Tesis Partitas PDF

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Graduate School o f Arts and Sciences
THESIS ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE
The undersigned, appointed by the
Division
Department MUSIC
Committee
have examined a thesis entitled

J.S. BACH'S KE YB O A RD PARTITAS
AND THEIR EARLY AU DI E N C E
presented by A N D R E W JAMES TALLE
candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and hereby

certify that it is worthy of acceptance.
Typed name
Typed name .Th.Q.W.a.s...Kelly,
Typed name R o b e r t ... L e v in .
Signature...........................................
Typed name .......................................
Date ...Qff. 1.ft)?..?.L... .1.,.....2.9..0..3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
J. S. Bach's Keyboard Partitas and Their Early Audience
A thesis presented
by
Andrew James Talle
to
The Department of Music
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the subject of
Music
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
September 2003
UMI Number: 3106701
Copyright 2003 by
Talle, A ndrew James
All rights reserved.
UMI
UMI Microform 3106701
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
© 2003 - Andrew Talle
All rights reserved.
Abstract
Andrew Talle
J. S. Bach's Keyboard Partitas and Their Early Audience
Advisor: Professor Christoph Wolff
Between 1726 and 1731 Johann Sebastian Bach published the first installment in his
Clavier-tjbung series, the six keyboard Partitas (BWY 825-830). Bach himself arranged
for the engraving and sale of this collection, which he labeled his “Opus 1.” His having
selected these works for such special treatment accords them a particular significance
within his oeuvre, a significance which is magnified by abundant evidence that the
Partitas were well received in their time. The present study illuminates the composition,
sale and reception of these works. In the first chapter I establish a context for the Partitas
through an account of the growth of amateur music making between 1660 and 1760 and a
survey of previously published collections of Suites. Chapter two details the sale and
distribution of Bach’s Partitas. In chapter three I offer an account of the composition of
the Partitas based in part on previously unknown early versions and musical borrowings.
This is followed by a discussion of Bach’s adaptation of his style for publication,
addressing differences between these and his earlier collections of Suites. Chapters four
and five provide biographies of those who can be connected with documented prints and
manuscripts of the Partitas before 1775 with a particular emphasis on names previously
unknown to Bach scholarship. Chapters six and seven detail and interpret the numerous
literary and musical allusions to the Partitas made before 1775. In the final chapter I
offer generalizations as to Bach’s relationship with his audience, which seems to have
consisted primarily of relatively young musicians, many of whom would later pursue
professional careers.
The principal findings of this study include the discovery of an early version of
the Giga from the first Partita which sheds light on the genesis of that work, the
identification of Bach's personal, corrected print of the Partitas and the identification of
several previously anonymous owners of prints and manuscripts before 1775. A number
of these, including Fructuosus Roder, Lorenz Sichart, Christoph Graupner jr. and
Bernhard Christian Kayser, are of significance not only for their connections with the
Partitas but also because they are figures of central importance in the transmission of
Bach's keyboard music more generally. Christoph Graupner jr., son of Darmstadt’s
famous Kapellmeister, produced the only surviving copy of the early version of Bach’s
Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue while B.C. Kaiser, previously known as Anonymous 5,
produced the earliest surviving manuscripts of such canonic works as Bach’s English
Suites and the Well-Tempered Clavier part 1.
To My Parents,
Kenneth and Margaret Talle
Contents
Acknowledgements iii
Abbreviations v
Library Sigla vii
Introduction 1
1. The Galant Era and the Publication of Suites 9
2. Publication and Distribution of Bach's Partitas 32
3. Composition and Style of the Partitas 54
- Genesis of the Partitas 54
- The Partitas in Comparison with Bach's Earlier Keyboard Suites 78
4. Printed Copies of the Partitas: Owners before 1775 94
- Exemplars Owned by Members of the Bach Family 94
- Presentation Exemplars 101
- Ordinary Exemplars 116
5. Manuscript Copies of the Partitas: Owners before 1775 126
- Manuscripts Owned by Members of the Bach Family 127
- Manuscripts Owned by Others 130
-L eip z ig 127
- Sachsen-Anhalt 134
-B e rlin 160
- Schwerin 163
-T huringen 163
-H e sse n 191
- Nurnberg 209
- Location Unknown 216
6. Literary and Other References to the Partitas before ca. 1775 221
7. Musical Allusions to the Partitas before ca. 1775 241
- Musical Allusions by Bach's Sons 238
- Musical Allusions by Others 244
8. Generalizations as to the Early Reception of Bach's Partitas 265
- Trends in Dissemination 269
- Music with Youth Appeal 277
- Movement Preferences According to Age 279
- Performance Contexts 282
- The Difficulty of the Partitas 287
Literature Cited 292
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this study was carried out for the most part in Germany, most
especially in Leipzig and in Berlin. I am much indebted to the staff of the Bach-Archiv
Leipzig for their extensive help and advice with the research. In particular I would like to
mention the librarians Vera Lippoldova and Ulla Zacharias who made working at the
Bach-Archiv both efficient and pleasurable. Other librarians I would like to thank
include Dr. Helmut Hell and his colleagues at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Dr.
Wolfgang Rathert, formerly of the Universitat der Kiinste in Berlin, the staff of the
Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig, Dr. Oswald Bill, Dr. Silvia Uhlemann and Christina
Pilz of the Hessische Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt, Barbara Ventura of
the Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale G. B. Martini in Bologna and Rigbie Turner of
the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York. I also owe many thanks to Dr. Uwe W olf and
Dr. Christine Blanken of the Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut in Gottingen for their
assistance with materials from the Sammlung Scholz.
For their help with local archives, church records and libraries I could not visit myself I
wish to thank Dr. Edgar Kutzner of the Bischofliches Generalvikariat in Fulda, Dr.
Jurgen Konig of the Landeskirchliches Archiv in Niirnberg, Monica Knof of the
Stadtarchiv in Cothen, Dr. Josef Mancal of the Stadtarchiv Augsburg and many private
individuals including Jurgen Samuel of Halle, Albrecht Webel of Bernburg, Dr. Jen-Yen
Chen of Vienna and Marco Facchin of Bolzano, Italy.
For her extensive assistance with watermark research I am much indebted to Andrea
Lothe of the Deutsches Buch- und Schriftmuseum der Deutschen Biicherei Leipzig,
Papierhistorische Sammlungen.
I am also grateful to various individuals who discussed various aspects of this project
with me at length including Joshua Rifkin, Dr. Steven Zohn, Dr. Detlef Doring, and Dr.
Olaf Simons. I would like to thank Dr. Andreas Glockner, Dr. Peter Wollny, Professor
Hans-Joachim Schulze and especially Dr. Ulrich Leisinger of the Bach-Archiv Leipzig
for their kind assistance and encouragement along the way. I also wish to thank my
advisor, Professor Christoph Wolff, who never failed to make himself available to answer
my questions and to offer advice in Cambridge, Leipzig and elsewhere.
Finally I am very grateful to the many people who made me feel welcome in Germany
among whom I would like to single out Nguyen Kim Thanh and Bui Thi Luong My,
Doris Urbaniak and Ulla Lindner in Leipzig, and Frohmut, Olga, Maxi and Lucas Scupin
and Rolf Hirche in Berlin.
Abbreviations
BWV Wolfgang Schmieder. Thematisch-systematisch.es Verzeichnis der

musikalischen Werke Johann Sebastian Bachs. Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis.
Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1950; rev. and expanded edition:
Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1990.
BJ Bach-Jahrbuch. Leipzig and Berlin, Editors: Arnold Schering (1904-

1939), Max Schneider (1940-1952), Alfred Durr and Werner Neumann
(1953-1974), Hans-Joachim Schulze and Christoph W olff (1975- ).
BR Bach-Repertorium (forthcoming)
Dok I-III Bach-Dokumente, ed. Bach-Archiv Leipzig.

Volume I: Schriftstiicke von der Hand Johann Sebastian Bachs. W erner
Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, eds. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1963.
Volume II: Fremdschriftliche und gedruckte Dokumente zur
Lebensgeschichte Johann Sebastian Bachs 1685-1750. W erner Neumann
and Hans-Joachim Schulze, eds. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1969.
Volume III: Dokumente zum Nachwirken Johann Sebastian Bachs 1750-
1800. W erner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, eds. Kassel:
Barenreiter, 1972.
Fk Martin Falck. "Thematisches Verzeichnis der Kompositionen W ilhelm

Friedemann Bachs." In Martin Falck. Wilhelm Friedemann Bach: Sein
Leben und sein Werk. Leipzig: Kahnt, 1913; repr. Hildesheim: Olms,
1977.
GWV Oswald Bill and Christoph GroBpietsch. Thematisches Verzeichnis der

Werke von Christoph Graupner. Graupner-Werke-Verzeichnis.
(forthcoming).
HWV Handel-Handbuch: Thematisch-systematisches Verzeichnis.

Volume III: Instrumentalmusik, Pasticci und Fragmente. Bemd Baselt, ed.
Leipzig: Deutscher fur Musik, 1986.
NBA Johann Sebastian Bach. Neue Ausgabe samtlicher Werke. Edited under the
auspices of the Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut Gottingen and the Bach-
Archiv Leipzig. Kassel and Leipzig, 1954-
NBA/KB Neue Bach-Ausgabe: Kritischer Bericht.
NBR New Bach Reader. A Life o f Johann Sebastian Bach in Letters and
Documents. Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel, eds. Revised and Enlarged
by Christoph Wolff. New York: Norton, 1998.
RISM Repertoire International des Sources Musicales.
TWV Werner Menke. Thematisches Verzeichnis der Vokalwerke von Georg

Philipp Telemann. 2 vols. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1982-83.
Wq Alfred Wotquenne. Thematisches Verzeichnis der Werke von Carl Philipp

Emanuel Bach. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1905; repr. Wiesbaden:
Breitkopf und Hartel, 1964.
vi
Library Sigla
A-Wn Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek
A-GO Gottweig, Benediktinerstift Gottweig, Musikarchiv
B-Bc Brussels, Conservatoire Royal de Musique
B-Br Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale Albert ler
CH-Zz Zurich, Zentralbibliothek
D-Bds Berlin, Staatsbibliothek
D-Bhm Berlin, Universitat der Kiinste (formerly Hochschule der Kiinste)
D-Dlb Dresden, Sachsische Landesbibliothek
D-DS Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek
D-DSsa Darmstadt, Hessisches Staatsarchiv
D-F Frankfurt, Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek
D-Gb Gottingen, Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut
D-LEb Leipzig, Bach-Archiv
D-LEm Leipzig, Musikbibliothek der Stadt
D-LEu Leipzig, Universitatsbibliothek
D-Mbs Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
D-Ngm Niirnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum
D-Sl Stuttgart, Wurttembergische Landesbibliothek
D-SW1 Schwerin, Mecklenburgische Landesbibliothek
DK-Kk Copenhagen, Det kongelige Bibliotek
GB-LB1 London, British Library
I-Bc Bologna, Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale G. B. Martini
NL-DHgm Amsterdam, Haags Gemeentemuseum
US-CAh Cambridge, Houghton Library at Harvard University
US-NYpm New York, Pierpont Morgan Library
US-PRu Princeton, University Library
US-Wc Washington, Library of Congress
viii
Introduction
Sometime in the late fall of 1726, Johann Sebastian Bach presented the newborn
son of his former employer, Prince Leopold of Cothen, with a print of the keyboard
Partita in B-flat Major (BWV 825), the first installment in what would become his
Clavier-Ubung part 1 (Opus 1) published in 1731. A dedicatory poem Bach included
with the gift - most likely penned by his frequent collaborator Christian Friedrich Henrici
(Picander) (1700-1764) - draws a parallel between the Prince’s first child and Bach’s
Partita, suggesting that the piece was a musicalischer Erstling (“musical firstborn”) and
die erste Frucht, die meine Saiten bringen.1It seems odd that the 41-year old composer,
having produced an untold number of highly respected works for both church and court,
should refer to this Partita as the “first fruit of his [keyboard] strings” but in an important
sense the Partita in B-flat Major did represent a first for Bach - it was the first work
which he himself decided to publish.2 Prior to 1726 Bach’s keyboard music had been
distributed entirely in manuscript; students and colleagues borrowed autograph
manuscripts - for example, of the Inventions and Sinfonias, the Well-Tempered Clavier I,
the Weimar organ works, and the English and French Suites - and laboriously copied this
music for their personal collections. They then made their own manuscripts of these
1Dok I, Nr. 155.
2 The Miihlhausen town council cantata “Gott ist mein Konig” (BWV 71) of February
1708 was printed but the initiative was not Bach’s and the work was not widely
distributed.
works available to their own students and colleagues. The publication of the Partitas
marks the first time that Bach chose to have a collection of keyboard music engraved in
copper, printed, advertised, and sold rather than informally distributed to friends and
colleagues.
The fact that Bach selected the six Partitas for such treatment and designated them
“Opus 1” accords these works a special place in his oeuvre. They offer insight into the
way he wished to present himself and his music to a broad and largely anonymous public.
The most extensive exploration of the genesis of the Partitas was made by Richard
Douglas Jones in his doctoral dissertation of 1988,3 although some of the work goes back
to his critical report for the Neue Bach Ausgabe which appeared in 1978.4 Jones' theory of
the genesis of the Partitas is however in need of revision in light of new information from
the sources. In 1978 Charles Joseph published a study of the relationship between the
texts of Partitas III and VI in Anna Magdalena's Clavierbiichlein of 1725 which sheds
some light on the later stages of Bach's composition process.5 Other writers have been
keen to identify borrowings from other composers in the Partitas but have had only
limited success.6 Most recently Joshua Rifkin has advanced a plausible and interesting
3 Jones 1988, 63-88.
4 Jones 1978. 53-54.
5 Joseph 1978.
6 See Payne 1999 and Cole 2000.
theory that the Scherzo of the third Partita was inspired by a visit to Leipzig by Conrad
Friedrich Hurlebusch.7
Our knowledge of the printing and sale of Bach’s first publication owes much to
Werner Neumann, who discovered the three known advertisements for Bach’s Partitas in
the Leipziger Post-Zeitung.* Gregory Butler's groundbreaking study on the engravers of
Bach’s Partitas represents the most detailed source work on the Partitas since Jones'
critical report of 1978.9
The style of the Partitas was addressed at some length by Philipp Spitta in his
Bach biography of 1873/80 where he compared them in a general way with Bach's earlier
Suites and the collection which George Frederick Handel published in London in 1720.10
More recently Andreas Jacob has published a book-length study of all four parts of
Bach’s Clavier-Ubung series which deals in part with the style of the Partitas.11 Jacob's
detailed observations are, however, primarily derived from a comparison of these works
with the writings of contemporary theorists rather than with Bach's earlier Suites and
those of his contemporaries. Siegbert Rampe has also recently written on the style of the
7 Rifkin (forthcoming).
8 Neumann 1969.
9 Butler 1986.
10 Spitta 1873/80, II, 634-644.
11 Jacob 1997, 61-147.
Partitas, noting the extraordinary variety and blur of national styles to be found in this
music.12
Bach's Partitas seem to have enjoyed a favorable reception with the public. His
first biographer, Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1749-1818) wrote of the Clavier-Ubung part 1
in 1802 that:
This work made in its time a great noise in the musical world. Such excellent
compositions for the clavier had never been seen and heard before. Anyone who had
learnt to perform well some pieces out of them could make his fortune in the world
thereby; and even in our times, a young artist might gain acknowledgment by doing so,
they are so brilliant, well-sounding, expressive, and always new.13
The popularity of the Partitas in the 18th century is also indicated by the fact that they
preserved in more prints and 18th/early 19th century manuscripts than are any of Bach's
other printed keyboard works, as illustrated in the following table:
12 Rampe 1999b.
13 Forkel 1802, 50: "Died Werk machte zu seiner Zeit in der musikalischen Welt groBes
Aufsehen; man hatte noch nie so vortreffliche Claviercompositionen gesehen und gehort.
W er einige Stiicke daraus recht gut vortragen lemte, konnte sein Gluck in der Welt damit
machen; und noch in unserm Zeitalter wird sich ein junger Kunstler Ehre damit erwerben
konnen, so glanzend, wohlklingend, ausdrucksvoll und immer neu sind sie." Translation
from NBR, 463.
Table 1
Surviving Prints of Manuscripts of Bach's Printed Keyboard Music
Published Work__________________ Surviving Prints Surviving Manuscripts

Clavier-Ubung, part 114 45 76
Clavier-Ubung, part 2 15 16 11
Musical Offering18 17 52
Var. on Vom Himmel H och19 13 21
Schiibler Chorales20 6 17
In 1745 Johann Adolph Scheibe (1708-1776) commented on the fame of the Italian
Concerto from Bach's Clavier-Ubung part 2:
Since this piece is arranged in the best possible fashion for this kind of work, I believe
that it will doubtless be familiar to all great composers and experienced clavier players,
as well as to amateurs of the clavier and music in general.21
14 Jones 1978, 10-48. I have included here only the prints Jones lists which are still in
existence. Several others (e. g. [E5], [G6], [G20], [G21]) are no longer traceable but may
still exist. [G22] was recently purchased at auction by the Pierpont Morgan Library in
New York. Jones neglected to include in his catalog an individual print of Partita IV in
the Hoboken Collection at the Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna. Lists of
surviving prints of this type are necessarily incomplete since numerous prints of this
work and others remain in private hands and are not accessible to scholarship. I have
also added the manuscripts D-Bds: Mus.ms. 10491 and B-Bc: 6323 MSM. For the
discussion of these manuscripts see Chapter 5 below.
15 Emery and W olff 1977, 13.
16Tessmer 1974, 16-25.
17 Emery and W olff 1977, 94-105.
18 Wolff 1974, 58-87.
19 Klotz 1957, 86-88.
20 Lohlein 1987, 130-141.
21 Dok II, Nr. 463: "Da dieses Stuck auf die beste Art eingerichtet ist... so glaube ich, daB
es ohne Zweifel alien groBen Componisten, und erfahrnen Clavierspielern so wohl, als
Given that there are many more surviving prints and manuscripts of Bach's Clavier-
Ubung part 1 than there are of the Clavier-Ubung part 2 one assumes that Scheibe's
statement might equally well apply to the Partitas. The apparent success of this work
magnifies its significance. This collection was clearly central to the reception of Bach’s
music during his lifetime, particularly during the period 1726-1735 when the Partitas
represented the only printed work by Bach available.
Given the central position these works held in the minds of his 18th century public
attention to the reception of the Partitas has been surprisingly scant. Because Bach
prepared his own edition of this music modern editors have generally neglected the vast
array of surviving printed and manuscript sources for these works. Jones provided a
valuable list of extant sources in his critical report but he himself dealt only fleetingly
with most. His treatment of the corrected prints in particular has been questioned by
Christoph W olff who identified autograph emendations in several copies.22 Although
Jones himself revised his critical report in response to W olffs criticism23 it is in need of
yet further revision. Although other scholars have speculated with regards to the
reception of Bach's Opus l 24 no one has to this point dealt in any detail with the surviving
source material.
den Liebhabem des Claviers und der Musik, bekannt seyn wird." Translation from NBR,
332.
22 W olff 1979.
23 Jones 1988 and 1997.
24 Rampe 1999a.
The following dissertation seeks to illuminate the composition and early reception
of Bach’s Partitas through an investigation of his reasons for publishing, his choice of
genre, his composition and sale of the work and, above all, their public reception. The
first chapter serves as an introduction, offering background information on the rise of
amateur music making in Germany at the end of the 17th century (with a focus on
Leipzig) and the position of the Suite genre within this context. Chapter two deals with
the publication and sale of Bach's Partitas between 1726 and ca. 1735. Chapter three
presents an account of the composition of these works on the basis of available source
material, some of it new to Bach scholarship. Chapters four through seven are devoted to
Bach's audience, offering biographical accounts of those who are documented as having
owned prints and manuscripts of the Partitas and/or having made reference to the Partitas
(whether in prose or in music) before ca. 1775. In the final chapter I offer generalizations
and conclusions on the early reception of the Partitas on the basis of the information
presented in chapters four through seven.
The research conducted for this study has yielded a number of important insights
into the composition and reception history of the Partitas as well as that of Bach's
keyboard music more broadly. The discovery of an early version of the Giga from Partita
I and a borrowing from Handel in Partita II shed completely new light on the
compositional history of these works. I present evidence below which suggests that the
corrected print of the Partitas in the Hoboken Collection of the Osterreichischen
Nationalbibliothek was Bach's personal exemplar giving the corrections a new degree of
credibility. Several new names are connected with prints of the Partitas including Johann
Heinrich Fischer, Fructuosus Roeder, the Darmstadt court library and Electoress Maria
Josepha of Dresden. Finally and most importantly, in the course of preparing this study I
was able to identify by name several previously anonymous owners and scribes of central
importance to the transmission of Bach's keyboard music. These scribes not only
rendered copies of the Partitas but also numerous other works by Bach including the
earliest surviving manuscripts of the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue, the English Suites
and the Well-Tempered Clavier part 1.
Chapter 1
The Galant Era and the Publication of Suites
In the final decades of the 17th century, the cities of central Germany at last began
to recover from the population loss and destruction of the Thirty-Years W ar (1618-1648)
and from the early 18th century began to generate wealth at pre-war levels and beyond.1
O f the many German cities which benefited in these years from the favorable conditions
none saw such dramatic improvements as Leipzig. The city's expanding fortunes are
marked by the founding of its stock exchange in 16782 and a pioneering court for settling
trade disputes in 16823as well as the increasingly regular posting of its exchange rates
around the turn of the 18th century in the major German and international finance centers:
Augsburg, Hamburg and Amsterdam.4The prosperity led to a wave of civic
improvement; streets, bridges and the mail system which connected Leipzig with the rest
of the world were dramatically improved over the first half of the 18th century5and the
population nearly doubled - from 15,650 in 1697 to 29,600 by 1746.6 Approximately one
third of the buildings in the inner city were rebuilt or renovated in the first half of the 18th
1 Schirmer 2000, 311-323.
2 Denzel 1994, v.
3 Gerber 1717,11, 403.
4 Denzel 1999, 152.
5 Gerber 1717,1, 574.
6C zok 1999, 187.
century.7As Anton Weitz wrote at the outset of his Verbessertes Leipzig, a book
published in 1728 which chronicles the improvements to the city made in the first three
decades of the 18th century:
W er das Welt-gepriesene Leipzig... zu Ende des vorigen Seculi besuchet, und anietzo
wieder zu besehen Gelegenheit hat, wird sich nicht wenig iiber dero ungemeinen
Wachsthum und Verbesserung verwundem; Ja er wird kaum begreiffen konnen, wie es
moglich sey, dab eine Stadt... sich in so kurtzer Zeit so sehr verandem, und in vielen
Dingen so mercklich verbessern und verherrlichern konne.8
The rise in living standards, particularly among members of the merchant classes,
encouraged a drive for advancement in the realm of culture.9 The word which was most
closely associated with this desire at the end of the 17th century is galant. For men of
letters the galant represented an elegant French ideal of behavior. Leipzig's well-known
philosopher Christian Thomasius (1655-1728) characterized it in 1687 as "etwas
gemischtes... so aus dem je ne scay qvoy, aus der guten Art etwas zu thun/ aus der manier
zu leben/ so am Hofe gebrauchlich ist/ aus Verstand/ Gelehrsamkeit/ einen guten judicio,
Hofflichkeit/ und Freudigkeit zusammen gesetzet werde/ und deme aller Zwang/
affectation, und unanstandige Plumpheit zu wider sey."10 The pseudonymous
L'Indifferent wrote in 1715 that the most intelligent Frenchmen view the galant as: "die
Vollkommenheit selber, und nennen nur einen solchen Menschen galant, der das Gliicke
hat einen durchdringenden Verstand, eine extraordinaire Gelehrsamkeit, ein ungemeines
7 Holtkotter 1986, 95.
8Weitz 1728, 1.
9 See Sheldon 1975.
10 Thomasius 1701, 14.
10
Vermogen von einer Sache grlindlich und scharffsinnig zu urtheilen, eine vollkommene
und unaffectirte politesse, und dergleichen annehmliche Eigenschafften zu besitzen."11
The sons and daughters of newly prosperous merchants eager to embrace the
cosmopolitan character of the galant could choose from a wide variety of manuals written
to aid them in this pursuit. Some representative titles follow:
Johann Christian Wachtler.

Commodes Manual, oder Hand-Buch / darinnen zufinden 1) eine compendieuse Methode
zu einer galanten Conduite... 2) ein vollkdmmliches Dictionaire... 3) Die vornehmsten
Heydnischen Nomina Propria, so in Romanen / Operen / Poesie, Mahlereyen / und sonst
gebrauchet werden ... 4) Le Secretaire d'Amour, oder: Ein Fascicul etlicher bey einer
familieren Correspondence gewechselten und aus einem vertraulichen Liebes Cabinet
genommenen Brieffe... 5) Allerhand miindliche Complimenten in Teutsch und
Frantzosischer Sprache... (Leipzig, 1703)
Friedrich W illhelm Scharffenberg.

Die Kunst complaisant und galant zu conversiren, oder in kurtzem sich zu einen
Menschen von guter Conduite zu machen. Worinnen aufdas deutlichste gewiesen wird,
(1.) Wie eine rechtschaffene Conduite miisse beschaffen seyn. (II.) Wie man bey Hofe sich
aufzufiihren hat. (III.) Wie man mit Ministern umgehen mu/3. (IV.) Was aufReisen
erfordert wird. (V.) Leuten geringen Standes, und endliche wie man gegen Frauenzimmer
sich Complaisant und Galant erzeigen soli. A u f Verlangen der Complaisanten Welt z.um
Besten heraus gegeben... (Chemnitz, 1713)
Anonymous.
Vergniigung miifiiger Stunden, oder allerhand niitzliche zur heutigen galanten
Gelehrsamkeit dienende Anmerckungen. (Leipzig, 1713)
Gottfried Corvinus [a. k. a. Amaranthes].

