-
WSLB 53 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated February 15, 1910
Schenker advocates Moriz Violin's pamphlet "Über das sogenannte 'Continuo'"
for publication and explains its connection with a planned "historical
concert."
-
WSLB 118 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), date June 4, 1912
Schenker urges Hertzka to contact Dr. Harpner in connection with the planned
Organization. He reiterates his demands regarding payment for the planned last five
Beethoven sonata edition, specifying the sums, and disputes Hertzka's
counterargument.
-
WSLB 120 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated June 9, 1912
A long letter, biblical in tone, in which Schenker prophesies that a "Flood of
the moderns" will come to pass, and in Noah's ark his works will "occupy the place of
honor," and that a "bright new light" will establish Universal Edition as superior to the
German publishers. He accepts Hertzka's terms for the Beethoven Last Five Sonatas edition
for now. He again urges Hertzka to contact Dr. Harpner regarding the planned Organization of
Creative and Performing Musicians. He encourages Hertzka to deal more generously with Hans
Weisse.
-
WSLB 123 Handwritter letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated June 24, 1912
Schenker reports improved agreement among the supporters of the planned
Organization. -- He asks for his contract for his edition of Op. 109, and asks yet again for
the fee for correcting proofs of Beethovens neunte Sinfonie.
-
WSLB 129 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated August 6, 1912
Schenker informs Hertzka that he has been approached by the Gesellschaft der
Musikfreunde with a view to his teaching a course at the Society's new "free high school"
beginning in October, and inquires whether Hertzka will meet his demands so that he can
proceed with Die letzen fünf Sonaten Beethovens.
-
WSLB 134 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated September 7, 1912
Schenker asks for the first installment of his honorarium for Die letzten fünf
Sonaten Beethovens to be sent, now that he is back in Vienna. — He reports on the
Organization plan, and on progress on Op. 109. — He reiterates his claim for a supplementary
honorarium for proof correction of Beethovens neunte Sinfonie.
-
WSLB 135 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated September 7, 1912
Schenker insistently reiterates his request for the first half honorarium for
Die letzten fünf Sonaten Beethovens. — He alludes to an announcement by the Gesellschaft der
Musikfreunde.
-
OC 52/98 Typewritten letter from Hertzka (UE) to Schenker, dated September 16,
1912
In sending the first installment of Schenker's honorarium for the Last Five
Sonatas of Beethoven, Hertzka apologizes for its delay. — He asks for a meeting about the
Organization.
-
OJ 52/99 Notification of payment, from the Austrian Provincial Bank to Schenker, dated September
18, 1912
Payment notification of 600 Kronen [from UE].
-
WSLB-Hds 95658 Handwritten postcard from Schenker to Seligmann, postmarked May 11, 1913
Schenker congratulates Seligmann on his latest feuilleton, especially on the
enduring values of the classical and Romantic artists. — His critical edition of Beethoven’s
Op. 109 will appear soon. — He has received a personal request from Hugo Riemann to provide
biographical details for an entry in Riemann’s Musiklexikon.
-
OJ 15/16, [21] Handwritten letter from Weisse to Schenker, dated October 7, 1913
Weisse extols the virtues of Schenker's monograph on Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op.
109.
-
OJ 15/6, [13] Handwritten notecard from Fritz Wahle to Schenker, dated October 15, 1913
Fritz Wahle thanks Schenker for sending his critical edition of Beethoven’s
Op. 109, which he has not yet had time to read carefully.
-
OC B/178 Handwritten letter from Albert Kopfermann (Königliche Bibliothek zu Berlin) to
Schenker, dated October 21, 1913
The Library's photographer has been inundated with work and unable to start on
Schenker's order.
-
OJ 10/1, [1] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, dated November 9, 1913
Dahms acknowledges receipt of Schenker's letter of September 27 and the
Erläuterungsausgabe of Op. 109, is reading other work of Schenker's, and is glad to be
disseminating his work.
-
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.
-
BNba 304g, [2] Handwritten letter from F. A. Schmidt (Beethoven-Haus) to Ernst Zitelmann, dated
December 3, 1913
Schmidt consults Zitelmann as to whether to make photographs of the
first movement of Beethoven Op. 111 for Schenker,
-
OJ 10/1, [5] Handwritten letter from Dahms to Schenker, dated June 26, 1914
Dahms inquires after Schenker's study of Op. 110, and hopes to review it. He is
sure there will come a day when Schenker's work is fully appreciated.
-
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 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 15/5, [6] Handwritten letter from Eberhard von Waechter to Schenker, dated October 19,
1919
Waechter understands Schenker's wish not to pre-publish his Art of Performance in
article form, and hopes that Schenker will provide a universal solution to the performance
problem; explains the editorial control of Der Merker, encouraging Weisse to submit his two
articles to it; expresses pleasure that he has procured from Halm reviews of Schenker's
Harmonielehre and Kontrapunkt 1; is unable to send his Musikkritik der Gegenwart at present.
-
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.
-
OJ 6/7, [2] Handwritten letter from Schenker to Moriz Violin, dated January 29, 1922
Schenker offers to lend Violin his performing materials for two keyboard
concertos by C. P. E. Bach. He inquires about musical life in Hamburg, reports on his most
recent work, continues to despair of his financial situation.
-
OC 1B/10-11 Handwritten letter from Schenker to Hertzka (UE), dated February 22‒23, 1922
Schenker returns materials for the Fifth Symphony article, reports a delay in
providing information for the facsimile edition of the "Spring" Sonata, and complains that he
has futilely lavished time on the purification of the German language for the second edition of
Die letzten fünf Sonaten ... Op. 109. — He agrees in principle to Hertzka's idea of an
"Urlinie-Ausgabe" of the Beethoven sonatas, and agrees to announce it in Tonwille 2, but asks
how the first seventeen sonatas are to be done retrospectively, and rejects the suggestion that
his pupils might make the preparatory graphs.
-
OJ 12/11, [1] Handwritten letter from Klenau to Schenker, dated September 17, 1923
First approach from Klenau: asks to visit Schenker.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.