishers and plans for future publications.