Nutzbares, galantes und curioses Frauenzimmer-Lexicon (Leipzig, 1715)
Barth, Johann Christian.

Die Galante Ethica in welcher gezeiget wird/ wie sich ein junger Mensch bey der
Galanten Welt sowohl durch manierliche Werke als complaisante Worte recommandiren
soil/ alien Liebhabern der heutigen Politesse zu sonderbaren Nutzen und
Vergniigen...(Dresden and Leipzig, 1720)
L'Indifferent 1715, 81-82. Quoted in Simons 2001, 344.
11
Usage of the word galant was not, however, confined simply to elegant behavior.
One gains a sense of the popularity, importance and core meaning of the word from the
alleged 'abuses', cited by men of letters. Thomasius ridiculed his contemporaries in 1687
for applying the word to dogs, cats, slippers, tables and chairs, quills and ink and even
apples and pears.12 Johann Christoph Gottsched wrote in 1725 that he had heard talk of
galant horses, apes, boots, ragouts, veal cutlets, and even a galant W estphalian ham.13
These purported misuses were not simply figments of the satirist’s imagination. The
patronage of prostitutes was regularly described as a Galanterie by the 1690s and
venereal disease euphemistically known as a Galanterie-Krankheit.14 This noun form also
12 Thomasius 1701, 14: " Aber adpropos was ist galant und ein galanter Mensch? dieses
diirffte uns in Wahrheit mehr zu thun machen als alles vorige/ zumahlen da dieses Wort
bey uns Teutschen so gemein und so sehr gemiBbrauchet worden/ daB es von Hund und
Katzen / von Pantoff ein/ von Tisch und Bancken/ von Feder und Dinten/ und ich weiB
endlich nicht/ ob nicht auch von Aepffeln und Birn zum offtem gesagt wird."
13 Gottsched 1725, 73-74: "Man hort unter uns nicht nur von galanten Manns-Personen
und galanten Frauenzimmer, sondem von galanten Hunden, Pferden, Katzen und Affen.
Ein galantes paar Stiefel ist unsern jungen Herrn nichts neues. In der Kiiche und
Wirthschafft horet man offt von einem galanten Ragout, FricaBee, Hammel- und
Kalberbraten. Ja ich weiB mich zu entsinnen, daB ein gewisses Frauenzimmer einmahl
erzehlte, wie sie ihrem Manne letzlich einen galanten Westphalischen Schincken
vorgesetzet. Mit einem Worte, der MiBbrauch dieses Worts ist so groB, daB alles, was
man sehen, horen, riechen, schmecken, fiihlen und empfinden oder sich auf einige Weise
ersinnen und vorstellen kan, galant, iiberaus galant, und vollkommen galant heissen
muB."
14 Florin 1702, 32: "Dannenhero kan es auch von GOtt nicht anderst als eine angemaBte
Licenz und Trotz gegen Ihn aufgenommen werden/ wann Ehe-Manner/ sonderlich die
fiirnehmere und hohere in der Welt/ die anderen zu befehlen haben/ von der Liebe und
Freundlichkeit gegen alles Frauenzimmer gar allerdings Profession, und ein tagliches
Hand-werck machen/ auch sich dessen noch wohl riihmen/ und andere dabey/ daB sie
sich diBfalls ein Bedencken machten/ als albere Tropffen halten und schrauben; solche
Freyheit aber unter dem Namen einer Galanterie und inclination, die sie zu andern
Weibem wegen dieselbe nicht finden/ entschuldigen wollen. Sie mogen sich aber fur
Menschen/ so gut sie wollen/ entschuldigen/ so bleibts gleichwohl fur GOttes Gerichte
12
designated a natural class of luxury items for which there were three separate shops in
Leipzig already by 1715.15 A sense of the products available from Galanterie-Waaren
Handler is provided by documents pertaining to the trial of one such merchant, Johann
Christoph Mahler, who was sued in 1741 for selling his wares illegally at the fairs in
Leipzig by means of a lottery. The Galanterien Mahler had on offer included a large
mirror, shirt buttons, embroidered slippers, a silver knife, metal belt buckles, silver
spoons, men’s socks, velvet caps, a small mirror, embroidered bags, silk scarves, a silver
tobacco canister, silver boxes, women’s stockings and skirts, a pearl necklace, silver
bowls, an embroidered velvet windowsill covering, pipe heads with silver decorations,
enameled boxes, embroidered towels and a silver clock.16
The apparently bewildering variety of uses to which the term galant was put in
the early 18th century belies an inner coherence. In every case the galant referred to that
which was pleasing but ultimately non-essential. It is most clearly defined by its
opposite, namely that which was unadorned, pragmatic and functional. The art of galant
conversation taught in manuals of the time was not an opportunity for the substantive
exchange of ideas (which might lead to conflict) but rather a round of pleasant small talk
eine Leichtfertigkeit und Ehebruch/ oder ist gemeiniglich am nachsten dabey. In der
Haushaltung aber gibts Seuffzer/ Eifersuch/ HaB/ Zanck und Stanck/ und also eine
unger athene Ehe."
15 Sicul 1715,90.
16 Stadtarchiv Leipzig: Sektion II, M. 659 Bd. I (1741) and II (1753). These Galanterie-
Waren ranged in price from 12 Groschen for the shirt buttons to 28 Taler for the silver
clock. In his Frauenzimmer-Lexicon of 1715 Gottlieb Siegmund Corvinus used the word
Galanterien to describe embroidered pillows, chair coverings and handbags. See
Corvinus 1715, 571.
13
which charmed all parties concerned.17 The patronage of prostitutes was a Galanterie
because it amounted to the seeking of extra, forbidden pleasures beyond the ‘necessary’
pleasures of the marital bed. Objects such as enameled boxes, embroidered throw
pillows and silk scarves were defined by their non-essential, decorative character. The
talk of galant apples, pears, boots and veal cutlets which so exercised men of letters such
as Thomasius and Gottsched identified them as distinct from ordinary apples, pears, boots
and veal cutlets not by type but rather by virtue of their quality. A ‘normal’ Westphalian
ham already possessed the essential characteristics of what we might call 'Westphalian-
hamhood.' Its galant counterpart was distinguished by characteristics above and beyond
the defining basics.
While in the austere years of the mid-17th century leisure time had been spent in a
relatively practical fashion,18 the galant-era saw the popularization of expensive and time
17 Scharffenberg 1713, 10: "Es sind keine Leute in Conversation unertraglicher / als
welche alles wiedersprechen / sie geben an den Tag / dab sie sich allzu viel diincken
lassen / Hartnackigkeit / Hochmuth u. Schwachheit des Verstandes bey sich haben /
sonsten wiirden sie sich nicht in einen unnothigen Streit einlassen / und sich andere zu
heimlichen Feinden machen.”
18 The Georgica Curiosa Aucta, an enormous household manual compiled in the 1670s
by W olf Helmhard von Hohberg, contains an appendix in which Hohberg suggests 131
leisure activities for the father of the household and 124 more for his wife. The
Hausvater might, for example, waterproof his boots, whiten ivory, streamline his bullets
or arrows, or create and use a wide variety of varnishes. The Hausmutter could “sweeten
her troubled hours” by extracting medicines from plants, concocting beauty products
(balsams for the skin, dyes for the hair), crafting jewelry (from pearls, alabaster, sapphire,
etc.), or painting translucent pictures. Hohberg’s suggested leisure-time activities most
often have an explicit, pragmatic function: making household materials last longer or
work better or obtaining ingredients for medicine or food. Even at their most decorative
and least essential (for example, painting translucent pictures, or making jewelry), the
leisure activities Hohberg recommends require relatively small investments of time and
financial resources. See Hohberg 1682, Appendices.
14
consuming courtly pursuits which rarely had any obvious practical application. Newly
fashionable, quasi-courtly amusements known as Galanterien19 such as horseback riding,
hunting, fencing, learning French, reading novels, dancing and making music gained
popularity with the middle classes. Writing in 1717 Christian Gerber waxed nostalgic for
the days of "Mutter Anna" - Anna Sophie (1647-1717), Electoress of Saxony and mother
of Augustus the Strong (1670-1733) - who allegedly did not consider herself above
churning butter and feeding pigs:
Nun wissen zwar die hohen und vomehmen Weiber von dieser Manier nichts mehr,
sondern haben eine gantz andere Wirthschafft erfunden. Doch giebet es noch hin und her
einige, die der Durchlauchtigen Mutter Annen ihre Wirthschafft hoher halten, als die neu-
erfundene eitele und galante. Und ein jeglicher verniinfftiger Mann wird eine solche
Ehefrau zehen mahl lieber haben, die der Wirthschafft und HauBhaltung sich emstlich
annimmet, als die nur auf Galanterie die Zeit wendet.20
Achievement in music was one of the most prominent ways in which the children
of aristocratic and wealthy bourgeois families sought cultural ennoblement. The
pioneering Johann Mattheson (1681-1764) offered his Neu-Eroffnete Orchestre
(Hamburg, 1713) to the aspiring galant homme, very much on the model of the self-help
manuals cited above. The title page reads as follows:
Das Neu-Eroffnete Orchestre, Oder Universelle und grundliche Anleitung/ Wie ein
Galant Homme einen vollkommenen Begriff von der Hoheit und Wiirde der edlen
MUSIC erlangen/ seinen Gout darnach/orm/ren/ die Terminos technicos verstehen und
geschicklich von dieser vortrefflichen Wissenschafft raisonniren moge...
19 SeeGrabner 1711,66-68.
20 Gerber 1717,1, 1002.
15
Businessmen and other wealthy bourgeois civic, court and church employees took it upon
themselves to acquire musical instruments for domestic use. Keyboard instruments in
particular came to be common in the homes of the aristocracy and wealthy bourgeois, as
indicated by Hubert Henkel's investigation of Leipzig estate and auction catalogs of the
period21 and also by Zacharias Hildebrandt's (1688-1757) list of customers who
purchased keyboard instruments from him in 1745, most of whom were bourgeois,
recreational musicians in Leipzig.22 A more comprehensive and heretofore unexamined
source for information on keyboard instrument ownership in the first half of the 18th
century was produced by the Braunschweig instrument maker, Barthold Fritz (1697-
1766). At the back of the second edition of his treatise on tuning harpsichords,
clavichords and organs Fritz included an apparently complete list of those who purchased
his clavichords between 1721 and the beginning of 1757.23 His sales in these years are
plotted in Figure 1:
21 Henkel 1991,58-61.
22 Dahnert 1961, 106-107 and 231.
23 Fritz 1757, 25-32. To my knowledge the only reference to this list in the scholarly
literature is to be found in a note from Dr. Hans-Joachim Schulze at the back of Erwin
Jacobi's article on Johann Christoph Ritter. See Jacobi 1965, 62.
16
Number of Keyboards Sold
— >— K> KJ W
O O Vt O Ut o
BOB
■n
Barthold Fritz Keyboard Sales, 1721-1756

ZZ3
Figure 1
^7 7 7 7 ///:
Y ear
ZZZZZZZZZZZ1
-ZZZZZZZZZZ2EL
IK Z Z Z Z C
HEzzzzzzzamnimm:
snnm m nr rnm
H EZZZZZZzannnm n
yjim im iiT T
f S S S s S M 111ITTTTTTT
iM M .1 v i ' sssssfsii I ....... 111111111

..........................
One notes first and foremost the tremendous increase in sales over the course of these
decades which can be attributed not only to his personal success but also that of the
industry as a whole. Of the 211 owners24 who purchased instruments from Barthold Fritz
between 1721 and 1756 only 17 were professional musicians. The remainder came from
the aristocracy (ca. 25%) and the bourgeois (ca. 75%). The professions of both the
aristocratic25 and bourgeois26 owners of clavichords overlap in many cases and include
employees of the church, city and court as well as independent businessmen. In all cases
the positions the buyers held were administrative and intellectual rather than physical in
nature.27
24 Fritz did not always sell his instruments directly to the buyers and for purposes of
discussion I draw a distinction between “agents” (those who bought Fritz’s instruments
“in commiBion” on behalf of others) and “owners” (those who eventually owned the
instruments - whether they bought them directly from Fritz or from an agent).
25 Titles/professions of aristocratic keyboard owners (overlapping somewhat with those of

bourgeois owners): Baron (2), Burgemeister, Cammerjunker (2), Cammerrath,
Canonicus, Commifiionsrath, Fahndrich, Fiirst (2), Geheimer Cammerrath, Graf,
Hauptmann (2), Hofmarschall, Hofrath, Hofrichter, Klosterrath, Lieut., Maj.,Oberster,
Pastor, Prinz (2), Student at Braunschweig's Collegio Carolingium (6).
26 Titles/professions of bourgeois keyboard owners (overlapping somewhat with those of

aristocratic owners): Advocat, Amtmann (4), Amts Justit., Amtschreiber, Bedienter,
Bergschreiber, Bergsecret., Buchfiihrer/Buchhalter (5), Burgemeister, Cammer-Agent,
Cammerconsulent, Cammerdiener, Cammersecret., Cand. Theol. (2), Canonicus (2),
Doctor (4), Einnehmer, Factor, Fahndrich, Gerichtsvoigt, Hofgerichts-Assessor (2),
Hofgerichtssecret., Hofmeister (2), Hofrath, Hiittenreuter (2), Intendant, Kaufmann (7),
Klosterrath, Kiichenmeister, Land-Syndicus, Leibchirurgus, Maler, Oberster, Pastor
(11), Postsecret. (2), Postverwalter, Rath, Rathsauditor, Rector, Regierungsadvocat,
Schichtmeister (2), Schreiber, Schreibmeister, Secret. (3), Sprachmeister, Stadtschreiber
(2), Student at Braunschweig's Collegio Carolingium (4), Stadtsyndicus, Tanzmeister (2),
Vicar.
27 The Schichtmeister, Bergschreiber and Hiittenreuter, for example, were involved in the
rather unglamourous business of mining but their jobs involved not actually working in
the mines but rather managing the men who did so. Similarly it was the role of the
18
In most cases one suspects that the buyers of instruments manufactured by Fritz
and his many colleagues were not the players but that they were purchasing these
instruments on behalf of family members with more leisure time. Young women in
particular were encouraged to cultivate their musical talents.28 A skillful performance
signaled the wealth of her father or husband, who could afford to hire servants to handle
more mundane chores, leaving the daughter free to cultivate her musical talents.29 A
skillful performance at the keyboard could also serve as a testament to virtue, to the many
hours spent at home alone in the music room rather than out engaging in more dubious
galant pastimes. This sentiment is the subject of a song in Johann Sigismund Scholze's
bestselling Singende Muse an der Pleifie (Leipzig, 1743) in which a young woman sings
of her preference for playing the keyboard over other activities which "meines gleichen
g ’nug erfreun" such as shopping for fashionable clothes, vainly parading before the
Lieutenant, Major, Oberster, and Fahndrich to coordinate the movements of the soldiers
on the battlefield whose lives were in far greater peril than their own. The Kiichenmeister
was not a simple cook but was rather in charge of preparing the menus, making
arrangements for deliveries from foreign countries, and managing his many underlings,
including the master chefs. See Zedler 1732, XV (1737), 2016. Even at the lower end of
the economic spectrum (Schreibmeister, Sprachmeister) the owners of keyboard
instruments were highly educated and engaged in work which was minimally physical.
28 As Sheldon observes, Mattheson's Neu-Eroffnete Orchestre was also recommended for

women as suggested by its inclusion in a reading list for Frauenzimmer published in the
Hamburg periodical Der Patriot in 1724. See Der Patriot, 1/8 (Thursday, February 24,
1724), 68. See Sheldon 1975, 251-252. See also Talle 2000, 149.
29 A revealing example comes from the travel diary of Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach
who, on the morning of February 26, 1710, visited the home of a wealthy Hamburg
businessman. He and his companion were served tea by their host’s wife, enjoyed a tour
of his art gallery which included a Rubens (for which their host bragged he had paid 8000
Taler), and explored his collection of ancient coins. Finally, in the final stop on this
carefully choreographed tour, their host trotted out his 15-year old daughter, who
dutifully sang and accompanied herself at the keyboard. See Uffenbach 1753, 99-101.
19
mirror and holding hands in the park with men.30 Numerous poems of the era recount the
romantic desires engendered by a young woman's facility at the keyboard.31 From the
later 1730s on publishers such as Balthasar Schmid and Johann Ulrich Haffner in
Niirnberg and Johann Jakob Lotter in Augsburg devoted a great deal of attention to
female amateur musicians often advertising on title pages that their collections were vors
Frauenzimmer.32
Young men too engaged on a large scale in music making but their relationship to
such frivolous leisure time activities was more contested. Writers of galant handbooks
emphasized the importance of building skills in judgment rather than learning to play an
instrument, cautioning that the latter required too great an investment in time.
Scharffenberg’s comment of 1713 is entirely typical: “Die Music sonderlich die Viol de
Gamb, Laute / Calzidon, Clavier, so man Gelegenheit hierzuhat / soil man etwas darinnen
zu begreiffen nicht unterlassen / weil es recommandiret / doch nur als ein Neben-
Werck.”33 The literary portraits painted by Christian Thomasius and Johann Christoph
30 The song appears in Scholze's Zweyte Fortsetzung in the series (Nr. #43).
31 See Neukirch 1704, IV, 49-51, Gressel 1713, 132-134, Konig 1713, 380-381 and Grafe
1741, #12.
32 See Head 1995 and 1999 as well as Ahrens 1986, 70-71.
33 Scharffenberg 1713, 15. See also Wagenseil 1703, 70-71: “Es will sich nicht geziemen
/ daB ihr euch viel auff die Music leget / ob es zwar eine herrliche Sache darum ist. So
viel zu erlernen / daB man sich in einer fiihmehmnen Gesellschafft durffe horen lassen /
erfordert gar zu grossen FleiB und lange Zeit / daB ihr euch aber mit einer Stiimplerey
prostituhet / und der Zuhorenden Ohren nur verletzet / ware euch verkleinerlich. Zwar
weilen der Homerus, den Helden Achillem, andere Poeten / den Apollinem selbsten mit
Weglegung seines Bogens auff der Zither spielend fiirgestellet / mochte endlich zu rathen
seyn / daB ihr euch auff der Cithara ein wenig iibet / die ist ein leichtes instrument, man
kan / indem man sie spielet / auff- und abgehen darein singen / oder auch mit andern
20
Gottsched of the overindulgent galant homme in 1687 and 1725 had him “blasen, oder
fiedeln” late into the night, playing partitas on the viola da gamba in the early morning
and waiting around for his keyboard teacher, who had been able to teach him only six or
seven pieces in the course of a year.34 There was always the danger that the young man
would be seduced by his love for music into abandoning the secure path of law or
theology for the uncertain and non-lucrative career of the professional musician.35
Professional musicians were widely considered to be provincial and unintelligent.36
Rector Johann August Ernesti of the Thomasschule was said to have discouraged students
from practicing, provoking young musicians with the question “Wollt ihr auch ein
reden... In alle W ege aber mtisset ihr / Printz so viel von der Music lemen / daB ihr den
Unterscheid der Stimmen / und was wol oder iibel / beydes im Singen und auff
instrumenten klinget / wie auch worinnen die Kunst und Annehmligkeit bestehet /
genugsam begreiffet. Damit ihr nehmlich / wann ihr in einer Gesellschafft eures Standes
/ wo eine schone Music angestellet wird / euch befindet / oder wann man euch wegen
eures tapffem Verhaltens eine herrliche Serenade oder Aubade bringet / vemiinfftig / und
wolgeschicklich davon reden und urtheilen / auch eine Ergetzung hieran haben moget /
dann wer die Music nicht verstehet / wird eine Maul-Trummel oder holtzernes Gelachter
so gern als das Lautenschlagen / und ein Bauem-Lied lieber als die schonste Motete
singen horen. Sonsten ist es kein neuer Gebrauch siegreiche Kriegs-Helden mit Music
und Gesang zu empfahen.”
34 Thomasius 1687, quoted in Wiedemann 1969, 19. Gottsched 1725, 75-76.
35 Telemann’s account of difficulties encountered along his route to becoming a

professional musician is in this regard telling. See Mattheson 1740, 355-359.
36 This is suggested by Johann Beer’s Musikalische Discourse, written in the 1690s which
includes a chapter entitled “Von dem Sprichwort: Unter hundert Organisten soil nur einer
klug seyn” (Beer 1719, 94), Mattheson’s comment in 1721 that musicians seldom read
books (Mattheson 1721, 179) and Johann Scheibe’s comments of 1740 that not even
great 'calculating' musicians like Bach and Handel know anything of mathematics
(Scheibe 1745, 652). In comparing the 17th century poet Daniel Casper von Lohenstein
with Bach, Scheibe concluded that although both were hopelessly old fashioned and
bombastic, at least Lohenstein knew his history and literature, whereas Bach just knew
music. See Scheibe 1745, 849.
21
Bierfiedler werden?”37 Still, young men would not be held back from dedicating copious
leisure time to making music - particularly after they were away at university, far from
the watchful eyes of their parents.
The increased interest in music making - and especially keyboard playing - led to
a revolution in the production of printed music in Germany. The production of large-
scale occasional works commemorating weddings and funerals and sacred vocal works
marketed to institutions were largely phased out at the end of the 17th century and the
industry was eventually reoriented to focus on repertoire for small chamber music
ensemble and especially keyboard solo.38 While representing less than 1% of music
published in German-speaking lands in the 1660s, 70s, and 80s, solo keyboard music
accounted rather suddenly for 10% in the 1690s, 35% in the 1720s, and an overwhelming
45% by 1740:39
37 Dok III, Nr. 820.
38 This was due primarily to a growing dissatisfaction on the part of leading musicians
with the limits of typesetting, then the only economically feasible means of printing
music. See Krummacher 1965, 69-82.
39 These statistics represent a compilation of all works printed in German-speaking

countries in RISM, publishers' catalogs including those of Balthasar Schmid (Heussner
1963), Johann Ulrich Haffner (Hoffmann-Erbrecht 1954, 1955) and Johann Jakob Lotter
(Rheinfurth 1977) and book fair catalogs (Gohler 1902).
22
CO
CN
Figure 2
Music Genres Printed in German-Speaking Lands, 1660-1760
200 •
180
■ Occasional Works for Funerals, Weddings, etc.
160 e Sacred Vocal Works in German

□ Sacred Vocal Works in Latin
140
ddSecular Vocal Music
Number of Prints Produced
h Instrumental Music other than for Keyboard Solo

120
s Music for Keyboard Solo
100
80 ■-
60 •
40
20 - -
1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 17SO
Decade
The solo keyboard music published in the early decades of this revolution
consisted largely of Suites, a genre of French origin presenting a series of dance pieces in
the same key, usually including and Allemande, Courante, Sarabande and Gigue. The
first known collection of printed Suites was produced in 1670 by Jacques
Chambonnieres. His lead was followed immediately by several of his French
contemporaries. The French prints which had the greatest distribution in Germany were
those issued in pirate reprints in Amsterdam:
Table 2
Collections of Suites Published by French Composers before 1726
Paris Amsterdam Composer Title

1670 - Jacques Chambonnieres Les pieces de clavecin
1677 1697 Nicolas-Antoine Le Begue Les pieces de Clavessin
1687 - Elizabeth J. de la Guerre P ieces de Clavecin
1687 1701 Nicolas-Antoine Le Begue Second livre de clavessin
1689 1704/05 Jean-Henry d’Anglebert P ieces de Clavecin
1689 1701/02 Charles Francois Dieupart Six Suittes de Pieces de Clavecin
1689 1698 Nicolas-Antoine Le Begue Suitte de p ieces de clavecin
1702 >1702 Louis Marchand P ieces de clavecin, livres 1 and 2
1704 - L. N icolas Clerambault Prim ier livre de p ieces de clavecin
1704 - Jean-Franfois D ’Andrieu Livre de clavecin de jeunesse 1
1705 - Jean-Fran§ois D ’Andrieu Livre de clavecin de jeunesse 2, 3
1705 1707/08 Gaspard Le Roux P ieces de clavessin
1706 - Jean-Philippe Rameau Prem ier livre de p ieces de clavecin
1707 - Elizabeth J. de la Guerre Pieces de clavecin
1713 - Frantjois Couperin P ieces de clavacin...prem ier livre
1716 - Franfois Couperin Second livre de p ieces de clavecin
1718 <1737 Jean-Fran§ois D ’Andrieu Les caracteres de la guerre
1724 - Jean-Philippe Rameau P reces de clavecin
1724 - Jean-Franfois D ’Andrieu Prem ier livre de clavecin
German composers, beginning with Benedikt Schultheiss, were quick to publish their
own collections of Suites modeled to varying degrees on the French precedent. It was
also during the last decade of the 17th century that the Suites of the pioneering Johann
Froberger, which had been composed at mid-century, finally found their way into print.
The following table lists collections of Suites by German composers published before
24
Bach's Partitas:
Table 3
Suites Published by German Composers before 1726
Year Citv_____________Composer_______________ Title

1679 Nurnberg Benedikt Schultheiss Muth- und G eist-ermuntemde
Clavierlust
1689 Leipzig Johann Kuhnau Neue Clavier-\Jbung...erster Theil
1692 Leipzig Johann Kuhnau Neue Clavier-Ubung...anderer
Theil
1693 Mainz Johann Froberger D iverse...curiose partite, di toccate,
canzone, ricercate, alemande,
correnti, sarabande e gique
1696 Schlackenwerth J. C. Ferdinand Fischer L es Pieces de Clavessin/
M usicalisches Blumen-Biischlein
1696 Mainz Johann Froberger D iverse curiose e rare partite
m usicali.. .prima continuatione
1697 Nurnberg Johann Krieger Sechs Musicalische Partien
1697 Amsterdam Johann Froberger 10 suittes de clavessin...mis en
m eilleur ordre et corrigee...
1698 Amsterdam Johann Froberger D ix suittes de Clavecin
1705 Hamburg Johann Mattheson Suite for two harpsichords [lost]
1713 Leipzig Johann Buttstedt M usicalische Clavier-Kunst und
Vorraths-Kammer
1714 London Johann Mattheson P ieces de Clavecin / Harmonisches
Denckmahl
1718 Darmstadt Christoph Graupner Partien a u fd a s Clavier
1720 London George Frideric Handel Suites de Pieces Pour le Clavecin...
Prem ier Volume
1722 Darmstadt Christoph Graupner M onatliche Clavir Friichte...
m eistenteils fiir Anfanger
1726-31 Leipzig Johann Sebastian Bach Partitas of the Clavier-Ubung part 1.
The Suite genre was attractive for a variety of non-musical reasons beginning
with its intimate connections to the French court of Louis XIV, having been invented and
cultivated there by French lutenists, gambists, and keyboardists. As Christian Thomasius
wrote in 1687: "Frantzosische Kleider/ Franzosische Speisen/ Franzosische HauBrath/
Franzosische Sprachen/ Franzosische Sitten/ Franzosische Siinden/ ja gar Franzosische
25
Kranckheiten sind durchgehends im Schwange."40 Although the Suite came to Germany
by way of France its component movements were believed had an attractive international
image. Just as the cosmopolitan fantasies of the young and wealthy were realized by
dressing up in clothing from all over Europe (skirts and vests from France, hats from
England, socks and ruffles from Italy, and costly shirts from Holland according to one
report),41 the purported ‘international origins’ of the various dance types found in the
Suite were alluring and highlighted by authors of music treatises: the Allemande was
thought to be distinctly German,42 the Courante either French or Italian (Corrente),43 the
Sarabande was said to have come from Spain and to have been danced with castanets,44
the Gigue from England,45 the Bourree from either Auvergne or Biscaja,46 the Gavotte
from the mountain people of “Gap,”47 and the Menuet from the French province Poitou.48
40 Thomasius 1701, 3.
41 Hunold [1720?], unpag. 13/23: “Der last sich Rock und Wamst aus Franckreich selber
holen; I Der kauffet die Fagon in Kupfferstichen ein. I Doch itzo richten sich auch viele
nach den Pohlen / I W eil uns das wilde Volke scheint anverwandt zu seyn. I Sonst hat
Paris den PreiB / das schickt Galanterien / 1Den Hut macht Engeland. Von Striimpff und
Krausen kan I Ein W elscher viel Profit aus unsem Beutel ziehen. I Und Holland leget uns
die Kostbarn Hembden a n ..
42 Fuhrmann 1706, 86; Walther 1732, 27-8; Mattheson 1739, 232.
43 Kirnberger 1777, 2; Mattheson 1713, 186-7; and Mattheson 1739, 230-31.
44 Mattheson 1713, 187; Walther 1732, 542; and Maier 1741, “Sarabande” in unpaginated
glossary.
45 Beyer 1703, “Gigves, Giga” in unpaginated appendix; Walther 1732, 281; Mattheson
1739, 227; Maier 1741, “Giga, Gigue oder Gicque” in unpaginated glossary.
46 Walther 1732, 109-10; Mattheson 1739, 225-26.
47 Walther 1732, 274; Mattheson 1739, 225.

26
And although the movements of the keyboard Suite were not intended to be danced,49
they certainly must have benefited from association with that elegant French social
practice then viewed as so critical to proper moral and physical education.50
The attractiveness of the Suite among a broad public can attributed primarily to its
flexibility. It did not demand the strict voice leading of more formal genres. The
easygoing nature of Suites is evident in the preface of the second installment of Johann
Kuhnau's Clavier-tjbung of 1692 in which the author writes that the genre itself demands
a degree of compositional negligence. He claims that if he had been completely strict in
the voice leading, as he might have in a Sonata or Concerto, the Annehmlichkeit of the
Suite would have suffered and much that was forced or unnatural (gezwungen) would
have slipped in. Kuhnau adds that in this respect he simply followed the lead of certain
beriihmte Meister.51 The variable array of movement types in Suites could also satisfy a
48 Walther 1732, 398.
49 Mattheson 1713 and 1739 makes this abundantly clear in his discussion of dance types.
For an example see his discussion of the Courante in Mattheson 1713, 186-187.
50 The connections between instruction in dance and in ethics are in evidence nearly
everywhere dance is discussed in the 18th century. Grabner's comments of 1711 can serve
as a typical example. He asks rhetorically: “Kan man von dem Tantz-Meister sonst
nichts als tantzen lernen?” and answers: “Wenn ein Maitre seinen Scholarsn nur bloB
tantzen lemet/ so haben selbige ihren Entzweck nicht erlanget; denn ich habe schon oben
gemeldet/ daB man nicht allein deBwegen lemet/ daB man tantzen/ sondem daB man sein
Exterieur verbessern will/ drum soli ein Tantz-Meister auch zugleich ein guter Moralists
seyn/ daB er bey der Lection das ausserliche Wesen seiner Scholarsn auch dadurch zu
verbessern wisse. Denn dahin gehet eigentlich der Scopus eines/ des um des rechten
Nutzens und Gebrauchs willen tantzen lemet.” See Grabner 1711, 126-127.
51 “Ich nenne es, in Ansehung anderer vollkommen, doch nicht gegen einer mit vielen
Stimmen wohlgesetzten kiinstlichen Sonate, oder Concerte, weil man die jenige, was
sonsten viel Personen verrichten miiBen, daselbst nicht allezeit so, das keine Stimme
wide range of tastes and abilities. Kuhnau expressed a hope in the preface o f his Clavier-
Ubung o f 1689 that the work would refresh the spirits both o f those who had chosen
music as their profession and those who pursued other studies. In the preface to his
Partien aufdas Clavier of 1718 Christoph Graupner wrote that his collection was
intended "weder vor grosse Virtuosen noch blosse Anfanger sondem vor Liebhaber,
welche im Exercitio gem einige Veranderung suchen; Dahero sie auch so eingerichtet,
das so wohl der schwachere als starckere etwas zu seinem plaisir finden moge." At the
end of the 17th century Minuets, Bourrees, Gavottes, and other more modem dance pieces
typically characterized by spare textures, quick tempi and phrasing in four-bar units were
increasingly interspersed amongst the more traditional movements: Preludes,
Allemandes, Courantes, Sarabandes and Gigues. It was these optional dances which
were of greatest interest to those of least experience. As Johann Krieger wrote in the
preface to his Seeks musikalische Partien of 1697: "Wo einige Spatium oder Raum
vorgefallen, hab ich selbigen mit etlichen Menuetten, Bureen und Gavotten erfiillet, als
aussen bleibe, continuiren kan. Oder, so man ja mit der Continuation der Stimmen stricte
verfahren wolte, so wiirde viel gezwungenes mit unterlauffen, und die Annehmligkeit in
manchem Stticke sich verlieren. Gestalt ich gleichfalls, nach Anleitung beriihmter
Meister, in den Allemanden, Courranten und Sarabanden bisweilen mit FleiB mich etwas
negligent erwiesen, eine Stimme verlaBen, und hingegen anderswo eine neue mit
ergriffen. Doch sind die Fugen mit 4en genau ausgefiihret worden. Es Scheinen auch
wiewohl gar selten in manchen Prasludio Octaven mit einander fortzugehen, deren
Entschuldigung aber in der Verwechselung der Stimmen bestehet: welches zu dem Ende
errinert wird, damit die Halbverstandigen sich nicht etwa mit einem unzeitigen Urtheile
herauslassen mochten.”
52 “Als habe ich beykommende neue Partien auffgesetzet, und solche Jedermann zu Liebe
auff eignen Verlag zur Kupffer-Presse befordert, in gewister Hoffnung, so wohl die
jenigen, so den von andern Studiis ermiideten Geist an dem Claviere wiederum zu
erfrischen suchen, als auch die, welche sich solches zur Profession erwehlet, nicht wenig
damit zu vergniigen.”
28
welche heut zu Tage denen, welche die Music und das Clavier nicht sonderlich verstehen,
bey weiten mehr gefallen, als alle hohere Music-, massen ihnen das jenige was lieblich in
den Ohren klinget, viel anstandiger ist, als die tiefsinnigen Kunststiicke." The popularity
o f Suites - and these optional dances in particular - with amateur musicians in these
years is indicated by the fact that they are prominently featured in Daniel Speer’s leichte
Information defi Claviers vor das Frauen-Zimmer (an appendix to his organ treatise of
1687), a guide for teaching young women, and occupy a large proportion o f surviving
Clavierbuchlein prepared by or on behalf o f amateur musicians such as Christiane
Amalia Trolle (Preetz near Kiel, 1699/1702)53 and Anna Margaretha Stromerin
(Niimberg, 1699),54 Anna Margaretha BaBin (Niimberg, 1721)55 the anonymous
Musikalisches Rustkammer (Leipzig, 1719)56 and Anna M agdalena Bach (Cothen, 1722;
Leipzig, 1725).57 Suites were also o f interest to pre-professional and professional
musicians, as revealed by their large scale inclusion in Bach's own early musical training
(see below) and also by prefaces such as that o f Gottlieb Theophilo M uff at's
Componimenti Musicali, (Augsburg, >1727)58 in which the composer wrote:
53 DK-Kk: Pos.Thott 292.8°.
54 D-Ngm: Hs 31781 (first section of the book).
55 D-Ngm: Hs 31781 (second section of the book).
56 D-LEm: III, 5.26.
57 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 224 and P 225.
58 Although the Componimenti Musicali is undated, the preface of Muffat's 72 Versetl

Sammt 12 Toccaten besonders zum kirchen Dienst bey Choral-Aemtern und Vesperen
dienlich (Augsburg, 1726) includes a note regarding its composition and future
29
Wann ich werde versichert seyn, daB an diesem Werck ein Wohlgefallen gezeigt, und
von denen Kunsterfahmen solches gut geheissen werde, so habe keinen Anstand
abermahl ein anders heraus zu geben... Letztlichen ob ich gleich weiB, daB alles was
geschrieben, und an das Tag-Licht gegeben wird, gar offt dem verkehrten Urtheil
boBartiger Ignorante n unterworffen ist; so will ich dannoch hoffen, daB Wohl vers tandige
von dieser Profession ohne Verkleinerung meines wenigen Ruffs sich wiirdigen werden,
einige Absicht auf den miihsamen FleiB zu haben, den ich allein dem Publico zu Nutz
und Vergniigung angewendet habe.
The opinions of professional musicians were valuable not only for a composer's
professional reputation - as made explicit by Muffat - but also because composers who
published Suites depended upon professional musicians recommending these printed
collections to their students59 and as selling points for use in advertisements.60
publication: "Obwol auch eine gute Anzahl sogenanter Galanterie-Stuck & c. verfertigt
zur Hand habe, welche ich zur Zeit in Druck zu geben gesinnet: wolte doch diese meine
Erstlinge dem Allerhochsten und seinen Gotti: Dienst gewidmet haben; indeme das
Wercklein besonders zu Choral-Amtem und Vesperen & c. dienlich, und aus 12.
gebrauchlichem Tonis, in jeden i. Toccaten, 6 Versetl oder Fugen zusamm in 84. Stucken
bestehet, dergleichen gar wenige heraus seynd."
59 Johann Mattheson wrote in 1731 of the relationship between professional musicians

and his own collection of Suites, the Harmonisches Denckmahl: "Wollen sie doch mein
Harmonisches Denckmahl nicht gelten lassen, vielweniger ihren Schtilem zu kauffen
anrathen, unter dem Vorwand: Die Sachen konnten, wegen der Schliissel und anderer
Umstande/ hier zu Lande nicht gebraucht werden; da doch die wahre Ursache ist, daB die
guten Helden nicht fahig sind, die Stucke zu spielen. Und derowegen, ihre Unwissenheit
zu beschonen, einfaltigen Leuten einpragen wollen, der Verfasser sey eben so ein Schops,
wie sie, und konnen sein eigen Machwerck selbst nicht spielen, alsdann vermeynen sie
sich recht wol verantwortet zu haben. O, mogte ich doch die Freude sehen, daB solche
Zwerge, ihrer jammerlichen Stiimperey und ungeschenten Verlaumdung wegen, einst
durch diese gegenwartige schlechte Prob-Stiicke schamroth gemacht wiirden!” See
Mattheson 1731,443.
60 Muffat was pleased to note in an advertisement for the Componimenti Musicali which
appeared in 1739 that the work had found the favor of such luminaries as G. F. Handel,
C. F. Hurlebusch and J.-P. Rameau. The advertisement appeared on December 12, 1739
in the Nurnberg Friedens- und Kriegs Courier: “...Componimenti Musicali per il
Cembalo...welches Werck nicht nur Ihro Rom. Kayseri. Majest. unterthanigst dedicieret,
sondern auch von etlichen grossen Virtuosen, als Hendel, Hurlebusch und Bameau [sic!]
30
The movements of the Suite, and especially these optional dances, were often
tellingly referred to by the term Galanterien. The title page of Johann Caspar Ferdinand
Fischer's Musicalisches Blumen-Buschlein (Augsburg, 1698), for example, advertises
unterschidlichen Galanterien: als Prceludien, Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden,
Boureen, Gavotten, Menueten, Chaconnen & c. Gottlieb Muffat wrote in the preface of
his Componimenti Musicali (Augsburg, >1727) that the collection consisted of "allerley
Gattungen artiger Caprices, oder so genanten Galanterie-Stiick." Bach's student Johann
Ludwig Krebs (1713-1780) wrote in the preface of his Dritte Piece, bestehend in einer
Ouverture (Niimberg, 1741) - a work Bach sold on commission61 - that "die iibrigen zur
Ouverture gehorigen Stricken, Z. E. Lentement, Vivement, Paisan, Menuetts, Gavotte,
Air, Passepieds, Rigadon, nur als Galanterien vor Frauenzimmer anzusehen." Bach
himself used the word Galanterien to characterize the contents of his Opus 1. By
applying the term Galanterien to Suites and other light keyboard repertoire 18th century
Germans sought to draw a parallel between this music and other objects and activities
known by the same name. As in its many non-musical environments the term
Galanterien in a musical context designated this repertoire as decorative, fashionable and
entertaining and distinguished it from music which was viewed as more substantive and
functional - most especially music for worship. The remainder of the present study
examines J. S. Bach's first publication within this context.
in ihren Hand-Zeilen an den Authoren mit vielem Lob approbieret und wie es der
Augenschein selbsten giebet mit grossem FleiB und Nettigkeit in Kupffer gestochen...”
See Heussner 1968, 327-328.
61 Dok II, Nr. 492.
31
Chapter 2
Publication and Distribution of Bach's Partitas
J. S. Bach grew up in the environment of the galant-era, playing and composing
keyboard Suites. One reads in his obituary of 1754 that young Sebastian came into
regular contact with the French manner of performance between 1700 and 1702 while a
student at the Michaelisschule in Liineburg.1His probable teacher there, Georg Bohm
(1661-1733), was an enthusiastic composer of Suites and his music had a profound
impact upon Bach’s early development, particularly in the realm of Suite composition.2
The influence of Bohm and of the French keyboard style in general in these years is well-
documented by two manuscripts prepared between ca. 1705 and 1713 by Sebastian’s
elder brother, Johann Christoph Bach (1671-1721) - the Moller H andschrifi and
Andreas Bach Buck4- in which one finds Suites and Overtures for the keyboard
composed both by German composers such as Bohm, the Liineburg organist Christian
Flor (1626-1697), Christian Ritter (died ca. 1720/25?), Gottfried Ernst Pestel, Adam
Reincken (16237-1722), Georg Philipp Telemann (1681-1767), Johann Mattheson (1681-
1764), Friedrich Wilhelm Zachow (1663-1712) and Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer
1 "Auch hatte er von hier aus Gelegenheit, sich durch oftere Anhorung einer damals
beriihmten Capelle, welche der Hertzog von Zelle unterhielt, und die mehrentheils aus
Frantzosen bestand, im Frantzosischen Geschmacke, welcher, in dasigen Landen, zu der
Zeit was ganz Neues war, fest zu setzen." See Dok III, Nr. 666.
2 See Zehnder 1988 and W olff 2000, 60-62.
3 D-Bds: Mus.ms.40644.
4 D-LEm: III.8.4.
32
(died 1746) as well as French composers such as Marin Marais (1656-1728), Jean
Baptiste Lully (1632-1687), Nicolas Antoine Le Begue (1630/31-1702), Louis Marchand
(1669-1732).5 The north German repertoire, in particular the works by Bohm, Flor and
Reincken, suggest that Johann Christoph Bach received at least some of this music from
his younger brother, who sent or brought the sources home with him from Liineburg.6
The earliest surviving Suites believed to have been composed by J. S. Bach are
also found in these two manuscripts. They include the Ouverture. di Joh: Seb: Bach
(BWV 820), the Suite ex A cis. di Joh. Seb. Bach. (BWV 832) and the Prceludium et
Partita, del Tuono Terzo. di J S B. (BWV 833), which were probably composed during
the first decade of the 18th century.7 These works are followed several years later by the
first surviving group of mature Suites, known since Bach’s time as the ‘English' (BWV
816-811),8 which were probably composed between 1715 and 1720.9 A second set of six
5 See Schulze 1984, 30-56.
6 W olff 2000, 61-62.
7 Hans-Joachim Schulze has estimated that the Andreas Bach-Buch and Moller
Handschrift were copied between ca. 1705 and 1713 but the style of these works suggests
an earlier origin - perhaps even as early as Bach's student years in Liineburg (1700-
1702). Schulze 1984, 41-50.
8 A manuscript dated to the later 1740s which came into the possession of Johann
Christian Bach bears a remark on the cover which reads: “Fait pour les Anglois.” See
Durr 1981,26-29.
9 An early version of the first English Suite survives in a manuscript copied by the
Weimar organist and lexicographer, Johann Gottfried Walther (1684-1748), from a
Vorlage which was probably prepared while J. S. Bach lived in Weimar, that is before
November of 1717. See Durr 1981, 15-16. The earliest surviving manuscript of all six
English Suites was prepared by a Bach student formerly known in the scholarly literature
as Anonymous 5 and identified below as the Cothen Organist Bernhard Christian Kayser
(1705-1758). Kayser’s manuscript of the English Suites seems to have been prepared
33
Suites, known as the 'French' Suites (BWV 812-817) to distinguish them from the
English, and two further Suites (BWV 818 and 819) which seem to belong to this group
as well, were probably composed for the most part between 1720 and 1722 with revisions
extending until around 1725.10
It was not until 1726, however, that J. S. Bach undertook to publish any of his
Suites. On Monday, November 1, 1726 the following advertisement appeared in the
Leipziger Post-Zeitung:
Da der Hochfl. Anhalt-Cothensche Capell-Meister und Director Chori Musici Lipsiensis,

Herr Johann Sebastian Bach ein Opus Clavier Sviten zu ediren willens, auch bereits mit
der ersteren Partitce den Anfang gemachet hat, und solches nach und nach, bis das Opus
fertig, zu continuiren gesonnen; so wird solches denen Liebhabem des Claviers wissend
gemacht. Wobey denn zur Nachricht dienet, dab der Autor von diesem Wercke selbst
Verleger sey.11
Bach's decision to publish was most certainly inspired by his move to Leipzig three years
earlier. In addition to the wealth of the population noted above which offered a large
base of potential customers, Leipzig was by far the most important city in the early 18th
over an extended period stretching from as early as 1717 to around 1725. The sprawling
dates of Kayser’s setting these works to paper more likely reflects his own progress as a
student than they do Bach’s composition of the Suites, which was almost certainly
completed by 1720. This is intimated above all by Kayser's having titled his copy of the
first English Suite, probably copied between 1717 and 1720, as " lffi Svite avec Prelude
pour le Clavesin composee par J. S. Bach." That he labeled this the 'first' Suite suggests
that the others were by this point already in existence.
10 Bach copied the first four French Suites (BWV 812-815) and the first few bars of the
fifth (BWV 816) at the beginning of the first Clavierbiichlein he prepared on behalf of his
wife, Anna Magdalena, beginning sometime in 1722. It was not until some time later,
after moving to Leipzig in May of 1723, that he copied the rest of the fifth Suite. See
Dadelsen 1958, 99-100.
11 Dok II, Nr. 214.
34
century German book trade.12 Virtually every major publisher in Germany sent a
representative to the city's tri-annual trade fairs (Messen)13 which began on New Y ear’s
Day (Neujahrsmesse), on the third Sunday after Easter (Ostermesse or Jubilatemesse) and
on the Sunday after St. M ichael’s Day, September 29 (Michaelismesse) and lasted two to
three weeks each. Publishing, selling and buying books, periodicals and other printed
material constituted a major occupation for the citizens of Leipzig and it is only natural
that they would have encouraged their most famous local musician in his publishing
ambitions.
As noted in the advertisement quoted above, Bach himself served as publisher of
his Partitas which meant that he organized and paid for all aspects of production and
distribution himself. This of course required more involvement on his part and was more
expensive but it gave him greater flexibility and made for higher potential profits.14
Gregory Butler has demonstrated that Bach engaged the help of his student Balthasar
12 By 1711 Leipzig had decisively surpassed its erstwhile competitor, Frankfurt am Main.
See Beyer 1999. O f the 200 novels which appeared between 1710 and 1720, 35% were
published in Leipzig. The remainder were published in Nurnberg (14%) Koln (13%), in
Frankfurt am Main (10%), in Hamburg (9%), and in Augsburg (5%) and other cites
(15%). See Simons 2001, 33.
13 Lehmstedt 1989, 91-94.
14 As Jacob Adlung noted in 1758, dealing with professional publishers was seldom a
financially rewarding experience because "die Verleger nichts geben wollen vor die
Composition, und miissen entweder die Kiinstler umsonst arbeiten, oder lassen es gar
unterwegens zum Nachtheil des ganzen jubolischen Reichs." See Adlung 1758, 727.
Johann Gottfried Walther's experience was probably typical in this regard. He
complained in 1738 that through a "MiBverstand" he had received only 12 prints of his
chorale variations from his publisher, Johann Jakob Lotter, rather than the 30 he had
expected. See Dok III, Nr. 427.
35
Schmid (1705-1749) for the engraving of Partitas I and II.15 He enrolled in Leipzig
University on March 13, 1726 and must have come into contact with Bach fairly soon
thereafter given that the engraving of Partita I was finished by November of the same
year.16 The quality of Schmid's engraving on the Partitas is quite good because he had
already worked as an apprentice engraver in Niimberg before 1726.17 Schmid went on to
engrave many further works by Bach and others, becoming one of the most important
publishers of the first half of the 18th century after returning to Niimberg in the late
1720s.18 Partitas III, IV, V and VI were engraved by Johann Gotthilf Ziegler (1688-1747),
who had studied with Bach in Weimar and was serving as organist at the Ulrichskirche in
Halle at the time.19 He remained a close friend of the Bach family throughout his life and
Butler has noted that Ziegler's daughter was among C. P. E. Bach's circle of friends in
Hamburg.20 Ziegler's work on the third Partita is remarkably poor and almost certainly
15 Butler 1986.
16 See Butler 1986, 20.
17 Lee and Butler 2001, 529.
18 See Heussner 1963.
19 Connections between the Bach and Ziegler families were close from early on and
stretch into the late 18th century. J. S. Bach’s first wife, Maria Barbara, served as
Godmother to his daughter in 1718 (Dok II, Nr. 90). C. P. E. Bach owned a portrait of
Ziegler which he prized so much that he had his son, a talented visual artist, make a copy
of it many years later and Ziegler’s daughter and her husband were members of C. P. E.
Bach’s inner circle of friends in Hamburg. In addition to his work on the Partitas, Ziegler
would help the 16-year-old Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach to engrave and publish his first
piece, a Menuet with hand-crossing, which will be discussed below. See Butler, 1989,
11-13.
20 Butler 1986, 11.
36
represents his first attempt at engraving on this scale. Butler has demonstrated that he
was working through the engraving shops of Johann Benjamin Briihl and Johann
Gottfried Krugner in Leipzig.21 Bach, who prided himself on the attractive appearance of
his manuscripts was clearly willing to accept a lower standard of engraving quality in this
case - perhaps because he was in a hurry to bring his works to market and because he had
a very friendly relationship with Ziegler. Ziegler’s engraving improved steadily after the
third Partita but never attained truly professional standards.
The title page of the first Partita, which in all essentials resembles those of the
others, promises Galanterien to raise the spirits of Liebhaber:
Clavier Ubung
bestehend in
Praeludien, Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden, Giguen,
Menuetten, und andem Galanterien;
Denen Liebhabern zur Gemiiths Ergoetzung verfertiget
von
Johann Sebastian Bach
Hochfurstl. Anhalt-Cothnischen wiircklichen Capellmeistem und
Directore Chori Musici Lipsiensis.
Partita I
In Verlegung des Autoris.
1726.
The word Liebhaber did not refer specifically to amateur musicians but was a rather
broad term which simply meant 'interested party’ or 'enthusiast,1as revealed by other
advertisements of the period.22 Bach's usage of the phrase Denen Liebhabern zur
21 Butler 1986, 3-5.

22 One reads in the Leipziger Post-Zeitung of 1730, for example, of Liebhaber of
Brazilian tobacco (August 25), Liebhaber of Gastwirtschafften (March 21) Liebhaber of
Jesus (April 7) and Liebhaber of available real estate (January 27). That Liebhaber in a
musical context did not refer exclusively to amateur musicians is indicated by Bach's title
page for the Clavier -Ubung part 3 which is addressed to "Liebhabern, und besonders
37
Gemiiths-Ergoezung (for the enjoyment of [keyboard-music] enthusiasts) was not
particularly original, having appeared on numerous title pages since the mid 17th
century.23 As noted by Spitta already in 1880, Bach's decision to name his first published
collection Clavier-Ubung ("keyboard practice") was likely inspired by the Clavier-
Ubungen of his predecessor in Leipzig, Johann Kuhnau, which had first been published
denen Kennem von dergleichen Arbeit." By "Kenner von dergleichen Arbeit" Bach
certainly was referring to professional organists since the collection contains exclusively
chorale preludes and other organ repertoire. Thus for Bach Kenner formed a subset of
those who fell under the larger rubric Liebhaber.
23 See, for example, Esaias Reusner's Neue Lauten-Friichte Allen dieses Instruments
Liebhabern zur Ergotzlichkeit, Ubung und Nutzen, mit besonderem Fleisse auffgesetzet
und verleget (?, 1676), Christian Knorr von Rosenroth's Neuer Hilicon mit seinen Neun
Musen. Das ist: Geistliche Sitten-Lieder... Von einem Liebhaber Christlicher Ubungen...
Theils neu gemacht, theils iibersetzet, theils aus andern alten... geandert... Sampt einem
Anhang von etlichen geistlichen Gedichten desselben... Wie auch ein geistliches Lust-
Spiel, von der Vermahlung Christi m it der Seelen (Niimberg, 1684), Johann Speth's Ars
magna consoni et dissoni... Das ist: Organisch-Instrumentalischer Kunst-, Zier- und
Lust-Garten... Von so wol Welchen als Teutschen diser unserer Zeit hochberiihmten
Meistern verfertigt! wohlmeinend mitgetheilt/ und denen Practicirten zur Lust/ denen
zarten Ohren zur Ergotzlichkeit/ denen Liebhabern der Edlen Music zur Zeit-
Verkiirtzung/ denen Instructoribus zum Vortheil! denen Lernenden aber zur sehr
nutzlichen Ubung (Augsburg, 1693), the anonymous Musico-Instrumentalische Gemiiths-
Lust bestehend in sechs aufierlosenen Parthyen mit vier Geigen, sambt dem Cembalo ad
lybitum, worinnen unterschiedliche curieuse Overturen, Arien, Bureen, Chaconnen, und
andere dergleichen aufjetzo zu Tag in Schwung gehende neueste Art und Manier
eingerichter Stiick enthalten... verfafit von einem edlen Liebhaber diser Kunst (?, 1712),
Benedict Schultheiss' Muht und Geist ermuntrender Clavier-Lust Bestehend in Prceludien
/ Allemanden / Couranten / Sarrabanten / und Giquen / aufdem Instrument / Spinet /
oder Clavicymbel zu spielen. Allen Liebhabern des Claviers / zu sonderbarer Ergotzung /
aufgesetzt / in Kupffer geetzt / und ans Liecht gegeben... (Niimberg, 1679) and Johann
Krieger's Sechs Musicalische PARTIEN, bestehend in Allemanden, Courenten,
Sarabanden, Doublen und Giquen, nebst eingemischten Boureen, Minuetten und
Gavotten, alien Liebhabern des Claviers / aus einem Spinet oder Clavichordio zu spielen
/ nach einer arieusen Manier aufgesetzt (Niimberg, 1697).
38
in 1689 and 1692 and enjoyed reprints into the 1720s.24 The phrase "und andern
Galanterien" in the sentence "Clavier-Ubung bestehend in Pradudien, Allemanden,
Couranten, Sarabanden, Giguen, Menuetten, und andern Galanterien" is syntactically
ambiguous. It could imply that Bach considered all movements in the collection to be
Galanterien or that he intended this word to refer back only as far as Menuetten - that is,
Menuetten, und andern Galanterien were a natural class (Galanterien) which was
separate from the other movements. This second interpretation is suggested by the fact
that he set Menuetten, und andern Galanterien as a separate line of text and listed the
movements out of order of appearance - Giguen, which are invariably last in the Partitas
in which they appear, are listed before Menuetten, und andern Galanterien. This
separation of optional and traditional dances is also found, for example, on the title pages
of Johann Krieger's Sechs Musicalische Partien of 1697, which promises "Allemanden,
Courenten, Sarabanden, Doublen und Giquen, nebst eingemischten Boureen, Minuetten
und Gavotten," and Johann Peter Kellner's Certamen Musicum, published in installments
in Arnstadt between 1739 and 1749, which promises "Praludien, Fugen, Allemanden,
Couranten, Sarabanden, Giguen, wie auch Menuetten, u. d. g." However, Bach seems not
to have enjoyed expressing himself in words and the lack of originality on the rest of the
24 See Spitta 1873/80, II, 635-636. Kuhnau's first set was reprinted in 1692, 1695, 1710
and 1718 and the second set in 1695, 1696, 1703 and 1726. It should be mentioned that
the term Clavier-Ubung was not unique to Kuhnau. Johann Krieger published a work
entitled Anmuthige Clavier-Ubung, bestehend in unterschiedlichen Ricercarien,
Praeludien, Fugen, einer Giacona und einer aufdas Pedal gerichteten Toccata in
Niimberg in 1699. It also appears in the title of a collection of keyboard pieces by
Giovanni Castello published in 1722 in Vienna: Neue Clavier-Uebung, bestehend in
einer Sonata, Capriccio, Allemanda, Corrente, Sarabanda, Giga, Aria con XII variazioni
(Vienna, 1722). The preface of this work is reproduced in Mattheson 1722, 151-2. It
was definitely sold at the fairs in Leipzig as it is listed in Georgi 1742 as available for 10
Groschen. See Georgi 1742,1, 297.
39
title page suggests we should not analyze his use of the term Galanterien too closely.
Furthermore, whatever Bach's intended meaning, the ambiguity of the term in early 18lh
century Germany - as evidenced, for example, by the comments of Fischer and Muffat
cited above - meant that it was interpreted variously by those who came into contact with
his Partitas. A Hamburg announcement of 1774 for a print of the Partitas, for example,
advertises the work as containing "Prasludien und Galanterie-Stiicken"25 suggesting that
all the pieces in the collection were Galanterien except for the opening Preludes.26 More
significant than its exact meaning is the very appearance of the word Galanterien on
Bach's title page, which signaled unambiguously that this collection contained music for
recreation.
A second advertisement for the Partitas appeared in the Leipziger Post-Zeitung of
September 19, 1727, just two weeks before the start of the Michaelis trade fair:
DaB die 2 und 3te Partita der Bachischen Clavir-Ubung nunmehro auch fertig, solches
wird denen Liebhabern des Clavieres wissend gemacht, auch anbey benachrichtiget, daB
solche nicht allein bey dem Autore, sondem auch 1) bey Herr Petzolden, Konigl. Pohln.
und Churfl. SachB. Cammer-Organist in DreBden; 2) bey Herr Zieglern, Direct. Musices
und Organisten zu St. Ulrich in Halle; 3) bey Herr Bohmen, Organisten zu St. Johann in
Liineburg; 4) bey Herr Schwanebergen, Fiirstl. Braunschweigischen Cammer-Musico in
Wolffenbiittel; 5) bey Herr Fischem, Stadt- und Raths-Musico in Niimberg, und dann 6)
26 A similar distinction between Preludes and the remaining movements of the Suite is
implied by Ernst Gottlieb Baron in his treatise on the lute of 1727: "Hat nun ein Virtuose
oder Lautenist (welches ich vomehmlich vor diejenigen schreibe, welche sich
rechtschaffen auf dieses Instrumente befleissiget) die Ehre vor einen der vieles gehort
und ein Kenner ist, zu spielen, so muB er sich mit Prceludiis, Fantasitn und Fugen uc.
zuerst hervor thun, damit man sehen kan, daB er capable zu dencken ist, nach diesen kan
man andere artige Sachen vomehmen." See Baron 1727, 177-178.
40
bey Herr Rothen, Stadt- und Raths-Musico in Augspurg, zu bekommen seyn. Die
Continuation wird alle Messen geschehen.27
Bach's having decided to sell the second and third Partitas through a variety of agents in
other cities suggests that sales of the first Partita were encouraging. His agents represent
a diverse constellation of colleagues and teachers he had known for many years and
others whom he probably never met:
11 Christian Petzold (Dresden)
At the time he served as agent for Bach's second and third Partitas in 1727 Christian
Petzold (1677-1733) was organist at Dresden's Sophienkirche as well as
Kammercomponist and Organist at the Elector’s court. Upon his death on June 2, 1733
Wilhelm Friedemann Bach succeed him as Sophienkirche organist. Two Minuets by
Petzold are the second and third pieces which Anna Magdalena Bach copied into her
Clavierbiichlein of 1725, probably not much later than 1727.28 It is likely she was
inspired to copy these works by a visit from her husband’s Dresden colleague which
might also have served as an opportunity for Bach to ask Petzold to serve as agent for the
Partitas.29
27 Dok II, Nr. 224.
28 See D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach P 225, p. 44-45.
29 Schulze 1979, 57.
41
2) Johann Gotthilf Ziegler (Halle)
Johann Gotthilf Ziegler has already been discussed above in connection with his role as
engraver of Partitas III-VI.
3) Georg Bohm fLiineburg)
Georg Bohm (1661-1733) was appointed organist at the Johanniskirche in Liineburg in
1698 and retained this position until his death in 1733. It is extremely likely that J. S.
Bach studied with Bohm while attending the Michaelisschule in Liineburg from 1700-
1702.30 Liineburg does not seem to have been represented in the wide distribution
networks of professional publishers of the era such as Etienne Roger,31 Johann Ulrich
Haffner32 or Georg Philipp Telemann33 and it seems likely that J. S. Bach's decision to
have the 66-year old Bohm serve as agent was largely an altruistic gesture motivated by
30 In a letter of C. P. E. Bach wrote to Johann Forkel in 1775 he referred to Bohm as his

father’s Liineburgischen Lehrmeister, though he subsequently changed Lehrmeister to
read simply Organisten (Dok III, Nr. 803). W hatever their exact relationship, Georg
Bohm is represented by no less than ten separate keyboard works (primarily Suites) in the
Andreas Bach Buch and Moller Handschrift, which document J. S. Bach’s early musical
training. Jean-Claude Zehnder has argued that Bohm’s influence on Bach persisted
beyond the Liineburg years and seems to have been most intense around 1708. See
Z ehnder1988.
31 Roger sold his wares between 1706 and 1712 in Berlin, Cologne, Halle, Hamburg and
Leipzig. See Lesure 1969, 21.
32 At the time his business closed in 1759 Johann Ulrich Haffner (in Niimberg) had agents
in Augsburg, Aurich, Berlin, Breslau, Dresden, Frankfurt am Main, Gera, Gotha,
Hamburg, Heidelberg, Konigsberg, Landsberg, Leipzig, Lindau, Plauen, Regensburg,
StraBburg and Ulm. See Hoffmann-Erbrecht 1954, 126.
33 Telemann had a wide network of agents in cities including Berlin, Frankfurt am Main,
Jena, Hamburg, Hanover, Leipzig, Niimberg and Vienna. See Stephen Zohn
(forthcoming), 12-13.
42
his strong sense of appreciation for the support and instruction Bohm had offered many
years earlier.
4) Georg Heinrich Ludwig Schwanberg (WolfenbiitteD.
Georg Heinrich Ludwig Schwanberg's (1696-1774) role as agent for Bach is somewhat
mysterious. He studied with J. S. Bach beginning in the fall of 1727 before being
appointed chamber musician to the Prince of Braunschweig in 1728, although the
advertisement of September 19, 1727 already refers to Schwanberg as a Fiirstl.
Braunschweigischen Cammer-Musico and clearly implies that he would be in
Wolfenbiittel to sell the Partitas. On November 12, 1727, just three weeks after the
advertisement appeared, Schwanberg was in Leipzig writing to his father-in-law that he
had heard Bach play the organ - apparently a new experience - and had been so
impressed that he wished to stay for a while longer to learn Bach's 'incomparable' manner
of playing continuo.34 The Landestrauer which followed the death of the Electoress of
Saxony and Queen of Poland, Christiane Eberhardine, however, silenced all of the organs
of Saxony between September 7, 1727 and January 6, 1728.35 Schwanberg must have
heard Bach play sometime before September 7 which would mean that he was in Leipzig
at least two weeks before Bach’s advertisement appeared in the newspaper. He was still
(or again?) in Leipzig in October of 1728 when he served as Godfather to Regina
34 Dok II, Nr. 239.
35 Spitta 1873/80, II, 789.
43
Johanna Bach.36 It was probably not until at the end of 1728 that he officially took up
duties in the Wolfenbiittel Hofkapelle, as a document from 1752 notes that he had been in
the service of the prince for 24 years.37 One possible explanation for these discrepancies
is that Schwanberg came to know Bach after arriving in Leipzig several weeks or months
before September 7, 1727. Bach was at the time arranging to sell his second and third
Partitas on commission in other cities and asked Schwanberg whether he would serve as
agent. Schwanberg agreed as he was planning to return shortly to Wolfenbiittel, where he
had been promised a position as court chamber musician. Schwanberg, however,
frustrated by the Landestrauer which prevented him from hearing further performances
by his teacher, decided to remain in Leipzig in order to hone his keyboard skills arranging
for someone else to sell the Partitas in Wolfenbiittel.
51 Gabriel Fischer ('Niimberg')
Gabriel Fischer was baptized on October 3, 1684 in Niimberg where his father, Hans
W olf Fischer, worked as a Kunstgiefier (metal caster).38 He married the daughter of a
tailor, Anna Maria Hirsch (died 1770), on June 23, 1704 in Niirnberg’s Church of St.
Lorenz.39 Six months later Anna Maria Fischer gave birth to a son but neither he nor the
36 Dok II, Nr. 248.
37 In 1752 Schwanberg was described in documents relating to his acquisition of

citizenship in Braunschweig as having been a musician in the employment of the Prince
of Braunschweig for 24 years - that is, since 1728. See Schulze 1984, 98.
38 Pfarramt Numberg-St. Lorenz, KB 1684, p. 460.
39 Pfarramt Niirnberg-St. Lorenz, KB 1704, p. 201.
44
three brothers who followed between 1706 and 1720 survived infancy.40 In the marriage
and baptism records Gabriel Fischer is described before 1707 as Musicus alhier and from
1707 on as Stadt-Musicus. The Godparents of his children were not apparently
professional musicians but came rather from the ranks of the bourgeois artisans
(Eifienhandler, Schneider, Cafiirer im Weizenbrauamt, Med[icusJ). Fischer himself was
buried on May 13, 1749 as revealed by a notice in the church records which reads: “Der
Erbar und Kunstberiihmte Gabriel Fischer, altester Stadt-Musicus, bei St. Jacob.”41 How
Bach came in contact with Gabriel Fischer is unknown. It seems plausible that Balthasar
Schmid, who grew up in Niimberg, might have made the necessary arrangements.
6) Johann Michael Roth (Augsburg!42
Johann Michael Roth's birth and death dates are not known but he acquired citizenship in
Augsburg in June of 172343 and, as indicated in Bach’s advertisement, worked as a Stadt-
und Ratsmusico in that city. On January 15, 1724 he petitioned to be admitted to the
Orchester of the Hochzeitsamtes.44 The Johann Michael Roth who served as Bach's
Augsburg agent is almost certainly identical with the musician of the same name who
40 For their births see Kirchenbuch Niirnberg-St. Lorenz 1704 (p. 201); 1720 (p. 319) and
Pfarramt Niirnberg-St. Sebald 1706 (p. 165); 1707 (p. 214). For their deaths see Pfarramt
Niirnberg-St. Leonhard/Rochus, 1705 (p. 28); 1706 (p. 56); 1708 (p. 81); 1720 (p. 316).
41 Pfarramt Numberg-St. Lorenz Kirchenbuch 1749 (p. 110).
421 would like to thank Dr. Josef Mancal of the Stadtarchiv Augsburg for responding so
thoroughly to my inquiry regarding Johann Michael Roth.
43 Neumann 1969, 168.
44 Stadtarchiv Augsburg. Reichsstadt, Stadtpfeifer 1552-1803, fol. 398-400.
45
was active between 1730 and 1748 as a book dealer in Augsburg.45 Several
announcements in the Augsburger Intelligenzzettel of 1747 and 1748 illuminate his
activities as a dealer of unterschiedliche Musicalische Instrumenten46 including lutes,
harps and Steiner violins47 as well as printed and manuscript music. An advertisement of
1747, for example, reads:
bey dem Musico, Joh. Michael Roth sind [...] etlich tausend geschriebene Musicalische
Stiicke, darunter sich befinden: Die schonste Neueste und beste Concerten, Sinfonien,
und Parthien, von denen dermahligen besten Compositoribus und Virtuosen,
absonderlich, vor die Flute-Traversiere, wie auch vor Cembalo-Obligato die schonsten
Concerten etc etc. verkauflich, und a bon prix zu haben.48
Although Roth is not documented as a music dealer in the 1720s except through his role
in distributing Bach's Partitas one suspects that he was already working in this capacity in
the 1720s and that this is how Bach came into contact with him. The necessary
introductions might well have been made by Philipp David Krauter (1690-1741), an
Augsburg native who studied with Bach in Weimar on a scholarship from the
45 See Kiinast 1997, 1274 and Paisey 1988, 215.
46 Augsburger Intelligenzzettel Nr. 18 and 19 [alt], 1747. See Mancel 2002, 404.
47 Augsburger Intelligenzzettel Nr. 11 1748: "Zwey Steiner Violin, 2. schone Lauten, 2.

schone Harpffen, unterschiedliche Travers-Flauten [...], bey Joh. Michael Roth, Musico."
Augsburger Intelligenzzettel Nr. 39 and 41, 1748: "3. Violin, von Jacob Steiner in
Futteralen; Und ist sich dieserwegen bey Johann Michael Roth, Musico allhier, zu
erkundigen." See Mancel 2002, 404-405.
48 Augsburger Intelligenzzettel Nr. 18 [alt] and 19 [alt], 1747. An advertisement in the

Augsburger Intelligenzzettel Nr. 41, 1748 offers "Hunderterley Sinfonien, mit und ohne
Waldhom [...] Hunderterley Trav. Concerten [...] DreyBigerley Clavicin Concerten." See
Mancal 2002, 404.
46
Evangelischen Scholar chat between 1711 and 1713.49 Krauter subsequently returned to
Augsburg and worked as organist at the church of St. Anne until his death. Like Krauter,
Roth was a Protestant and the two were very probably acquainted.
Bach's promise that a new Partita would be released at each subsequent fair would
have brought the project to a close by October of 1728. Bach and his engravers could
not, however, hold to this quick pace. The fourth Partita, for which there was apparently
no advertisement, was issued at some point in 1728, as revealed by the date on its title
page. There followed a two-year delay. Finally, on Monday, May 1, 1730 - the day after
the start of Leipzig’s Ostermesse - a third advertisement appeared in the Leipziger Post-
Zeitung:
Da nunmehro die fiinffte Suite der Bachischen Clavier-Ubung fertig, und mit denen
annoch restirenden zweyen letztern kiinfftige Michaelis-Messe das gantze Wercklein zu
Ende kommen wird, als wird solches denen Liebhabern des Clavieres wissend gemacht.50
As in his second advertisement, Bach demonstrates here an impatience to finish the
project. He promises the remaining two Partitas at the Michaelis fair of 1730, revealing
that his Opus 1 was originally to have had seven Partitas - like the Clavier-Ubungen
published by his predecessor Johann Kuhnau in 1689 and 1692. Here too Bach found it
impossible to keep his promise. One presumes that the sixth Partita was released at the
Michaelis fair of 1730 and the seventh was never printed, if indeed it was ever
49 See Dok II, Nr. 58, Dok III, 649 (Nr. 53a, 53b and 58a) and Krautwurst 1986, 180-181.
50 Dok II, Nr. 276.
47
composed.51 The key scheme Bach establishes in his Partitas of expanding intervals (Bb-
c-a-D-G-e) suggests that the seventh Partita would have been either in F major or minor.
The first print run of the collected edition of Bach's Partitas - Opus 1 - was sold
on commission by Rosine Dorothee Boetius, wife of the engraver Johann Gottfried
Kriigner, as revealed by a line on the title page which reads "Leipzig, in Commission bey
Boetii Seel: hinderlassener Tochter, unter den Rath: hause."52 Rosine Dorothee Boetius
had since 1722 been the proprietor of her deceased father’s Boutique zum Contoir-
Kalender in the passageway (Durchgang) under the city hall (Rathaus), between the
stock exchange and the market place.53 In the Boetius shop one could purchase not only
copper engravings and printed music but also a wide variety of other products inclusing
Brazilian tobacco,54 theological treatises,55 guides to Leipzig’s coffeehouses,56 and
calenders at the new year.57
The reasons that Bach would have paid an agent to sell the first print run of his
Opus 1 within Leipzig have to this point remained mysterious. The explanation probably
51 That the sixth Partita was indeed released individually, despite the fact that no extant
exemplars survive, is revealed by the fact that the page numbers in the collected edition
(Opus 1) show signs of having been altered. See Jones 1978, 16-17.
52 Jones is responsible for having discovered that the 'Boetius' print run was the first. See
Jones 1978, 17-18.
53 Kinsky 1937, 26. Kriigner and Boetius were married in 1726.
54 Leipziger Post-Zeitung, Nouvellen, XXXIV. Woche, 25. August 1730, 134.
55 Leipziger Post-Zeitung, II. Stuck der X. Woche, 6. Marz 1731, 148.
56 Leipziger Post-Zeitung, Nouvellen, XLI. Woche, 10. Oktober 1732, 164.
57 Leipziger Post-Zeitung, I. Stuck, II. Woche, 5. Januar 1733, 8.
48
lies in the fact that, beginning in May 1731 the Thomasschule underwent a series of
renovations. Bach and his entire family were forced to move out and take up residence
for nearly a year in the nearby Hainstrasse, in apartments owned by Dr. Christoph
Donndorf.58 Bach probably feared that potential customers would have trouble finding
him in his interim apartment. For this reason he turned the work over to Boetius, whose
central location and popularity with fair visitors could not have hurt sales.
It may also be for this reason that Bach decided to abandon his seventh Partita, the
engraving of which had not been finished - and probably not even started - by the
Michaelis fair of 1730. This theory is supported by a remark in Johann Gottfried
W alther’s Musicalisches Lexicon in which he remarks that the sixth Partita had already
been released “wormit vermuthlich das Opus sich endiget.”59 The comment was
definitely penned before March 12, 1731 as Walther had sent the manuscript of his
Lexicon to his publisher before this date.60 While it is possible that W alther was simply
assuming that his distant cousin’s Opus 1 would have six Partitas because Bach’s earlier
collections of Suites - the cello Suites and violin Partitas and Sonatas as well as the
English and French Suites - all come in sets of six, it is more likely that W alther’s
information came directly from Bach himself, with whom he was in close contact.61
W alther’s own uncertainty can be sensed in his use of the word vermutlich, which
58 Dok II, Nr. 296.
59 Dok II, Nr. 323.
60 Beckmann und Schulze 1987, 132.
61 Kiister 1991.
49
suggests that at the time W alther last communicated with the Thomaskantor, Bach
himself had been uncertain as to whether he would publish a seventh Partita. Eventually,
however, he abandoned this seventh Partita. Bach did not know where he would be
living in the interim - even as late as April 18, 1731 there were two possibilities under
consideration62 - or for how long. The second and third advertisements suggest that he
was also desparate to be finished with this project, which was already several years
behind schedule. Faced with these circumstances and fearing that his move would
complicate sales, Bach abandoned his seventh Partita in favor of a collected edition of six
Partitas, commissioning Kriigner to make a new, collective title page and to introduce
continuous pagination. Bach most likely sold his Opus 1 from his home in the
Thomasschule before he moved into his interim apartment so that the reference to the
Boetius shop on the title page would have time to circulate in advance of his move.
The collected Opus 1 edition of the Partitas was reprinted at least twice.63 The
title pages of the second and third editions are identical to that of the first except that they
bear no reference to Boetius’ shop. Most probably Bach commissioned the second print
run around the time he moved back into the renovated Thomasschule building on April
24, 1732.64 It would not have been sensible, after all, to pay an agent a commission any
62 This was not clear even as late as April 18, 1731 - three days after the Oster fair began.
See Dok II, Nr. 291.
63 Jones 1978, 17-18.
64 Dok II, Nr. 308.
50
longer than was absolutely necessary.65 The third print run was probably commissioned
before November 19, 1736 when Bach was named Kceniglich Pohlnischen, und
Churfurstlich Scechs. Hoff-Compositeur.66 This official title does not appear on any print
of the Partitas and probably would have if there had been a substantial print run after this
date.
The price at which Bach sold the Partitas is conflictingly documented. The
Weimar organist and lexicographer, Johann Gottfried Walther (1684-1748), wrote in
1735 that he had purchased an individual print of one of Bach’s Partitas for 12
Groschen.67 The Allgemeines Europaisches Biicher-Lexicon published in 1742 by the
Leipzig book dealer, Theophili Georgi (1674-1762), includes an entry which suggests
that Bach’s collected Opus 1 edition cost 2 Taler (= 48 Groschen).68 Finally, Carl Philipp
Emanuel Bach wrote in 1774 that the price of his father’s Clavier-Ubung parts 1 and 3
together was “ehemahls” (presumably in thel730s and 40s) 6 Reichstaler(= 72
Groschen).69 Since J. S. Bach himself advertised the Clavier-Ubung part 3 for 3 Taler,70
65 Bach was still on good terms with Kriigner around 1736 when he recommended
Kriigner’s engraving work to Johann Gottfried Walther, who was looking for a publisher
for his chorale variations. A letter from Walther to Heinrich Bokemeyer dated January
26, 1736 reads in part: “Herm Kriignern in Leipzig sind sie vom Herm Capellm. Bachen
gezeiget v. recommendiret worden; er hat sich aber damit entschuldiget; weil er die
Kaufmannische Sachen in Verlag genommen, konne er diese nicht, in der verlangten
Zeit, fordern, die Kosten liefen auch zu hoch.” See Dok II, Nr. 377 and Nr. 381.
66 Dok II, Nr. 388.
67 Dok II, Nr. 361.
68 Dok II, Nr. 506.
51
both works were published by Bach himself and both works are almost exactly the same
length, it is not unrealistic to assume that Opus 1 indeed cost 3 Taler (= 72 Groschen).
Georgi’s listing of 2 Reichstaler is very likely an error, as his book is riddled with
inaccuracies of this type. His entry for Graupner’s Partien aufdas Clavier, for example,
suggests that the work was composed by “Grauppen” and published in Jena rather than
Darmstadt. M attheson’s wol-klingende Finger-Sprache (Hamburg, Part I: 1735, Part II:
1737), is said to cost 1 Taler (= 24 Groschen),71 although an advertisement in the
Niimberg Friedens- und Kriegs Currier of 1735 reveals that part I alone cost 2 Florins (=
32 Groschen).72 In his entry for Bach’s Opus 1 itself, Georgi erroneously suggests that the
work contains 37 Bogen (= 148 pages) rather than 37 Blatter (= 74 pages).73 Given that
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach’s and Johann Gottfried W alther’s comments correspond so
perfectly (6 times the price of W alther’s individual print, 12 Groschen, is 3 Reichstaler)
and the fact that both were much closer to J. S. Bach than was Georgi, we can safely
assume that the price of Bach’s Opus 1 during the composer’s lifetime was indeed 3
Taler. At this price Bach's Partitas were on the expensive end of the published
collections of Suites available at the time, as indicated by the following chart:
70 Dok II, Nr. 456. See also Dok II, Nr. 482.
71 Georgi 1742, III, 38.
72 Heussner 1968, 335.
73 Dok II, Nr. 506.
52
Table 3
Prices of Printed Collections of Suites
Composer Collection Date Price Source o f Price Data

J. Kuhnau Clavier-Ubung part 1 1689 21 Groschen Georgi 1742, II, 3687
J. Kuhnau Clavier-Ubung part 2 1692 21 Groschen Georgi 1742, II, 368
J. C. F. Fischer M usicalisches Blumen-Biischlein... 1696 20 Groschen Leopold Catalog75
J. Krieger Sechs musikalische Partien... 1697 8 Groschen Georgi 1742, II, 365
J. Buttstedt M usicalische Clavier-Kunst... 1713 16 Groschen Georgi 1 7 4 2 ,1, 229
J. Mattheson Harmonisches Denkmahl... 1714 72 Groschen Georgi 1742, III, 38
C. Graupner Partien au fd a s Clavier.. 1718 64 Groschen Georgi 1742, II, 170
G. Castello Neue Clavir-Ubung 1722 10 Groschen Georgi 1 7 4 2 ,1, 297
J. S. Bach [Individual Partitas I-VI] 1726-31 12 Groschen Dok II, Nr. 361
J. S. Bach Clavir-Ubung... Opus 1 1731 72 Groschen Dok III, Nr. 792
Gottlieb Muffat Componimenti M usicali >1727 72 Groschen Heussner 1968, 337
C. M. Schneider Clavier-Ubung [individual Suites] 1729-42 8 Groschen Adlung 1758,721
C. Hurlebusch Com positioni Musicali -1 7 3 5 84 Groschen Dok II, Nr. 363
Bach's having asked such a relatively high price is particularly striking as the engraving
quality is much lower than that of comparably priced collections such as those of
Mattheson, Graupner, Muffat, Schneider and Hurlebusch. Indeed, with the exception of
Krieger's Sechs musikalische Partien of 1697 which is typeset Bach's Partitas are by far
the most poorly engraved on this list. The high price these works commanded can be
interpreted as a testament to his fame.
74 As noted above Georgi is not an entirely reliable source but his prices in many cases
are the only evidence we have.
75 This 'catalog' is in fact an advertisement which appears at the back of surviving

exemplars of Conrad Michael Schneider's Clavier-Ubung series (such as that in US-CAh:
Isham 1487.20) which lists other prints available from the same publisher (Johann
Christian Leopold). The works on the list suggest that it was printed around 1742.
53
Chapter 3
Composition and Style of the Partitas
Genesis of the Partitas
The composition of the Partitas remains largely opaque to historians. No sketches
or drafts of these works are known to survive. The composition of these works is,
however, somewhat illuminated by early versions of various movements and by Bach's
having borrowed material from other composers. I examine the creation of each Partita
individually below.
Origins of Partita I
Richard Douglas Jones has argued that a manuscript from the late 18th century which
belonged to Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach presents early versions of the two Minuets from
Partita I.1 The source seems to transmit the contents of a book prepared in the 1740s in
the Bach household, probably by Johann Christian or Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach.
The versions of the two Minuets presented here do indeed seem to very slightly predate
the print but unfortunately they allow for no deductions regarding the composition of the
first Partita as a whole.
The origins of Partita I are, however, significantly illuminated by a manuscript of
the music of the closing Giga now in the Pretlack collection at the Staatsbibliothek zu
1 See Jones 1978, 35 and 72-73 (Source H17)
54
Berlin.2 The Giga, here labeled Allegro del Sigr. Bach, appears amidst several other
works in B-flat major in a manuscript prepared in 1742 on behalf of Luise Charlotte
Grafin von Epstein (1727-1753) in Darmstadt.3 It is one of 39 manuscripts prepared
between 1742 and 1745 on behalf of Luise Charlotte and her younger sister Friederika
Sophie (1730-1770) the daughters of Emst-Ludwig von Hessen-Darmstadt (1678-1739)
from his second marriage, to Louise Sophie Grafin von Spiegel (1690-1751).4 The scribe
designated himself in every case "Me." but his identity remains a mystery.
In compiling his critical report for the NBA edition of the Clavier-Ubung part 1
Richard Douglas Jones unfortunately dismissed this manuscript as "eine zum Teil
korrumpierte Abschrift der Gigue BWV 825/7 nach dem Originaldruck."5 In fact the
version of the Giga from Partita I presented here is neither corrupt nor can it be traced to
the original print. Rather it presents an early version of the piece. It is in cut time rather
than common time and the second reprise includes two substantial patches of music
which differ markedly from the printed version (m. 25-28 and 33-40), as can be seen in
the following illustration which reproduces the entire early version along with measures
of the printed text (as taken from Richard Jones’s NBA edition of 1976) where the two
texts diverge:
2 D-Bds: N. Mus.ms.BP 714, folia 8v-9r. (Source H71).
3 The title page of this manuscript reads as follows: “B Tonus I von I Unterschiedlichen
Auctoribus I auf das I CLAVECIN. I vor I L. C. C. Z. E. II Anno [1742].”
4 Jaeneke 1973, 274.
5 See Jones 1978, 47 and Jones 1988, 55.
55
Example 1: Allegro del Sigl. Bach, m. 1-24
(Example 1 continued...)
m. 24-27
m. 28-31
J0L
m. 31-34
m .34-37(38)
m. 37(38)-39(40)
m. 40(41 )-47(48)
I ..
fcfc*—-=--------— -,--- ■
— ------------------- „------- —
i_»—— *--
58
The revisions in the Allegro/Giga of Partita I can for the most part be attributed to
an effort to increase the overall drama and flow of the piece. In the early version Bach
has the keyboardist playing a melody with his left hand in a very high register (m. 25-27)
and suddenly leaping to the low register (m. 27, beat 4) for a cadence on the relative
minor (G minor). In the final printed version of the piece he exchanges certain pitches of
the left hand melody and right hand accompaniment to allow the left hand gradually to
descend through the right hand’s territory, creating a greater sense of inertia leading to
the cadence on the G minor downbeat of measure 28, which itself is transposed an octave
lower to strengthen the sense of arrival. Bach’s revision to bars 32-40 was similarly
undertaken to clarify the overall profile of the piece by prolonging the tension building to
the conclusion of the movement. In the early version of the work this section is
permeated by a number of harmonic resolutions (on B-flat major in m. 34 and on D
dominant 7 in m. 36 and 38). In the later, printed version of the piece Bach has pruned
all of these intermittent arrivals and replaced them with fully diminished 7th chords in
order to maintain the tension throughout this passage. He also adds a measure (m. 37) to
smooth and prolong the sequence, thereby building-up additional tension for the final
drive to cadence beginning in measure 41.
The purposes for which Bach composed the Allegro in the first place remain a
matter of speculation. The character of this work and its apparently independent status
suggest that it was conceived as a stand-alone, virtuoso piece. When exactly Bach might
have composed this Allegro remains equally mysterious.6 That this work circulated to
59
some degree in advance of its inclusion in the first Partita suggests that its composition
and publication were separated by some stretch of time.7 A possible clue is offered by the
connection to the Darmstadt court. It is plausible that this piece found its way to
Darmstadt in the luggage of Johann Samuel Endler (1694-1762), who moved there from
Leipzig in late 1722 or early 1723 to serve under Kapellmeister Christoph Graupner as
alto singer at the court of Landgraf Ernst Ludwig of Hessen-Darmstadt.8 Although Bach
himself did not arrive in Leipzig until May of 1723, it is extremely likely that he was
acquainted with Endler, who directed Leipzig’s "Fasch" Collegium Musicum in 1721 and
1722, while Bach lived in Cothen (1717-1723). In any case, while living in Bach’s
immediate vicinity for five or six years Endler certainly would have had access to reliable
sources of the Cothen Kapellmeister's keyboard music. That this work was used for
teaching the Princesses Luise Charlotte and Frederika Sophia also suggests a connection
to Endler. Beginning in 1736 he was responsible for offering keyboard lessons to other
two daughters of Landgraf Ernst Ludwig of Hessen-Darmstadt, Caroline Luise (1723-
1783) and her sister Luise Auguste Magdalena (1725-1742).9 Frederike Sophie and Luise
6 Siegbert Rampe's assertion (Rampe 1999b, 771) that the Giga of Partita I includes a
'surprisingly exact' quote from Jean-Philippe Rameau’s Les Cyclopes, printed in his
Pieces de Clavecin (Paris, 1724) and therefore composed in or after 1724 is without
foundation.
7 The Allegro may well have circulated to a greater extent than is revealed by the extant
sources. Amateurs would not have hesitated to throw out their manuscripts of the early
version upon gaining access to the much improved version transmitted in the print.
8 Endler’s contract in Darmstadt began on January 1, 1723. Noack 1967, 209.
9 “Seit Anfang des Jahres 1736 gibt ein ‘Kammer-Secretarius’ Johann Samuel Endler den
beiden fiirstlichen Enkelinnen taglich jeweils eine Stunde Musikunterricht, und dies, wie
es in einer Eingabe der Hofmeisterin einmal heiBt, ‘nicht ohne Nutzen.’ Karoline Luise
60
Charlotte are known to have enjoyed dance lessons with the court dance master, a certain
Monsieur de M oll,10 suggesting that their music instructor would also have come from the
court kapella. Unfortunately no information regarding their music lessons has been
preserved. The scribe of this manuscript, "Me.", was probably not their teacher but rather
a professional copyist working on behalf of their teacher.11 If indeed it was Endler who
brought the source for the Allegro del Sigr. Bach to Darmstadt, the work itself may have
been in existence already by late 1722.12
With its theatrical hand-crossing and complete lack of imitative counterpoint this
movement bears virtually no resemblance to Bach’s other works entitled Giga or Gigue.
The discovery of the early, Darmstadt version of the piece confirms that it was not
erntete spater bewundernden Beifall fur ihre Fertigkeit auf dem Clavecin.” (Lauts 1980,
13.) Unfortunately Jan Lauts died without citing his sources any more specifically and the
documents to which he refers have yet to be identified.
10 That Luise Charlotte and Friederika Sophie had dance lessons with the court dance
master, de M oll, is revealed by a letter of November 12, 1746 from their mother to the
ruling Landgraf, her stepson Ludwig VIII. See Darmstadt Staatsarchiv D4 379/6.
11 That “M e.” was a professional scribe is suggested by his frequently having left
attributions blank (e. g. “Allegro del. S ig r.__________ ”) - an indication that he himself
was responsible only for copying, not for selecting the repertoire the Duchesses of
Epstein were to study. See for example D-Bds: N.Mus.BP 704 (folio 7v) and BP 706
(folio 7v).
12 There are of course other possible explanations. I have focused on Endler because of
his alleged role in teaching the princesses. Another candidate for bringing the source for
this copy to Darmstadt is Johann Gottfried Vogler, who was definitely acquainted with
Bach as early as December of 1718, as evidenced by his having performed in Cothen
(Dok II, 93). After a period of extensive travel following his dishonorable dismissal from
the post of organist at Leipzig’s Neue Kirche in 1720, Vogler was hired on April 18, 1725
as violinist at the court in Darmstadt. Given that he seems to have been back in the
vicinity of Leipzig in February of 1725, Vogler may have acquired a manuscript of
Bach’s Allegro/Giga immediately before moving to Darmstadt. Although Vogler himself
had left the Darmstadt court long before 1742 it is possible that the early version of the
Giga may be traced to his acquaintance with Bach. See Glockner 1990, 77-82.
61
originally composed to be a Suite movement. This is revealed most clearly by the title in
this early source - Allegro. In no documented case did Bach ever give a Suite movement
an Italian tempo designation in place of a creative genre name or dance title. That this
work was not originally composed as a Giga is also suggested by the revisions. Unlike
most of his contemporaries, Bach was obsessive about composing his dance movements
with an even number of measures in both reprises - even those with irregular phrasing
such as Allemandes, Courantes and Gigues.13 In transforming his Allegro into a Giga it
was only natural that he add a measure (m. 37) so that the second reprise would contain a
total of 48 rather than 47 measures.
That this piece was not simply inserted into an already extant Partita is suggested
by motivic relationships shared among the movements. Indeed, it seems that the
Allegro/Giga formed the musical basis for the rest of the Partita. The melodic contour in
each of the first four measures of the Allemande is an elaboration of that presented in the
same bars of the Giga. The first phrases of the Allemande, Corrente and Giga share a
common harmonic progression. The Giga seems to have given rise to the pedal tone
motif which unites the entire Partita.14 Finally, the mechanical character in the rhythm of
13 All of Bach's Gigas/Gigues and Courantes/Correntes have an even number of measures

in both reprises. The only Allemandes which do not are those of the Partita for flute
(BWV 1013) and the independent keyboard Suite in E-flat major (BWV 819).
14 See, for example, the Prariudium (m. 1-2), the Allemande (m. 1-4, 12-14, 27-29, 36-
37), the Corrente (m. 50-53), the Sarabande (1-4) and Menuet 2 (m. 1-8). The Giga itself
implies a harmonic pedal in its first four bars and what might be called a motivic pedal
with its mechanically isolated left hand patterns.
62
the Allemande, Corrente and Menuet 1 in which a constant stream of notes of like value
must certainly have been derived from the unusual character of the Giga:
Example 2: Influence of Giga Motives on other Movements of Partita I
2: A llem an de
3. Corrente
-tit? • . mw * _■ » Pzz=
• 4 ■ MM
" r Ii'fm
’■rnmilum m *
; mm
: mm
rm | im m m m i ir. j j j
5. M enu et 1
./■■I ■~777~. m -3 -r
■w.~~
It was no doubt the popularity of this Allegro with acquaintances, friends, colleagues and
perhaps students - as evidenced by its circulation as an independent work - which
encouraged Bach to make it the cornerstone of his first Partita and, by extension, of the
entire collection.15
15 There were likely many more manuscripts of this early version of the work before 1726
but with the release of the print in that year and the consequent broad circulation of a
much improved version of the piece one suspects the older manuscript versions were
quickly discarded.
63
Origins of Partita II
J. S. Bach often began his compositional process by playing from the music of
others, as noted in December of 1741 by a 25-year-old literature student in Leipzig,
Theodor Leberecht Pitschel (1716-1743):
You know, the famous man who has the greatest praise in our town in music, and the
greatest admiration of connoisseurs, does not get into condition, as the expression goes,
to delight others with the mingling of his tones until he has played something from the
printed or written page, and has [thus] set his powers of imagination in motion... The able
man whom I have mentioned usually has to play something from the page that is inferior
to his own ideas. And yet his superior ideas are the consequences of those inferior ones.16
Warwick Cole has recently argued that the musical material of Bach's second Partita was
inspired by the C minor Partie of his predecessor, Johann Kuhnau's second Clavier-
Ubung publication (Leipzig, 1692).17 The case for Bach's borrowing from Kuhnau is,
however, extremely weak because the similarities Cole observes are not unique to these
two works but are found in many other Suites of the period.18
A more convincing case can be made for Bach's having borrowed the subject of
the Allemande in his second Partita from Georg Friedrich Handel's (1685-1759)
16 Dok II, 499: "Sie wissen, der beriihmte Mann, welcher in unserer Stadt das groBte Lob
der Musik, und die Bewunderung der Kenner hat, kommt, wie man saget, nicht eher in
den Stand, durch die Vermischung seiner Tone andere in Entziickung zu setzen, als bis er
etwas vom Blatte gespielt, und seine Einbildungskraft in Bewegung gesetzt h a t... [Bach]
hat ordentlich etwas schlechteres vom Blatte zu spielen, als seine eigenen Einfalle sind.
Und dennoch sind diese seine besseren Einfalle folgen jener schlechteren." Translation
from NBR, 333-334.
17 Cole 2000.
18 Cole seems himself at one point to acknowledge this weakness in his argument. See
Cole 2000, 104-109.
64
Allemande in D minor (HWV 428/3), from the third in his series of Suites de Pieces Pour
le Clavecin... Premier Volume (London, 1720). Both works open with the same winding
sequence of eight 16th notes:
Example 3. Handel. Suite III: Allemande (m. 1-2)
Example 4. Bach. Partita II: Allemande (m. 1-2)
jjj if r = =
tSSSSSSSB
At the start of the second reprise, the first six notes of the two Allemandes once again
parallel one another - this time in a slightly altered form - a further indication that Bach's
borrowing was a matter of deliberation rather than coincidence:
Example 5. Handel. Suite III: Allemande (m. 12-13)
65
Bach's borrowing from Handel confirms that the second Partita was written after
1720. More interestingly, however, it suggests that Handel's collection was foremost in
Bach's mind while he was composing the Partitas. Handel's Suites de Pieces pour le
Clavecin was an international bestseller, eventually undergoing reprints not only in
London (Christopher Smith/Richard Meares, John Walsh, and W right & Co.) but also in
Paris (Le Clerc le cadet/Le Clerc/Boivin) and in Amsterdam (Le Cene).19 Given the
popularity of this collection Bach's borrowing of Handel's subject may be interpreted as
an invitation to comparison. Handel's treatment is the more conventional of the two in
that it begins with a two-measure phrase and continues with a series of phrases of uneven
and unpredictable length. Bach's Allemande by contrast is constructed from beginning to
end in two and four-measure units, as can be seen in the chart below:
Table 4
Phrasing of Allemandes by Handel and Bach
(lesser phrase boundary = hyphen; greater phrase boundary = comma)
Handel: 2-3, 1-3-2 :ll: 2-l-2(l/2), 3-3-2-2(l/2)

Bach: 2-2-2,2-2-2-4:11: 2-4, 4-2-4
The even phrasing of Bach's Allemande was highly unusual for the period. Indeed, the
unpredictability of phrase structure was considered an important component of the
Allemande's charm. As F. W. Marpurg noted in 1762, composers were expected to write
19 The dates of these reprint editions are unfortunately far from clear but they were all
undertaken in the first half of the 18th century.
66
Allemandes with an uneven number of measures and, by implication, uneven phrasing.20
Bach's Allemande is also highly unusual for the fact that it opens with a canon at the
octave, displaying a degree of contrapuntal learning well beyond the conventions of the
genre. Indeed it represents a perfect example of the technique described in Friedrich
Wilhelm Marpurg's (1718-1795) 1752 preface to Bach's Kunst der Fuge (BWV 1080) in
which describes how composers might make use of contrapuntal skills gained from the
study of fugue in more galant works:
[T]he composer who has made himself particularly acquainted with fugues and
counterpoints - however barbaric this last word may sound to the tender ears of our time
- will let something of their flavor inform all his other works, however galant they are
meant to be...21
That Bach was inspired by an Allemande to compose another Allemande
confirms that this piece was not conceived in another context (as was the Giga of Partita
I) and only later received the title Allemande. There can be no doubt that Bach's break
with convention was in this case deliberate rather than an afterthought. He sought to
produce a work which would astonish his contemporaries with its learned dimension and
originality, especially those who were in a position to recognize the piece which had set
his Einbildungskraft in Bewegung.
20 Marpurg 1763, 22: "Es ist nicht allezeit ein Fehler, wenn eine Clausel aus einer
ungeraden Anzahl von Tacten, z. B. aus sieben, oder neun u. besteht. Die
Verschiedenheit des rhytmischen Numerus kann dazu Gelegenheit geben."
21 Dok III, Nr. 648: "[Djerjenige musikalischer Setzer, der sich mit Fugen und
Contrapuncten besonders bekandt gemachet, so barbarisch dieses letzte Wort auch den
zartlichen Ohren unserer itzigen Zeit klinget, in alle seine iibrige Ausarbeitungen, so
galant sie auch heiBen sollen, etwas darnach schmeckendes einflieBen laBen..."
Translation from NBR, 377.
67
Bach went on to use the musical material generated by Handel's theme in the
Allemande as the basis for the entire second Partita - much as I have argued was the case
with the Giga in Partita I. Echoes of Handel's theme, and especially its countersubject as
developed in the Allemande (m. 3-4), can be found in the Sinfonia and the Sarabande.
Example 8. Bach. Partita II: Allemande (7-8)
gM.
Example 9. Bach. Partita II: Sinfonia (m. 8-9)

s andante
1— ; — I"
Example 10. Bach. Partita II: Sarabande (m. 1-6)

T T S> . T J i
STmsm — r" ""I____ i

4 ~ m |
As can be seen above, Bach treats Handel's subject canonically at the octave at the outset
of the Allemande. The same technique which is also hinted at in the Rondeaux's theme:
Example 11. Bach. Partita II: Rondeaux (m. 1-6)
68
That Bach would make the theme of Handel's Allemande the basis of his second Partita
seems more a gesture of respect than of competition. His having taken the material in an
entirely new direction, demonstrating its potential for motivic elaboration and
contrapuntal treatment suggests that he hoped to impress and delight his famous
colleague as well as other informed listeners and players.
Origins of Partita III
Early versions of the third and sixth Partitas are preserved in the hand of the
composer at the beginning of a Clavierbiichlein Bach prepared for his wife, Anna
Magdalena, in late 1725.22 Thus Partita III was in existence at least two years before its
publication in 1727. In revising the work for publication Bach changed two of the titles
in order to make more colorful and less traditional: the title of the opening movement is
changed from Prelude to Fantasia and that of the fifth movement from Menuet to
Burlesca. He also made a number of small revisions to the musical text, adding rhythmic
zest to several passages he felt were stagnant (e. g. Prelude/Fantasia m. 101-103;
Corrente m. 2; Menuet/Burlesca m. 7, 24; Gigue m. 50). He also made improvements to
the overall pacing and profile of various movements. For example, where he had earlier
been satisfied with a meandering 16th note accompaniment in the Corrente (m. 33-36)
22 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 225. For dating of this manuscript see Schulze 1984, 110-119.
69
Bach now felt it necessary to add a dominant pedal every four 16th notes, thereby
clarifying this passagework, allowing the large structure of the piece to come to the
fore.23 He smoothed the overall sense of proportion in several places by slightly altering
the rhythmic profile in the Menuet/Burlesca (m. 40) and adding measures to draw out the
tension and avoid abrupt endings in the Fantasia (m. 118-119). In general these revisions
represent simplifications - changes he hoped would improve the overall effect of the
piece. They are for the most part confined to the beginnings and ends of movements,
which are most crucial to the general impression left by a piece of music.
The most substantial revision Bach made to the third Partita was the addition of
the Scherzo movement, which does not appear in Anna Magdalena's Clavierbiichlein of
1725. One presumes that it was composed between 1725 and 1727. Joshua Rifkin has
convincingly argued that the addition of this movement was inspired by Conrad Friedrich
Hurlebusch (1696-1765),24 who seems to have made a specialty of composing Scherzi
and whose visit to the Bach household (ca. 1726?) was described by Carl Philipp
Emanuel Bach many years later.25 It is probable that between 1725 and 1727 Bach came
to know Hurlebusch's Suite in D major, which contains a Scherzo.26 In comparing these
23 Similarly, the contour of the bass line in the Prelude/Fantasia of Partita III is revised
(m. 85-88) to more clearly define the phrasing.
24 Rifkin (forthcoming), 21-33. I appreciate very much Joshua Rifkin's having sent me a
copy of this article in advance of its publication.
25 Dok III, 927.
26 This Suite was published in Hurlebusch's Compositioni Musicali per il Cembalo

(Hamburg, ca. 1735), which Bach himself sold in Leipzig. There is some indication that
it circulated years prior to its publication. Bach's student, Christian Gottlob MeiBner
(1707-1760), made manuscript copies of early versions of two movements from this
70
two Scherzi by Bach and Hurlebusch Rifkin has noted that both are in 2/4 and cultivate a
similar 'snap' figure (16th-16th-8th) on strong beats.27 O f the two works, Bach's is the more
varied in texture, owing to the recurring set of thick chords in the left hand. Although
both pieces are essentially in four-bar phrases throughout, Bach introduces a degree of
rhythmic complexity foreign to the Scherzi of his contemporary by beginning not on the
downbeat but rather on the half-bar. The resulting ambiguity is disorienting as one's
expectations are thwarted at the close of each reprise when the final 'downbeat' arrives
one beat later than anticipated. The playfulness of this rhythmic inspiration and the
calculated vulgarity of the closely-spaced chords in the left hand suggest that Bach took
meaning of the title Scherzo to heart.
As in the case of the Giga with hand-crossing, Bach seems here to have leapt at
the opportunity to compose in a genre he perceived to be new and fashionable. In so
doing he could not resist offering an example which is more sophisticated in every way,
which had the side effect of making his work substantially more difficult to play than that
of his colleague.
Origins of Partita IV
As demonstrated above, the Giga of Partita I was not originally conceived as dance
movement. The same is true of the Corrente of Partita VI, which appears first as a
movement entitled Cembalo Solo in Bach's Violin Sonata in G major (BWV 1019a) and
collection - certainly before his departure from Leipzig in 1730/31 and probably between
1726 and 1728. See Schulze 1984, 107 and Rifkin (forthcoming), 29.
27 Rifkin (forthcoming), 29.
71
will be discussed in detail below. Both movements stand out for the extraordinary degree
to which they contrast with other movements to which Bach gave the titles Giga/Gigue
and Corrente/Courante. His efforts to make them fit the context of the Suite are for the
most part cosmetic - the change in title, the alteration of the upbeat in the Corrente, the
addition of a measure to the Giga.
In surveying the remainder of Bach’s Opus 1 for movements which clash with the
conventions of their genres, one is struck by the extraordinary character of the Allemande
to the fourth Partita. Even considering the fact that the Allemandes of Bach’s Partitas are
all daring and original by the standards of the time, this movement represents something
special. Its long, singing melody in the right hand over a slow, walking bass line in 8th
notes and the extraordinary degree to which internal material is literally repeated have no
precedent in the Bach’s other Allemandes.28 One suspects strongly that the work was
conceived not as an Allemande but rather as something else - perhaps the slow
movement of a Sonata or Concerto. The 8th note upbeats at the opening of the piece and
the beginning of the second reprise may well have been added as an afterthought in an
effort to make this work cosmetically fit the Allemande genre.29
There is also some evidence to suggest that, as in the case of Giga discussed
above, the musical content of the Allemande served as the basis for the rest of the Partita.
The opening phrase of the Allemande, with its conspicuous turn to the flatted seventh (m.
28 There is a further peculiarity which may be of relevance. Jones notes that although the
range of Bach’s second, third and fifth Partitas extends to d’” , the fourth Partita makes
no use of this pitch and it is indeed specifically avoided in the Allemande (compare m. 13
and 32). See Jones 1988, 81.
29 One could easily imagine adding similar upbeats to, for example, the Largo of Bach’s
Concerto in F minor (BWV 1056).
72
1-4), has much in common with the initial gestures of the Sarabande (m. 1-2) and Gigue
(m. 1-2). Further, the extended arpeggio which plays such a prominent transitional role
in the Allemande (m. 18, 40-41) is echoed in the same position (at arrivals on the
supertonic or submediant) in the Courante (m. 25-26), the Sarabande (m. 20-21), the
Menuet (m. 20) and the Gigue (m. 33-37). In both instances the Allemande presents the
more expansive treatment of these motives suggesting that the later movements were
conceived in such a way that they would serve as echoes rather than the other way
around.
Origins of Partita V
Nothing can be surmised regarding the genesis of the fifth Partita beyond the fact that it
was composed and engraved prior to May of 1730.
Origins of Partita VI
Ian Payne has recently presented a plausible case that the fugal theme in the
opening Toccata of the sixth Partita found its inspiration in a Sonata in E minor for five-
part string ensemble by Georg Philipp Telemann (TWV 44:5).30 Unfortunately
Telemann's work is undated and Bach's connection to it undocumented and the possibility
that Telemann was borrowing from Bach cannot be positively ruled out. In any case it is
extremely unlikely that Bach would have expected players or listeners to recognize the
30 Payne 1999, 48-51.
73
connection to Telemann's Sonata as they might have the connections to Handel's Suite in
the second Partita.
More solid information as to the genesis of the sixth Partita comes from the
sources. The earliest known traces of Partita VI are to be found in a manuscript of Bach's
Violin Sonata in G major (BWV 1019a) which was copied by the composer and his
nephew, Johann Heinrich Bach (1707-1783), in the second half of 1725.31 The Violin
Sonata incorporates two movements which would eventually find their way into the sixth
Partita: the Corrente (here titled Cembalo solo) and the Tempo di Gavotta (here titled
Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato). The sequence of movements in the Sonata is as
follows:
Table 5
Movements of Bach's Violin Sonata (BWV 1019a)
Mvt. Key Heading

1 G Vivace
2 e Largo
3 e Cembalo solo [Corrente]
4 b~^g Adagio
5 g Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato [Tempo di Gavotta]
6 G {Vivace) [complete repetition of the first movement]
Hans Eppstein has argued that the Corrente and the Tempo di Gavotta were first
conceived within the context of the Sonata.32 Eppstein's reasoning stems from the fact
that both bear a thematic resemblance to the Largo movement of the violin Sonata. This
is indeed true, but the Sonata itself is of an unusually heterogeneous character. Both the
31 D-Bds: Mus.ms.St. 162. See Schulze 1984, 110-119.
32 Eppstein 1964, 227 and Jones 1988, 66-67.
74
Cembalo Solo and Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato show signs of having been
incorporated from elsewhere. In no other violin Sonata did Bach include a movement for
keyboard solo as he did here with the Cembalo solo. In contrast to all of the other
movements in the collection the keyboard part of the Violino solo, e Basso
Vaccompagnato is notated as an unfigured continuo line rather than as a detailed
accompaniment for both hands.33 The impression that the Sonata was pasted together
from disparate sources rather than conceived as an integrated whole is strengthened by
evidence from the manuscript itself. Johann Heinrich Bach, after fluently copying the
first five violin Sonatas, copied only the Vivace and Largo of this work. He then turned
the manuscript over to his uncle, J. S. Bach, who copied the Cembalo solo, Adagio and
Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato. The most plausible explanation is that Johann
Heinrich did not have access to the music of the final three movements of the Sonata. J.
S. Bach required recourse to an additional manuscript in order to complete the copy.
The hypothesis that the Cembalo Solo and Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato
were incorporated from elsewhere is also suggested by the musical heterogeneity of the
violin Sonata. The opening Vivace, which, aside from the Cembalo Solo, represents the
Sonata’s most substantial movement, bears virtually no resemblance in theme or
character to the Cembalo solo or to the Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato. The brief
Largo, which is rightly identified by Eppstein as related motivically to the Cembalo solo
and the Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato may well have been composed to serve as
a transition between the Vivace and the Cembalo solo. The Adagio which follows seems
33 The violin solo part is unfortunately missing.
75
too to have been composed as a bridge as it moves from B minor to a half cadence in G
minor. It is followed by the Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato and finally Bach’s
unusual instruction for the performers to repeat the first movement. This command
seems to have been a final attempt on Bach's part to unite a work which in terms of key
area, scoring and musical content is far more heterogeneous than any other in the
collection.
Ultimately Bach was dissatisfied with these efforts. He removed the Cembalo
Solo and Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato and a short time later (perhaps just a few
days or weeks) incorporated them into an early version of the sixth Partita transmitted in
Anna Magdalena’s Clavierbiichlein of 1725. There can be no question that the Corrente
[Cembalo Solo] and Tempo di Gavotta [Violino solo, e Basso Vaccompagnato] fit the
musical environment of the sixth Partita far more comfortably than they did that of the
Violin Sonata. Jones has proposed on the basis of the tight motivic integration among the
movements of Partita VI that these two closely related movements formed its basis, as I
have argued above in the cases of Partitas I and II, although he cites no specific evidence
for this claim.34 The harmonic progression in the first four measures of the Sarabande is
indeed quite similar to that of the Corrente and Tempo di Gavotta, and the Sarabande in
turn is intimately related to the opening movement. The quick rising arpeggios at the
beginning of the first movement may have been inspired by the similar runs at the end of
each reprise of the Corrente and the falling first inversion chords which serve as an
important theme in the opening of the opening movement (m. 11-12, 21-24) and
34 Jones 1988, 67.

76
returning in the fugal portion (m. 76-77) may conceivably be traced to the rising bass line
of the Corrente (m. 1-2) and Tempo di Gavotta (m. 1). Although the case here is not as
strong as that for Partitas I and II there seems to be some truth to Jones's claim.
In revising the sixth Partita for print between 1725 and 1730 Bach gave the
opening movement a flashier title: the Prelude is here renamed Toccata.35 Bach also
revised the musical text of the Toccata, adding several measures (m. 74-75, 107) to
prolong dramatic tension and improve the overall pacing of the work and clarifying the
rhythm of the recurring primary motive (m. 1-2, 5-6, 13-14, 17-18, 89, 93-94, 97-98, 101-
102).36 As in the third Partita, he decided to add a movement - in this case the Air, which
fits between the Corrente and Sarabande. The musical relationship between the Air and
the Corrente are quite close37 revealing that at least this Air, if not the rest of the Partita,
was inspired by the Corrente.
35 The change of movement title from Allemande in Anna Magdalena Bach's

Clavierbiichlein to Allemanda in the print was most probably the work of the engravers
and is of no importance.
36 See Joseph 1978.
37 Compare, for example, the offbeats in both the Corrente and Air and the similar
opening chord progressions.
77
The Partitas in Comparison with Bach's Earlier Keyboard Suites
The variety of musical styles in Bach's first publication has been recognized since
the 18th century. In 1788 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach asserted that his father's Partitas
were far more varied in character than were those of Handel:
Clavier pieces by Bach and Handel appeared in print at the same time, in the twenties of
this century. But what a difference! In Handel's Suites there is considerable imitation of
the French manner of the period, and there is not much variety; in the parts of Bach's
Clavier-Ubung all is originality and variety.38
Variety seems to have been foremost in J. S. Bach's mind while he was compiling his
first publication. This is suggested most mundanely by his having altered several of the
titles in preparation for publication: the Prelude and Menuet of Partita III were renamed
Fantasia and Burlesca in the print and the Prelude of Partita VI was renamed Toccata.
All of the opening movements were given distinctive titles, at least some of which
(Fantasia, Praeambulum) seem to be somewhat forced attempts to present varied headings
rather than attempts to describe the musical contents of these works. Clearly he felt
variety to be a strong selling point and wished to highlight this feature of his collection.
The musical variety Bach sought to emphasize with the superficial variety of his
titles is genuine and nowhere more apparent than in his incorporation into the Partitas of
movements composed outside the context of the Suite genre - the Giga of Partita I, the
38 Dok III, Nr. 927: "Claviersachen von Bachen und Handeln erschienen zu gleicher Zeit
in den zwanziger Jahren dieses Sekulums im Druck. Aber welche Verschiedenheit! In
Handels Sviten ist viel Copie nach der damaligen Art der Franzosen, und nicht viel
Verschiedenheit; in Bachs Theilen der Clavieriibung ist alles Original und verschieden."
Translation from NBR, 403.
78
Corrente and Tempo di Gavotta of Partita VI and perhaps also the Allemande of Partita
IV. Although the compositional genesis of the English and French Suites is more murky
than is that of the Partitas making it impossible to determine if movements were
composed in other contexts, none of the movements in these earlier Suites diverge in
form or style from their genre types nearly to the same extent as do the Giga of Partita I
or the Corrente of Partita VI. It seems that all of the Allemandes of the English and
French Suites were composed to be Allemandes, Courantes to be Courantes, etc. It seems
that in composing the Partitas Bach adopted a more liberal approach towards the Suite
genre itself. This trend is further manifest in the inclusion of pieces which diverge from
the typical sequence of dance titles and forms found in Bach's earlier Suites, for example
the Scherzo (Partita III), Tempo di Minuetta (Partita V) and Tempo di Gavotta (Partita
VI).
In contrast to his earlier Suites Bach also made a deliberate effort to give each
Partita a unique constellation of movement types. As Andreas Jacob has noted, only the
first Partita conforms to traditional expectations of the Suite genre with its paired Minuets
between Sarabande and Giga.39 Even within a given movement category Bach sought to
achieve the greatest possible diversity. Unlike the Preludes of his English Suites, which
are for the most part quite similar in their imitative textures and concerto-based forms,40
no two opening movements of the Partitas are alike in form or character. The two
Courantes (in Partitas II and IV) are distinguished by their divergent division of the
39 Jacob 1997, 97.
40 Compare, for example, the Preludes of the English Suites II, III, IV and V. The French
Suites have no Preludes.
79
measure (in 2 or in 3). Each of the Sarabandes is unique in profile, scoring and approach
to the conventions of the genre. Bach differentiated the closing movements by giving
each a unique time signature (4/4, 2/4, 12/8, 9/16, 6/8 and 4/2).
In addition to trying to impress potential buyers of his first publication with the
bells-and-whistles variety of the collection Bach sought to delight them with pieces
featuring the theatrical technique of hand-crossing. The use of this technique, featured in
the Giga of Partita I and the Tempo di Minuetta of Partita V was unprecedented in J. S.
Bach's keyboard music. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and his brother W ilhelm Friedemann
both wrote a large number of such works around the time his father was publishing the
Partitas41 as did various of Bach's students in Leipzig, including Heinrich Nikolaus
Gerber.42 Emanuel Bach described hand-crossing in his autobiography as “eine naturliche
und damals [ca. 1731] sehr eingerissene Hexerey.”43 His choice of the word witchcraft
("Hexerey") to describe this technique highlights its spectacular quality and also the
uncanny fascination it held for audience members. Hand-crossing allowed listeners (even
those positioned relatively far away) to associate gestures with sounds in a way that is not
typical of keyboard music. Music and dance are blurred here to an extent that clearly
delighted 18th century players and listeners. The fact that J. S. Bach not only chose to
41 For examples by C. P. E. Bach see his Menuet pour le Clavessin par C. P. E. B. (Wq
111) published in Leipzig in 1731 as well as his unpublished Menuet (BR CPEB JUV 7/8
and 7/9) and Tempo di Minuetto (BR CPEB JUV 7/5, JUV 8/3). For examples by
Wilhelm Friedemann Bach see the Presto (also known as Tempo di Menuet) (Fk 24/4) as
well as a Tempo di Minuetto (Fk 25/2) and a Bourlesca (Fk 26).
42 See Wollny 2003, 142.
43 See C. P. E. Bach's autobiography in Burney 1772/73, III, 203.
80
include a work such as the Giga but also to make it the musical cornerstone of his first
Partita - and by extension, of the entire collection - is another sign that he hoped to
attract the attentions of a broad range of listeners and players, including the relatively
unsophisticated.
O f all the dance movements featured in the Partitas, Bach seems to have viewed
the Allemande genre as that with the greatest potential for exploration. The first
Allemande with its fast, arpeggiated melody in the right hand over an initially spare but
increasingly active bass line in the left has no precedent in Bach's earlier Allemandes nor
in those of his contemporaries, and was clearly inspired by the Giga which closes Partita
I, as argued above. The Allemande of Partita II is also unprecedented with its canonic
opening and strict, 2-part texture and 2 or 4-bar phrasing from beginning to end. The
third, fifth and sixth Allemandes are the most similar to one another in style but are
equally original in their strict avoidance of the constant stream of 16th notes flowing
between the various voices which typified Bach's earlier Allemandes. Instead they
cultivate original textures of dotted rhythms and 32nd note runs and triplets. As has been
discussed above, the Allemande of Partita IV is so unusual with its long aria-like melody
over bass line that it seems not to have been originally composed to be an Allemande.
The divergence of the Allemandes of the Partitas from tradition was recognized already
in 1762 by F. W. Marpurg who noted that there were many pieces with the title
'Allemande' which did not in fact share the genre's characteristic features:
81
Man wird verschiedne Tonstiicke finden, besonders aus den neuem Zeiten, woriiber das
Wort Allemande steht, und in welchen nichts weniger als der Geist einer Allemande zu
erkennen ist 44
Marpurg went on to identify several collections presenting Allemandes which he viewed
as true models of the genre in its classical form:
Aechte Muster von der Allemanden-Schreibart findet man hauptsachlich in den VI. franz.
Suiten vom seel. Herrn Capellm. Bach; in den VIII. Handelischen Suiten, die durch den
Druck bekannt geworden sind; und in den Werken Joh. Casp. Ferd. Fischers.45
The fact that he would cite printed Allemandes by Handel46 and J. C. F. Fischer47 and
then cite Bach’s unpublished French Suites rather than the printed Partitas is certainly
suspicious. By his omission Marpurg quite clearly identifies the Allemandes of the
Partitas as atypical of their genre. At least some of these pieces belonged for him to the
category of newer pieces which had only the title and spirit of the Allemande but few of
its characteristic features.
Despite the extreme variety of movement types, styles and textures in Bach's
Partitas there are a number of innovations here which many of the movements in the
collection have in common. While it is typical of the lighter, variable dances in a Suite
(Minuets, Bourrees, Gavottes, etc.) to be constructed from beginning to end in 2 and 4-
bar units, it is less typical of the standard dances as a whole and highly unusual for
44 Dok III, 715.
45D okIII, 715.
46 Suites de Pieces pour le Clavecin vol. I (London, 1720) and vol. II (London, 1733).
47 Presumably Marpurg was referring here to Fischer's printed Allemandes in his Pieces
de Clavessin (Schlackenwerth, 1696) and Musicalischer Parnassus (Augsburg, 1737).
82
Preludes and Allemandes in particular. The opening movements of the Partitas are far
more even in their phrase construction than are those of the English Suites or Cello
Suites. The Andante section of the Sinfonia which opens Partita II (m. 8-29), the
Fantasia of Partita III, the Praeambulum of Partita V and the non-fugal sections of the
Toccata which opens Partita VI (m. 1-26; 89-108) are all built overwhelmingly or entirely
in 2 and 4-measure units. The same is broadly true of the Allemandes in Bach's first
publication. While the Allemande of Partita II is exceptionally strict in this regard those
of the other Partitas are also far more consistently phrased in 2 and 4-bar units than are
those of Bach's previous Suites.
The variety of texture in Bach's Partitas is extraordinary and has been discussed
with regard to the variable dances above but the more profound innovation is the clarity
of texture Bach sought in composing the music for his first publication. In several
striking instances Bach very deliberately restricted himself to two active voices where his
earlier Suites would lead one to expect more. The opening Fantasia of Partita III, for
example, is essentially a two-part Invention, a type of piece which has no precedent for
serving as a Prelude in Bach's earlier Suite Preludes. More strikingly still, with the
exception of the opening Grave (m. 1-7) the Sinfonia of Partita II is composed entirely in
two voices. Even in the fast 3/4 section (m. 30-91) which presents a three-voiced fugue
Bach restricts himself to two independent lines. The most arresting and consistent use of
spare, two-voice textures, however, is to be found in the Sarabandes. In the Sarabandes
of the English and French Suites, Bach presents a relatively clear three or four-voice
texture in which melody (generally in the soprano line except at phrase boundaries) and
harmony (in the lower two or three voices) are clearly distinguished from one another.
83
The ornamented version of the Sarabande from the third English Suite can serve as a
typical example:
84
Example 12: Sarabande of English Suite III avec les agrements:
l-
n
dL?
■vy rV
■♦**. ■ ^
...
....... r* .......- - - -
p . ' ...........m - .........
...-- -
v i p r ! * !
i Km,
85
I?
\nklrirzd
The texture for long stretches of the Sarabandes of Partitas I, II and IV is considerably
reduced, often consisting of just two voices as can be seen in the examples below:
Example 13: Sarabande of Partita I, m. 9-12
86
Example 14: Sarabande of Partita II, m. 1-12
4, Sarabande
S 35S fS |
.
_ f- *►.« m
U lL llllW"**
fm
f= r^- 0 . . g ....»fEg£
.a t = f _ . 4 —— » «■ — I— —
I-.... ¥— ■—.urn t=-
mm,
.Z 3 -,
k tr ~*E»i ..
1 ■”
*}: k T *
'■.JL9 ■* - -
87
Example 15: Sarabande of Partita IV, m. 1-12
5. S arab an d e
~FVl£
Bach was able to reduce to textures in these Sarabandes and elsewhere in the Partitas
because the melodies themselves are designed to fill out the harmony. To a much greater
extent than in the Sarabandes of English and French Suites, the 16 and 32 notes in
those of the Partitas are not simply ornamental but rather harmonically load-bearing. The
melody lines in these works cannot be reduced to eighth notes (as can that of the third
English Suite cited above) without a significant loss in harmonic support. Bach's
restriction of the texture to two voices seems to be an extension of the practice he
developed in composing his works for solo violin and cello. In these pieces harmonic
88
support is implied as much as it is actually made acoustically manifest. His mastery of
this technique allowed Bach to streamline the texture of his Partitas, giving the music an
uncluttered and modern profile.
In composing his Partitas Bach clearly sought lucidity not only in texture but also
in form. The Preludes of the Partitas are generally shorter and more sectionalized than
are those of the English Suites. Only in the fugal sections of the opening movements of
Partitas IV and VI does one find lengthy blocks of dense counterpoint which require the
listener to parse the music without the aid of clear signposts. The Prseludium of Partita I
and the Fantasia of Partita III are both quite brief by the standards of the Preludes to the
English Suites. Both focus on the development of a single, memorable theme from
beginning to end. The Praeambulum of Partita V is unified by recurrences of the four-
measure theme which opened the work. The opening movement of Partita II, like that of
Partita VI, is clearly divided into clearly differentiated sections which seem conceived in
part to avoid taxing the listener's attention.
Another way in which Bach sought to clarify the form of his Partita movements
for listeners was through the use of recurring themes. The literal recapitulation of
thematic material other than at the outset of the second reprise is a true rarity in the dance
movements Bach composed prior to the Partitas. The only precedent is to be found in the
highly unusual Allemande of the first English Suite in which the opening theme returns at
the end of both the first and second reprises.48 While still not commonplace, the near
exact repetition of thematic material is far more prevalent in the Partitas, as can be seen
in the following chart:
48 See English Suite I, m. 1-4, 13-16, 29-32.
89
Table 6
Repetition of Thematic Material in the Partitas
Partita Movement Measures

IV Allemande 13-17, 32-36
IV Allemande 19-24, 50-56
IV Sarabande 1-2, 29-30
VI Corrente 1-4, 79-82
VI Corrente 29-38, 90-99
By returning to large swaths of prominent thematic material in these movements Bach
offers the listener signposts by which he might orient himself. It bears mentioning that
four of the five examples cited here occur in movements which were definitely or
probably composed initially for other contexts.
In the Allemandes and Courantes/Correntes of his Partitas Bach clearly made a
special effort to highlight structural boundaries to aid the listener. It was common
practice in the late 17th and early 18th centuries to end each reprise of an Allemande or
Courante with a standard cadential gesture of one or two bars' length. In the Partitas,
however, Bach goes beyond the standard practice, throwing boundaries into particularly
high relief by expanding the closing gestures and setting them off from their surroundings
with a preceding cadence or distinctive change in texture. The following table presents a
list of such gestures:
90
Table 7
Expanded Closing Gestures in the Allemandes and Courantes/Correntes
Partita Movement Measures Distinctive Characteristics o f Closing Gesture

I Allemande 17-18, 37-38 Rhythmic gesture (xyyx, zyyz), chromaticism
I Corrente 24-28, 56-60 Complete 4-bar phrase recalls opening
II Allemande 13-16, 29-32 Complete 4-bar phrase w/sequential rhythm
II Courante 8-12, 20-24 Long closing theme (same rhythm, melody)
III Allemande 7 -8 ,1 5 -1 6 Distinctive, sequential rhythmic motive
III Corrente 18-20, 50-56 Long closing gesture set off by cadence
IV Allemande 19-24, 50-56 Long closing phrase
IV Courante 11-16, 35-40 Long closing phrase w/sequential rhythm
V Allemande 9-12, 25-28 Long closing phrase
V Corrente 24-32, 57-64 Long closing m elody w/motive in sequence
VI Allemande 7-8, 19-20 Distinctive rising gesture in final bars
VI Corrente 47-54, 108-116 Unusually long and virtuosic closing gesture
These tendencies are foreshadowed to some extent in the English49 and particularly in the
French Suites50 but the extent to which Bach employs this technique in the Allemandes
and Courantes/Correntes of his Partitas is without precedent.
The innovations of the Partitas discussed above seem to have been directed at
least in part at making his style accessible to a broad public including (but of course not
limited to) relatively inexperienced listeners. His goal of extreme variety in the
collection, highlighted for uninitiated bookstore browsers by flashy movement titles, his
having included two pieces featuring hand-crossing seem clearly directed at impressing
the masses, his unusual tendency in the Preludes and Allemandes towards even phrasing
in 2 and 4-bar units, his striving for economy of texture in the Sarabandes and elsewhere
49 Only in the cases of the Allemandes of the first English Suite (m. 1-2, 13-14 and 29-30)
and the sixth English Suite (m. 10-12, 22-24) are the endings marked by an easily
identifyable theme or change in texture.
50 See, for example, French Suites II (Courante, m. 18-24, 48-54), IV (Courante, m. 14-
lb, 34-36), V (Allemande, m. 10-12, 22-24 and Courante, m. 12-16, 28-32) and VI
(Courante, m. 12-16, 28-32). The closing gesture in the Allemande of Partita I (m. 17-18,
37-38) seems to have been modeled on that of the fifth French Suite (m. 11-12, 34-35).
91
and his efforts at lucidity of form in the Allemandes and Courantes/Correntes by
throwing structural boundaries into high relief seem too to be directed at making this
music accessible to a wide range of listeners. All of these innovations make the music
easier to follow than that of his earlier Suites and thus easier to enjoy. Indeed, these
innovations essentially amount to the application of characteristics of the optional dances
(Minuets, Bourrees, Gavottes) to the traditional movements of the Suite (Preludes,
Allemandes, Courantes, Sarabandes, Gigues). The even phrasing, spare textures and
clear forms which constitute the major innovations in the traditional movements of the
Partitas are indeed the hallmarks of these optional dances.
Despite the apparent concessions to rather unsophisticated listeners Bach did not
abandon his penchant for strict counterpoint in conceiving his first publication.
Particularly at the beginnings and ends of each Partita - the Preludes which open Partitas
II, IV and VI and Gigues which end Partitas III, IV, V and VI - he presented formidable
fugues which are as demanding for the listener as are any that Bach composed before or
after. Further, in general the Partitas present repertoire which is extraordinarily
challenging to perform.51 While Bach clearly sought to make this music accessible to as
wide an audience of listeners as possible through the innovations described above, he
seems at no point to have attempted to flatter the player by presenting music which
seemed difficult but was in fact easy to perform, as did so many of his contemporaries.
Bach's demands on the player's left hand in his keyboard music are, as a rule,
extraordinary and there are few signs that he sought to diminish these difficulties for his
51 The only possible exceptions to this rule are the Minuets and Sarabande of Partita I and
perhaps the Sarabande of Partita II.
92
first publication. Indeed, the Partitas are generally speaking considerably more difficult
to perform than are, for example, the French Suites. Even the most crowd-pleasing
pieces in the collection such as the Giga of Partita I, is by no means a sinecure to execute
at the keyboard much as it might have been easy and entertaining for a broad range of
listeners to follow. Mastery of the quick leaps across the keyboard Bach demands of the
player in this movement require a formidable dexterity which can come from no source
other than long hours in the practice room.
The challenges of these works made high quality performances rare, a fact which
is highlighted by Forkel's comment on Bach's Opus 1 that "[w]er einige Stiicke daraus
recht gut vortragen lernte, konnte sein Gluck in der Welt damit machen."52 W hoever was
able to meet the tremendous challenge of playing this music could count on a large
audience. The identity of the audience is the subject of the remainder of this study.
52 Forkel 1802, 50.
93
Chapter 4
Printed Copies of the Partitas: Owners before 1775
The following four chapters offers accounts of all the individuals who can be
connected with Bach's Partitas before ca. 1775. I provide extensive biographical
information only for those figures who are unknown to Bach scholarship or whose lives
are of particular interest for the discussion at hand. I begin with the individuals who are
documented as owning prints.
Exemplars Owned by Members of the Bach Family
Johann Sebastian Bach's Personal Print (Handexemplar)
On August 9, 1774 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach wrote a letter from Hamburg to a younger
acquaintance, the 25-year old university organist in Gottingen, Johann Nikolaus Forkel
(1749-1818), offering to sell him Johann Sebastian Bach’s personal prints
(Handexemplare) of the Clavier-Ubung parts 1 and 3:
Yon meines seeligen Vaters Kupfersachen sind keine Exemplare mehr zu haben; auch die
Platten sind nicht mehr da. Was ich davon habe, nehmlich den ersten u. 3tten Theil, will
ich Ihnen gebunden zur beliebigen Abschrift, oder gar kauflich uberlaBen. Die Materie
von beyden kostete ehemahls 6 rthl., wenn Sie sie nicht abschreiben wollen, so will ich
beyde Theile Ihnen, sauber gebunden, u. sehr gut conservirt, fur 8 rthl. uberlaBen. Ich
habe des seeligen Mannes manuscript u. damit will ich mich behelfen, u. sie haben das
Exemplar, was er ehedem selbst fur sich hatte. Doch miiBen Sie Sich gar nicht genieren.1
1Dok III, Nr. 792.
94
The sale of both prints to Forkel went through just two weeks later, as revealed by a
second letter of August 26, 1774 which reads in part: “Hierbey erhalten Sie die 2 Bucher,
fur deren richtige Bezahlung ich Ihnen bestens danke.”2 J. S. Bach’s Handexemplar of
Opus 1 remained in Forkel’s possession for the rest of his life, as indicated by an entry in
his estate catalog of 1819 which describes a print of the Clavier-Ubung part 1 as: “des
Verfassers eigenes Exemplar.”3
It would have made little sense for C. P. E. Bach to offer Forkel his father's
personal print if there were nothing unusual about it whatsoever. One presumes that
Bach's personal print of the Partitas had annotations or corrections of some type. Jones
has pointed out that there are in fact five original prints of Bach's Opus 1 in existence
which present a large number of corrections which appear to be systematically related:4
Table 8
Surviving Prints with Systematically Related Corrections
Jones 1978 Library___________________________________ Call Number

Source G23 London, British Library Hirsch III, 37
Source G24 Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin DM S 224 676 (1) Rara
Source G25 Washington D. C., Library o f Congress LM3. 3B2 CASE
Source G26 Urbana, Illinois University Library: xq. 786. 41/B 12 cu
Source G28 Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek S. H. J. S. Bach 56
The corrections in these prints are suspiciously similar. G23 and G25 both contain the
same detailed and not strictly logical or necessary corrections, for example, a mordent
2 Dok III, Nr. 793.
3 Forkel 1819, 136 and 200 (Entry #60).
4 Jones 1978, 28-32. See also Jones 1988, 30-36 and Jones 1997.
95
changed into a turn,5 a superfluous upward stem added to a quarter note that already had a
downward stem,6 grace notes added in the same places.7 Similarly, the persons who
corrected G23 and G24 both decided to correct the same mordent to a turn8 and erase
another mordent in order to move it back one note.9 G25, G26 and G28 have in common
a substantial reworking of the second reprise in the Gigue from Bach’s third Partita. In
all cases the inversion of the theme is rendered more literally but each of the three
corrected prints differs substantially in the realization.10 Despite the striking similarities
each of the prints has a number of unique variants, revealing that none of the revisions
were copied from those of another.
Jones has argued, following Walter Emery, that the print which is now in the
British Library (G23) is the Handexemplar described in C. P. E. Bach's letter and sold to
Forkel.11 His argument stems from the observations that the many handwritten
corrections in this print are conceivably in Bach’s hand, that none appear to be
5 Partita II: Courante, m. 8. See Jones 1978, 58.
6 Partita II: Courante, m. 6. See Jones 1978, 58.
7 Partita III: Fantasia, m. 101,102. See Jones 1978, 59.
8 Partita III: Corrente, m. 55. See Jones 1978, 60.
9 Partita III: Corrente, m. 54. See Jones 1978, 60.
10 See W olff 1979, Jones 1988, 262-263 and Jones 1997, 16-17.
11 See Emery 1952, Jones 1978, 28-32, Jones 1988, 30-36 and Jones 1997.
96
misreadings and that they appear throughout the book, unlike those in the other corrected
prints, which are confined primarily to isolated movements in the first three Partitas.12
Serious doubt is cast upon Jones' theory, however, by our knowledge of the
provenance of G23. The earliest known owner of this print is the Leipzig Thomaskantor,
Johann Gottfried Schicht (1753-1823). As noted above, Bach’s Handexemplar belonged
to Forkel until 1819. It is conceivable that Schicht purchased the print from Forkel’s
estate in that year. However, complications with Jones' theory arise when one remembers
that Emanuel Bach described his father’s Handexemplar as “sauber gebunden” - that is,
professionally bound. Indeed, the quality of the binding led C. P. E. Bach to raise his
asking price by an entire Taler (33% of the price of the print itself).13 A sense of the type
of binding we should expect to find on Bach’s Handexemplar of Opus 1 is gained by an
examination of Bach’s Handexemplar of the Clavier-Ubung part 3, which C. P. E. Bach
sold Forkel at the same time and has been identified by Christoph W olff as that which is
now in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig.14 It is professionally bound in solid,
multiple-ply pasteboard with a leather spine and comers. The watermark in the original
fly leaves reveals that the binding was undertaken in Berlin.15 G23, by contrast, is
12 Jones 1988,30-33.
13 “Die Materie von beyden kostete ehemahls 6 rthl., wenn Sie sie nicht abschreiben
wollen, so will ich beyde Theile Ihnen, sauber gebunden, u. sehr gut conservirt, fur 8 rthl.
uberlaBen.” (see Dok III, Nr. 792). Clearly one Taler was for the binding of the Clavier-
Ubung part 1 and one Taler was for the binding of the Clavier-Ubung part 3 together with
the Schiilber Chorales.
14D-LEm: PM 1403. See Wolff 1977, 120-129.
15 Wolff 1977, 125.
97
wrapped in a crude, single-ply, blue cardboard envelope which bears Schicht’s
handwriting and signature, revealing that it dates from before his death in 1823.16 It is
inconceivable that this shoddy covering is that which C. P. E. Bach described as “sauber
gebunden” and for which he demanded an extra Taler of Forkel. It is equally
inconceivable that Forkel, in the 45 years he owned the print, or Schicht, in the four years
he would theoretically have owned the print, would have had Bach’s Handexemplar of
Opus 1 rebound, replacing the solid 18th century pasteboard-and-leather binding with
such a slipshod cardboard envelope.17 Far more likely that Schicht acquired G23 (along
with several other prints of the Partitas, including sources B7 and E4) from other sources
during his many years working in Leipzig as music director and organist at the Neue
Kirche, Kapellmeister at the Gewandhaus, and Kantor at the Thomaskirche (1776-1823).
A more plausible candidate for Bach's Handexemplar is source G28, now in
Vienna. A complete manuscript copy of this print, formerly in the possession of Carl Bar
in Rapperswil (Switzerland) and now in unknown private possession, was made in the
late 18th or early 19th century by an unknown scribe working on behalf of J. N. Forkel,
who himself corrected the manuscript in several places and wrote the title page.18 The
16 The paper of the fly leaves in G23 presents a watermark (anchor above an “R”) that to
this point has not successfully be attached to a particular time or place. My thanks to
Andrea Lothe of the Deutsches Buch - und Schriftmuseum der Deutschen Biicherei
Leipzig, Papierhistorische Sammlungen for thoroughly investigating this matter on my
behalf.
17That the music historian Forkel himself would have undertaken such a dramatic
downgrade in binding quality on one of the most prized items in his library is equally
inconceivable.
18 See Jones 1978,46 (Source H68). Forkel not only copied the complete title page but
added corrections on pages 25, 53, 66, 67, 72, 73-74. That this manuscript was copied
98
copy does not appear in Forkel's estate catalog suggesting that he did not own it but
rather prepared it (with the help of the primary scribe) on behalf of a third party.19Most
likely this manuscript represents a copy of a print which was in Forkel's collection. Since
Forkel is not known to have owned more than one print of the Partitas it follows that G28
is very likely Bach's Handexemplar.20
The corrections in G28 are confined to the second reprise of the Gigue of Partita
III in which the theme is systematically inverted. The version transmitted in G28 is
similar but not identical to those in G25 and G26 which themselves differ from one
another.21 The likelihood that G28 represents Bach's Handexemplar lends a degree of
credibility to the corrections in all three sources and makes it all the more plausible that
G25 and G26 originally belonged to persons who were in contact with Bach, probably
students. It seems that Bach was uncomfortable in later years with the fact that he had
directly from G28 is suggested not only by the identical variations in the Gigue of Partita
III but also by a small detail in the same movement, namely the displacement of a sharp
sign in measure 44.
19 This has been proposed for a copy of the Well-Tempered Clavier parts 1 and 2 was
made by the same scribe at around the same time. See Durr 1989, 30-31. The current
whereabouts of the manuscript Durr describes are also unknown.
20 That G28 represents Bach's Handexemplar cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty
because the handwriting in the corrections is too small and cramped to confirm or
disconfirm that it is Bach's and the original fly leaves, which might have offered clues as
to the print's provenance, were replaced by a 20th century owner. The binding appears to
be original (leather) and bears a diamond design on the cover which is decorated with
crowns and torches. The print has been in the Osterreichischen Nationalbibliotheksince
1974. Before 1974 it belonged to Anthony van Hoboken (1887-1983). It contains a
relatively recent (20th century) possession sticker on the inside cover of the front binding
which reads: "Ex Bibliotheca J. W. Six." To this point the identity of J. W. Six remains
unknown.
21 See Jones 1997, 16-17.
99
not inverted the theme in this section and sought not only to correct it in his personal
print but also in those of others as well.
Johann Christian Bach
Another print preserved today in the Hoboken Collection of the Osterreichische
Nationalbibliothek in Vienna contains annotations on the title page and back cover which
read: p. p. J. C. B. I 1748 revealing that the print was acquired by J. S. Bach's youngest
son, Johann Christian (1735-1782), at age 12 or 13. It seems inconceivable that they boy
purchased the print and for this reason one suspects that this was a gift from his father,
perhaps on the occasion of the Johann Christian's 13th birthday in early September of
1748.
J. S. Bach's having given his son a print of the third Partita in 1748 suggests that
this was music which he felt would interest the boy at age 13. By extension one suspects
that he expected it would be attractive for other young men who were as enthusiastic
about making music as was J. C. Bach, who was at this age signing his name with the
motto "Symb. Musica nostra amor."22 Interestingly the print does not contain the
corrections to the Gigue which are found in Bach's Handexemplar (G28), G25 and G26.
This gift suggests that J. S. Bach still had some individual prints of the Partitas
available in 1748 - even of the third which was sold on commission in six cities outside
of Leipzig. One suspects that sales of Opus 1 beginning in 1731 led many people who
had purchased individual prints between 1726 and 1730 to sell these prints and purchase
the collected edition - as J. G. Walther seems to have done (see below). There is also
22 Schulze 1963/64, 62.
100
some evidence that individual prints were considerably less valuable in later years than
were prints of the collected edition. J. G. I. Breitkopf advertised a print of Opus 1 which
was missing one Partita in 1760 for 5 Taler (one Taler per Partita) but advertised an
individual print of Partita II in the same year for just 8 Groschen (one third the price of a
single Partita in the collected edition he had on offer). Even if we consider that an
attractive binding of the Opus 1 print might have raised its price by 1 or 2 Taler the
difference in price between the individual print and collected edition is dramatic. This
may help to explain why Bach offered his son Johann Christian this print in 1748.
Presentation Exemplars
One of the main reasons that German musicians in the 18th century chose to have
their music printed was in order to give the prints away in hopes of acquiring or
sustaining patronage. B ach’s distant cousin, Johann Gottfried W alther’s well-
documented efforts to have his Harmonisches Denck- und Danckmahl published provide
an illuminating example. In 1736, while negotiating with the court engraver in Dresden,
Moritz Bodenehr, W alther insisted on receiving a few prints of his work which would be
used to “bring good friends upon himself.”23 When he finally found a publisher, Johann
Jakob Lotter of Augsburg, Walther requested thirty free prints. Due to an alleged
misunderstanding, however, he received only twelve. O f these twelve, Walther gave ten
23 Dok II, Nr. 377. “ .. .es ware denn, dab der Hof-Kupferstecher in Drebden die ihm per
tertium angetragene 8 variationes tiber: Allein Gott in der Hoh etc. acceptirte, v. mir
einige Exempl. davon, zur Erkenntlichkeit, lieferte, die sodann, durch gute Fretinde an
Mann zu bringen, bedacht seyn mubte.”
101
to the members of the Weimar city council - most of whom had no idea how to play the
organ - and the other two to his colleagues J. S. Bach and Lorenz Mizler.24 Such
misunderstandings could be avoided if a composer were willing to cover the costs of
publishing himself. Of the eight Bach works published during his lifetime, three were
published at his own expense: the Partitas (1726-1731), the Clavier-Ubung part 3 (1739)
and the Musicalisches Opfer (1747). Bach claims in a letter written to his nephew Johann
Elias Bach on October 6, 1748 that he had commissioned 100 prints of the Musicalisches
Opfer of which “die meisten an gute Freiinde gratis verthan worden.”25 Given that the
Partitas were also published at Bach’s own expense, he probably gave away a comparable
number of prints, commissioning elegant bindings and cordially presenting the works in
hopes of sustaining friendships or cultivating patronage relationships. The following
section surveys the individuals who probably or certainly received prints of the Partitas as
gifts from the composer.
Erbprinz Emanuel Ludwig of Anhalt-Cothen
On February 19, 1879 an advertisement appeared in the Magdeburgische Zeitung
announcing the existence of a manuscript of Bach’s first Partita (BWV 825) which
included a dedicatory poem from the composer to the Crown Prince {Erbprinz) Emanuel
Ludwig of Cothen (1726-1728), son of B ach’s one-time employer, Prince Leopold of
24 Dok II, Nr. 427.
25 Dok I, Nr. 49. There is some indication that Bach was not being completely truthful in
this instance. A receipt dated July 10, 1747 reveals that Bach commissioned 200 prints
of the title page and preface to the Musicalisches Opfer (Dok II, Nr. 556).
102
Cothen.26 Philipp Spitta tried in vain to gain access to this manuscript through
correspondence but never received a response to his inquiries.27 This manuscript, which
has never been known to scholarship except through the newspaper reprint of the poem,
turned up recently in the private possession of a collector in southern Germany and is
currently on extended loan to the Bach-Archiv Leipzig. The title page of the manuscript,
which is modeled on that of the individual print of Partita I (1726), is followed by the
dedicatory poem, which reads as follows:
[folio lv]
Dem Durchlauchtigsten Fiirsten, und

Herrn
Herrn Emanuel Ludewig,
Erb=Printzen zu Anhalt, Hertzogen zu SachBen,
Engem und Westphalen, Grafen zu
Ascanien, Herrn zu Bernburg
und Zerbst, u. u.
Widmete diese geringe

Musicalische Erstlinge
aus unterthanigster Devotion
Johann Sebastian Bach.
[folio 2r]
Durchlauchtigst
ZARTER PRINZ,
Den zwar die Windeln decken,

Doch Dein Fiirsten Blick mehr als erwachsen zeigt,
Verzeihe wenn ich DICH im Schlaffe solte wecken,
26 This advertisement was reproduced in the Berliner Fremdenblatt of February 20, 1879.
See Dok I, Nr. 155.
27 Spitta 1873/80, II, 703-705.
103
Indem mein spielend Blatt vor DIR sich nieder beugt.
Es ist die Erste Frucht, die meine Saiten bringen;
DU bist der Erste Printz die deine Fiirstin Kiist.
DIR soli SIE auch zu erst zu Deinen Ehren singen,
Weil Du, wie dieses Blatt, der Welt ein Erstling bist.
Die Weisen dieser Zeit erschrecken uns, und sagen:
Wir kamen auf die Welt mit Winseln und Geschrey;
Gleichsam als wolten wir zum voraus schon beklagen,
Dab dieses kurtze Ziel betriibt und klaglich sey.
Doch dieses kehr ich um, und sage, das Gethone,
Das DEINE Kindheit macht, ist lieblich, klar und rein;
[folio 2v]
Drum wird DEIN Lebens Lauff vergnugt, begluckt und schone,

Und eine Harmonie von eitel Freude seyn.
So, HOFFNUNGS=VOLLER PRINZ, will ich DIR femer
Spielen,
Wenn DEIN Ergozungen noch mehr als tausend fach.
Nur fleh ich, allezeit, wie jetzt, den Trieb zu fuhlen,
Ich sey
DURCHLAUCHSER PRINZ,
DEIN
tiefster Diener
Bach.
The content of the poem leaves no room for doubt that it originally accompanied a
print of the first Partita.28 After moving to Leipzig in 1723 Bach visited Cothen regularly
and maintained a good relationship with Prince Leopold and his court - not least through
gifts of this type and through the performance of celebratory cantatas, often together with
his wife, Anna Magdalena.29 The birth of the Erbprinz must have been a particularly
joyous affair in the autumn of 1726. Just three years earlier the court had been devastated
28 Bach had composed a great number of keyboard Suites before 1726; what was new
here was the fact that this Partita had been printed. The Erbprinz and Bach’s Partita were
Erstlinge only in this sense.
29 Dok II, Nr. 184, Nr. 199 and Nr. 244.
104
by the loss of Leopold’s first wife, Princess Friederica Henrietta of Anhalt-Bernburg
(1702-1723), who had never fully recovered after giving birth to a daughter, Gisela
Agnes in 1722. Her loss very nearly took Leopold’s own health.30 Leopold’s marriage to
Charlotte Friederica Wilhelmine Princess of Nassau-Siegen (1702-1785) in 1725 and
especially the birth of the Erbprinz in 1726 marked the end the period of tremendous
grief in Cothen. Bach, who had left Cothen at the court’s nadir of despair, just a few days
after the death of Princes Friederica Henrietta in 1723, naturally felt obliged to honor the
birth of the Erbprinz. He probably presented his gift on a visit to Cothen at the end of
November 1726, when he performed the cantata “Steigt freudig in die Luft” (BWV 36a)
in honor of Princess Charlotte Friederica Wilhelmine’s 24th birthday.31
Celebratory works for noble figures generally sought to strike a ceremonious and
regal air; works for men in particular affected a martial tone through the use of trumpets
and drums. Bach’s gift to the Erbprinz was necessarily of a different character given that
the dedicatee was but a few weeks old; a festive cantata or orchestral ouverture would
have been inappropriate. The dedication of a keyboard Suite offered a neat solution to
this problem as it could be plausibly understood as an intimate orchestral ouverture. This
relationship between public and private ouverture was highlighted by the composer
Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer in his dedication of a similar collection of keyboard
Suites entitled Musicalisches Blumen-Buschlein (Schlackenwerth, 1698; originally
30 According to Dr. W eber’s report of 19. November 1728, “Nach dem am 4.4.1723
erfolgten Tode seiner Gemahlin Friederika Henriette hatte der Fiirst fast ein halbes Jahr
viel Krankheiten auszustehen und den ganzen Winter sich auf seinem Zimmer aufhalten
miissen.” See Ehrhardt [1935], 62.
31 Dok I, Nr. 155.
105
published as Les Pieces des Clavecin in 1696). Fischer reminds the dedicatee, Francisca
Sybilla Augusta, Princess of Baaden, that three years earlier he had presented her
husband with Le journal du printems consistant en airs, & balets a 5. parties, & les
trompettes a plaisir... oeuvre premiere (Augsburg, 1695), a collection of orchestral Suites
in the French style, which in light of the impending Campagne made extensive use of
“Trompeten-und Geigenschall” appropriate for such a “groBmachtiger Mars.”32
Congratulating her on the recent birth of her son, however, Fischer notes that to disturb
the Princess’ “Cabinet mit Trompeten- und Geigenschall” would wound the sensitive ears
of the newborn and offers instead these keyboard Suites which he invites her to perform
herself.33
Bach’s dedicatory poem - probably composed by Christian Friedrich Henrici (a.
k. a. Picander) who had penned the libretto to Steigtfreudig in die Luft34 - plays upon a
similar poetic conceit. The author effects an intimate tone through the use of the familiar
32 “Es haben Ih. Hochfurstl. Durchleucht/ u. u. Dero hertzeliebster Herr Ehegemahl/ als
vor drey Jahren bey einladender Friihlings-Zeit/ zumahl bevorstehender Campagne,
durch unterthanigste Ojferinmg eines so genandten Musicalischen Journal du Printemps,
meine gegen hochstgedacht dieselbe tragende treu-gehorsambste Devotion etwelcher
Massen zu Contestieren suchte/ als ein groBmachtiger Mars mir gnadigst gestattet/ vor
Deroselben mit besetzten Trompeten-und Geigenschall auffzuziehen.”
33 “Ich getraue mir aber nicht Dero Hochfiirstliches Cabinet mit Trompeten- und
Geigenschall zu beunruhigen/ und darmit etwan zu Yerletzung deB zarten Gehors/ deB
neugebohmen... und all anderm Hocfiirstl. gesegnetem hochstem Wohlweesen mit
tieffester Reverenz eine etwas stillere Music, und gegenwartige allein auf das
Clavicordium, oder Instrument eingerichte Parthyen/ welche als ein von
unterschiedlichen Floribus Musicis zusammen gelesenes Blumen-Buschlein/ in Dero
Hochfurstl. Cabinet unterthanigst aufzustellen umb so mehr die gnadigiste Erlaubnus
numme/ weilen Eur Hochfurstl. Durchl. als eine Kunstreiche Minerva selbsten daraus die
Prob machen/ und aus vilen das Beste erwahlen konnen...”
34 Schulze 1959, 168.
106
Du form of address and the image of this sheet music bowing to the sleeping Erbprinz.
Bach’s Partita and the Erbprinz are compared on the grounds that they are both Erstlinge
- that is, debuts. Bach had already composed numerous works in the Suite genre so this
Partita could only be understood as a debut, or “die Erste Frucht, die meine Saiten
bringen”, insofar as it was his first printed work and the first in a series of Partitas he was
planning to publish.
There can be no doubt that the poet was familiar with the music of the first Partita
at the time he composed this poem. The parallel between these two ‘first borns’ is
extended to the sounds both make. While the wise men of the time say that a baby’s cry
is a sign of displeasure and complaint, the poet declares that the cries the Erbprinz makes
in his childhood are “lieblich, klar und rein”, his life “vergniigt, begliickt und schone" and
"eine Harmonie von eitel Freude.” Of all Bach's Partitas, the first is by far the most naive
and hopeful in character rather than worldly or wise. It is composed in a bright, major
key and without great pretensions to leamedness. The tone is set immediately in the first
two bars of the short Praeludium with the statement of the main theme - an ascending
scale over a tonic pedal tone. The guileless character of this melody is highlighted by
Bach’s uncharacteristically allowing the melodic pitches of the rising scale to coincide
regularly with strong beats. The subsequent movements maintain the youthful, optimistic
character established in the Pradudium. The light, entertaining character of the Giga in
particular with its theatrical hand-crossing forms a stark contrast with the learned and
challenging closing movements of Partitas II-VI. This poem is uniquely suited to the first
Partita and could have accompanied no other Partita in Bach's collection. It is just barely
conceivable that Bach composed this Partita with the Erbprinz in mind. As discussed
107
above, the Giga may have been composed in 1722 or earlier, which would suggest that it
may have been known to Prince Leopold and his court in its original state as an
independent virtuoso piece. It may have been for this reason that Bach chose to make the
Giga the basis for his first Partita and to present this work on the occasion of the
Erbprinz's birth.
Friedrich Heinrich Graff jr.
A print of Bach’s Opus 1 now in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig35 bears an
attractive leather binding with the following text printed on the cover: “F. H. G. I D. I
1731.” On the inside cover a remark in Bach’s handwriting reads: “Friderico Henrico
Graff dicatum. 1731.”
Friedrich Heinrich Graff jr. (1713 - 1777) was an 18 year old law student at the
University in Leipzig when Bach presented him with this print. The composer had been
well-acquainted with the Graff family from the very beginning of his time in Leipzig.
Friedrich Heinrich Graff sr. (1688-1731) stood as Godfather to Anna M agdalena’s second
child, Gottfried Heinrich Bach (bom February 27, 1724).36 Friedrich Heinrich Graff jr.
himself would act as Godfather to Regina Susanna Bach (born February 22, 1742).37 He
also acted as administrator of a fund founded by his grandfather for widows and students,
known as the Graffsche Legat, from which Anna Magdalena and her daughters benefited
35 D-LEm: III. 6. 13. See Jones 1978, 23 (Source G3).
36 Dok II, Nr. 176.
37 Dok II, Nr. 505.
108
in the years after 1750.38 After Bach's death Graff managed his estate and Anna
Magdalena apparently lived with the Graff family in the Hainstrasse prior to her death in
1760.39
Aside from close contact with the Bachs, the Graff family’s musical interests are
documented only by this gift. It has to this point escaped scholarly attention that F. H.
Graff jr.’s print contains a number of corrections which in some cases closely resemble
those in the corrected prints discussed above in connection with Bach's Handexemplar.
A tie is added to the Capriccio of Partita II (m. 77-78) just as in G23, G24, G25 and a
manuscript (source H58) prepared in the 1750s by Christian Friedrich Penzel, probably
from B ach’s autograph (see below). In the Rondeaux of the same Partita, the printed d ’
on the downbeat of measure 99 is changed to an e-flat’ as in G23, G24 and G25. In
measure 17 of the Allemande to Partita IV a courtesy natural sign is added to the first
bass note since in the print the accidental was squashed against the pitch f; a similar
correction was made in G23.40 Although individually these corrections are logical and
may theoretically have been intuited by Graff or a later owner, taken together they would
suggest a kinship with these other corrected manuscripts. Given the systematic
38 Htibner 2002, 247-248. See also Dok II, Nr. 623.
40 Interestingly, Graff or whoever corrected his print had a rather bizarre tendency to
lengthen ledger lines below the staff that they might connect with one another - a
tendency also demonstrated by the individual who corrected G24. In the Graff print see
Partita IV, Ouverture (m. 14, 15) and Allemande (m. 19, 16 and 20). In G24 see Partita
II, Allemande (m. 16) and Sarabande (m. 8).
109
relationships between the corrections in these prints one presumes that they stem from
lessons with Bach. It seems likely thus that F. H. Graff jr. was also a student of Bach.
Ludwig Vitzthum von Eckstadt
Another dedication copy of Bach’s Opus 1 was advertised on October 9, 1936 in
Stargardt’s auction catalog.41 The catalog’s description of a “dunkelbraunen
Ganzlederband...mit goldgepressten Buchstaben und Jahreszahl: L. S. C. V. D. E. 1731.”
suggests that it was very similar to the surviving dedication print for Graff. Hans-
Joachim Schulze was able to demonstrate that this was a dedication print for the 15 year
old Ludwig Siegfried Vitzthum von Eckstadt (1716-1777) who was, like Graff, a law
student at Leipzig University in 1731.42 A congratulatory cantata text by Christian
Friedrich Henrici (a. k. a. Picander) composed upon Ludwig’s graduation from Leipzig
University in 1736 suggests a musical inclination as does the fact that he was one of four
young Counts to take a leading role in the performance of Bach’s cantata Preise dein
Gliicke, gesegnetes Sachsen (BWV 215) honoring the Elector Friedrich August II on
October 5, 1734.43 One of the other four Counts who served in the same capacity was the
son of Jakob Heinrich Graf von Flemming, at whose father’s Dresden residence in 1717
Bach had given a command performance for “eine grosse Gesellschaft von Personen vom
hohen Range, beyderley Geschlechts” in lieu of a musical competition with the
41 See Jones 1978, 24. (Source [G6]).
42 Schulze 1984, 91-92.
43 Dok II, Nr. 351, Nr. 352 and Nr. 353.
110
Frenchman, Louis Marchand, who had fled the city. Bach probably enjoyed (or sought)
patronage relationships with both influential families. Ludwig Siegfried’s father,
Friedrich I, Count Vitzthum von Eckstadt was a friend of Augustus the Strong who had
served in numerous important posts in the Dresden court, including Oberkammerherr and
Kabinettsminister.44 After graduating from Leipzig University in 1736, Ludwig Siegfried
entered the service of the Dresden court, eventually holding important diplomatic
positions in Paris, Turin, St. Petersburg, Miinchen and Vienna.45 There is no evidence that
he pursued his musical interests after graduating from the University.
Georg Ernst Stahl jr.
A list of music prints and manuscripts prepared in 1773 for the estate sale of Georg Ernst
Stahl jr. (1713-1772) includes 26 printed works for solo keyboard and keyboard and
voice amongst which one finds entries for two works by J. S. Bach: the Musicalisches
Opfer (BWV 1079) and “Clavieriibung von Joh. Seb. Bach. Leipz. [1J731.”46
G. E. Stahl jr. was bom in Halle in 1713 and moved to Berlin early in his life. In
1730 he enrolled in the Collegium medico-chirurgicum in Berlin and eventually followed
in the footsteps of his famous father, Georg Ernst Stahl sr. (1659-1734), as the royal
44 See Vitzthum von Eckstadt 1935, 307.
45 Vitzthum von Eckstadt, 1935, 310-312. Upon his father’s death in 1726 his mother
built Ludwig Siegfried a castle in Otterwisch near the town of Grimma. He died in less
than brilliant financial circumstances and his castle in Otterwisch was sold immediately
after his death. It is thus not surprising that his print of Opus 1, given him by the
composer was in the possession of a pastor named Kuehn in Otterwisch before 1797. See
Jones 1978, 24.
46 Maul 2001, 12.
Ill
Hofrat and medical doctor. The Stahl family was closely connected with the Bachs. In
August of 1741, when J. S. Bach visited Berlin, he stayed at Stahl’s home.47 Numerous
connections between the Stahl family and the Bachs in the 1740s and thereafter (not only
through Sebastian but also Wilhelm Friedemann and especially Carl Philipp Emanuel)
reveal a close personal relationship which probably predated Bach’s visit in 1741 by
several years if not decades48
The means by which Stahl acquired this print cannot be determined with
certainty. Although purchase cannot be ruled out, the close relationship between the
Stahl and Bach families and Stahl’s age in 1731 are so closely parallel to those of Graff
and Vitzthum von Eckstadt that one suspects he too received his print as a gift from the
composer. It is perhaps telling that the only two printed works by J. S. Bach in Stahl's
collection were published by Bach himself and therefore more easily given as gifts. The
Musicalisches Opfer must certainly have been a gift given the Berlin connection and the
fact that Bach gave away dozens of copies of this work to “gute Freiinde”, amongst
whom the members of Stahl’s family must certainly be counted49
47 Dok II, Nr. 489.
48 For information on Stahl's biography I rely here on Maul 2001.
49 Dok I, Nr. 49.
112
Maria Josepha. Electoress of Saxony
The Sachsische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek in Dresden contains a print of Bach’s
Opus 1 from the second print run (ca. 1732-35?).50 It is bound luxuriously in dark green
velvet with a textured floral pattern on the inside covers. The exposed sides of the paper
are painted gold. Indentations in the velvet visible on the back cover reveal that in its
original state this book had two buckles for ribbons which held it closed. Considering its
age and the fragility of velvet the book is in very good condition; only the edges which
were exposed to the elements while the book was sitting on a shelf show signs of wear.
There are no markings in the musical text.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that this book was a gift for M aria Josepha, the
Electoress of Saxony (1699-1757). That it belonged to a woman is suggested by the
nature of the binding - Anna Magdalena Bach’s Clavierbiichlein of 1725 is also green
with gold decorative detail and was originally held closed with buckles and. red ribbons.
Before 1896 this book belonged to the Konigliche Privat-Musikaliensammlung, which
included Maria Josepha’s private music library.51 That the book was a gift from Bach is
suggested by the watermark in the fly leaves of the binding (Posthom with the letters
GAW),52 which is identical to that found in Bach’s autograph manuscript of the wedding
chorales (BWY 250-252), copied at some point between 1734 and 1738. The watermark
50 D-Dlb: Mus. 2405-T-46. Jones 1978, 24. (Source G i l ) .
51 Landmann and Reich 1983, 22.
52 The paper was made by Georg Adam Walther at the Breitenbrunn papermill
(Deutsches Buch - und Schriftmuseum der Deutschen Biicherei Leipzig, Papierhistorische
Sammlungen, I I 437/0/5).
113
and the similarities to Anna Magdalena’s Clavierbiichlein of 1725 make it likely that
Bach himself was responsible for commissioning this elegant binding.53
The hypothesis that Maria Josepha was the recipient accords well with Bach’s
biography in the 1730s. With the ascendance of Elector Friedrich August II (1696-1763)
in February of 1733 Bach began an intensive campaign to acquire the official title of
composer to the Dresden court, most explicitly by his presentation of the Kyrie and
Gloria of the B minor Mass (BWV 232) on July 27, 1733 with an accompanying letter
humbly requesting the title.54 Between December 1733 and October 1734 Bach’s
Collegium Musicum performed no fewer than five times in honor of the Elector and his
wife.55 He composed a cantata in honor of Maria Josepha’s thirty-fourth birthday in
December, 173356 and a celebratory cantata for the couple performed during the
Michaelis fair in October of 1734.57 In September of 1736 Bach formally renewed his
53 D-Bds: Mus.ms.St. 123. Wisso Weiss and Yoshitake Kobayashi give this watermark
the designation WZ 88. See Weiss and Kobayashi 1985, Nr. 88. Their reproduction of
the watermark of St. 123 in the NBA volume are not exactly correct. A close comparison
of the watermarks in St. 123 and the fly leaves of the Dresden exemplar of Bach’s Opus 1
reveal that they are indeed identical.
54 Dok I, Nr. 27.
55 Dok II, Nr. 344-348, 350-353.
56 Dok II, Nr. 344. The “Dramma per Musica” which Bach dedicated to Maria Josepha
on her birthday (December 8, 1733) was “Tonet, ihr Pauken! Erschallet, Trompeten!”
(BWV 214).
57 Dok II, Nr. 351-353. The cantata was “Preise dein Gliicke, gesegnetes Sachsen”
(BWV 215). Ludwig Siegfried Vitzthum von Eckstadt was incidentally involved in this
performance.
114
petition for the title of court composer, which was finally granted on November 19,
1736.58
Offering the wife of the Elector a print of his recently published Opus 1 would
seem an entirely logical means for Bach to further his goal of attaining the Dresden
appointment. Maria Josepha was an avid music lover whose rooms in the royal
household were regularly the site of chamber music performances and opera rehearsals.
She was also an enthusiastic collector of scores and amassed a formidable music library.59
Whether or not she played music from this collection, a beautifully bound print of his
Opus 1 would have served Bach as a well-placed reminder to the Electoress (and by
extension, the Elector) of his pending application for the position of court composer -
even if it just sat on the shelf. The excellent condition of the print and the lack of
markings within the book suggest that it was never used very heavily.
58 Dok I, Nr. 36 and Dok II, Nr. 388.
59 Ftirstenau 1862, 181: “Tafelmusiken und Kammer- oder Hofconcerte fanden in groGer
Anzahl statt, letztere gewohnlich in den Zimmem der Konigin, theils am Fliigel, theils
mit Orchester... Nicht minder widmeten Friedrich August II. und seine Gattin der Oper
die eingehendste Aufmerksamkeit...; vorhergehende Repetitionen fanden sogar oft in den
Zimmem Maria Josepha’s statt... Die Pflege der Kirchenmusik und das Interesse dafiir
war stets eine ihrer Lieblingsbeschaftigungen. Ihre Musikaliensammlung war eine
werthvolle und reiche. Sie hatte unter andem zu dem Behufe den Ankauf der
musikalischen Hinterlassenschaften Volumier’s, Schmidt’s, Heinichen’s, spater auch
Zelenka’s, Pisendel’s, Ristori’s u. A. veranlaBt.”
115
Ordinary Exemplars
Anonymous Bach Students?
In the discussion of Bach's Handexemplar above we noted that there are in fact five prints
of Opus 1 which contain corrections that appear to be systematically related. G28 seems
to have belonged to Bach himself. G23, G24, G25 and G26 must have belonged to
individuals who were in regular contact with Bach and were most probably his private
students. With the exception of G23, the first three Partitas in these prints are corrected
more thoroughly and systematically than the last three, perhaps because they were owned
by students who were more able to play the music in the first half of the book. That G26
was originally owned by a student is further suggested by the similarity of ornaments
added to the Sarabande of the fifth Partita and those in the manuscript copy of this
movement by Johann Gottfried Miithel (1728-1788), which was almost certainly
prepared either in 1750 while Miithel was in Leipzig studying with Bach or in the year
which followed, during which he studied in Altenburg with Bach’s son-in-law, Johann
Christoph Altnikol (1719-1759).60 Here too there are enough unique variants in both
sources to reveal that neither one was copied directly from the other. That the original
owner of G26 had access to this ornamented source suggests that he, like Miithel, was
one of Bach’s students. This in turn would suggest that the corrected prints G23, G24
and G25, whose annotations in other movements have much in common with those of
G26, were also owned by students. One presumes that the owners of these prints were
60 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 815. See Jones 1988, 268-269 and Jones 1997, 18-19 (Source
H20).
116
either Thomaner or, more likely, university students at the time they acquired these prints
which would suggest in turn that they were relatively young - probably under ca. 25
years old.
Daniel Christian Alert
An original print of the second edition of Bach’s Opus 1 in the Bayer is che
Staatsbibliothek in Munich61 contains an attached slip of paper on which the following
text has been written in an 18th century hand:
Dieses Buch gehoret

Danieli Christiano Alert. Theol. Cult.
Halle im Magdeburgischen 1760 d 3ten April
Judging from the note, Daniel Christian Alert was a theology student in Halle in April of
1760,62 Shortly thereafter, on September 7, 1761, Alert enrolled in the University in
Frankfurt an der Oder, where he is noted in the registry as coming from “Stolpensis
Pomeranis” - that is, from Stolpe in what is now Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.63 His name
has not been located in the Stolpe church records nor in the University of Halle’s
Matrikel. Presumably he was between 15 and 25 years old at the time he acquired this
print, which he may have purchased from W ilhelm Friedemann Bach (1710-1784), who
was Organist at the Liebfrauenkirche in Halle from 1746 to 1764.
61 D-Mbs: 4° Mus.pr.28321. See Jones 1978, 24-25 (Source G14).
62 Efforts to locate Alert's name in Halle University’s handwritten Matrikel have to this
point been unsuccessful.
63 Friedlander 1888, 4 0 5 .1 would like to thank Professor Hans-Joachim Schulze for

kindly providing this information.
117
Johann Gottfried Walther
In a letter dated January 27, 1735, Bach's distant cousin,64 the Weimar municipal
organist, Johann Gottfried Walther (1684-1748) wrote to his friend, the Wolffenbiittel
cantor, Heinrich Bokemeyer (1679-1751):
Das beykommende Bachische Exemplar, wofiir ich 12 g. gezahlet, wollen Sie fur 8 g.
hingeben,... sodann durch Gelegenheit an mich giitigst gelangen laBen.65
The “Bachische Exemplar” (in a subsequent letter described as the “Bachische Kupfer-
Exemplar”66) to which Walther referred could only have been an individual print of one
of the six Partitas. Bach’s next publication - the Clavier-Ubung part 2 - was not released
until Easter of 1735.67 From W alther’s use of the verb “hingeben” it seems that
Bokemeyer was not buying a print for himself but rather as an intermediary for a third
party whose identity remains unknown.68
Johann Gottfried Walther was born in Erfurt in 1684 and from 1707 until his
death in 1748 served as municipal organist in Weimar. He was a distant cousin of J. S.
64 Bach’s mother and W alther’s grandfather were half-siblings.
65 Dok II, Nr. 361.
66 Dok II, Nr. 377.
67 Dok II, Nr. 323. Furthermore, the Clavier-Ubung part 2 cost 18 Groschen (Dok II, Nr.
370). Given their extreme rarity, it is virtually inconceivable that W alther was refering
here to a print of one of Bach’s Miihlhausen Ratswechsel Cantatas.
68 The sale evidently went through but W alther waited at least one year for payment, as
evidenced by his complaint in another letter to Bokemeyer dated January 26, 1736 that he
still sought 8 additional Groschen for the print. See Beckmann and Schulze 1987, 192.
118
Bach - Bach’s mother and W alther’s grandfather were half-siblings - and the two were in
intensive contact from the time Bach served as Hoforganist in W eimar (1708-1717). In
1712 Bach served as Godfather to W alther’s son, Johann Gottfried jr.,69 and Walther
made manuscript copies of Bach’s Weimar-era cantatas and organ works. The two
clearly remained in close contact after Bach left Weimar. Bach sold the first installment
(the letter “A”) of W alther’s Musicalisches Lexicon on commission in 172970 and offered
publishing advice to Walther in the mid-1730s, specifically recommending Johann
Gottfried Kriigner, who had been involved in the engraving and sale of B ach’s Partitas.71
The familiarity between Bach and W alther casts doubt on Walther's assertion that he had
purchased the print in question. It seems as likely that this was a gift from Bach. Indeed,
W alther himself is known to have sent Bach a free print of his own Harmonisches Denck-
und Danckmahl in 1738.72 In any case it seems likely that Walther was willing to sell this
individual print of one of the Partitas because he had in the meantime (between 1731 and
1735) acquired a print of the complete edition of all six Partitas.
69 Dok II, 54.
70 Dok II, 260.
71 Dok II, 377, 381,427. See Butler 1986, 3-5.
72 Dok II, Nr. 427. Letter from Walther to Heinrich Bokemeyer of July 30, 1738:
“Ich hatte Dero Hm. Schwieger-Sohne (den schonstens von mir zu griiBen bitten will) ein
Exemplar des nunmehro in Kupfferstich publicirlen Chorals: Allein Gott in der Hoh sey
Ehr etc. zugedacht; weil aber vom Verleger iiberhaupt, aus MiBverstand, nur 12 I
Exemplarien, an statt der bedungenen 30, bekommen, davon gleich in Augspurg 2 so viel
guten Freiinden daselbst abgegeben worden, mithin die ubrigen 10 nicht einmahl fur alle
hiesige Raths-Glieder zugelanget, ja von diesen ich auch noch 2 Ex. fur Hr. Bachen v.
Herrn M. Mizlem in Leipzig abgezwacket habe, wollen Sie es nicht iibel nehmen, daB
diese zweene Manner Ihrem Herrn Schwieger-Sohne vorgezogen;..."
119
Johann Heinrich Fischer and Fructuosus Roeder
A curiously edited print of Bach’s Opus 1 was acquired in May of 2000 by the Pierpont
Morgan Library in New York.73 In the middle of the title page one can faintly read a
single line of text in an 18th century hand: “ad usum Fr Fructuosus Roeder O. S. B. Fulda”
Two other prints of Bach's music are documented as having had similar annotations. An
exemplar of the Musikalisches Opfer (published 1747) in the Hessische Landesbibliothek
in Fulda presents a possession marking which reads “ad usum F. Fructuosi Roeder O. S.
B. I Fuldae professi.”74 The collection of the Hessische Landesbibliothek formerly
included a print of the Clavier-Ubung part 2 which apparently had a similar possession
marking. Unfortunately this could not be confirmed as the print has been lost since
1964.75
Fructuosus Roder was baptized Johannes Theophilus Bernhardus Roder on March
5, 1747 in the small town of Simmershausen, a short distance west of Fulda.76 His father,
Johann Georg Adam Roder, was a teacher and organist at the Hojkapelle in the Fasanerie
73 This print was described in the auction catalog of the estate of W erner Wolffheim in
1928 but subsequently disappeared. Jones knew of its existence from the auction catalog
alone and labeled it [G22]. After some years in the possession of a collector in southern
Germany it reappeared and was sold by Sotheby’s on May 25, 2000. See Sotheby’s,
Printed and Manuscript Music (London, 2001), p. 12-13 (Item #6). I wish to thank Dr.
Rigbie Turner of the Pierpont Morgan Library for allowing me to examine this print.
74 W olff 1974, 63-64.
75 Emery and W olff 1977, 29-30.
761 would like to thank Dr. Edgar Kutzner, Bistumsarchivar at the Bischofliches
Generalvikariat Fulda for searching the local Kirchenbucher at my request.
120
castle near Fulda. Theophilo attended the Infirma in Fulda in 1757/58, the Secunda in
1758/59 and the Syntaxklasse in 1759/60 distinguishing himself in formal examinations
in philosophy, mathematics, physics and theology.77 Roder entered the Benedictine order
as a novice on November 1, 1763 and professed on November 4, 1764, presumably
whereupon he was given the name Fructuosus. He had music lessons with the Dom-
Organisten, father Bemardus Beck, and also studied C. P. E. Bach’s Versuch iiber die
wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen (Berlin, 1753 and 1762). In 1767 Roder was sent for
further musical instruction to father Peregrinus Poegl in Neustadt (Hessen), where he
studied Fux’s Gradus ad Parnassum (Vienna, 1715). On October 24, 1770, the day after
his teacher Bemhardus Beck’s death, Roder was appointed organist and Rector Chori of
Fulda’s Domkirche. During this period he composed settings of the Mass, Psalms and
Vespers. His phenomenal skill at accompanying the choir led to an appointment in 1776
in Neusohl (Hungary), where he taught for several years as Instructor Clericorum. Roder
suffered chronically from health problems (hemorrhoids) which became particularly
serious on his return trip from Neusohl to Fulda in 1781. Upon reaching Regensburg he
decided to turn south in hopes that the milder climate would have a positive effect on his
condition. After staying briefly at the monastery in Castellana he moved on to Naples
where he served as deutscher Beichtvater, Novizenmeister and Schuldirector at the
monastery of St. Lorenzo zu Aversa. Roder died of his ailment on October 7, 1789, at
the age of 42.78
77 Leinweber 1991, 324. See also Henkel 1882, 8.
78 Most of the biographical information on Fructuosus Roder presented here comes

Henkel 1882, 7-8. A similar account of his life can be found in Gerber 1812/14, IV, 820.
121
There is some indication that Roder may have acquired his prints of B ach’s
keyboard music from an official in Fulda named Johann Heinrich Fischer (1711-1775).79
Roder’s print of the Clavier-Ubung part 2, now lost, is documented as having previously
belonged to Fischer.80 It is probable that Roder’s print of the Musikalisches Opfer and of
the Partitas also came from Fischer’s library.
J. H. Fischer was born in Hilders, east of Fulda on March 8, 1711.81 On
September 18, 1734 he matriculated at the Adolphsuniversitat in Fulda82 and later served
as geistlicher Geheimer Rath and Vicar des Bischofs in streitigen Rechtssachen under
Furstabt Adolph von Dalberg (1726-1737) and Fiirstbischofen Amandus von Buseck
(1737-1756), Adelbert II (1756-1759) and Heinrich VIII von Bibra (1759-1788). Fischer
For his biographies of Roder and 12 other Fulda musicians Gerber relied on documents
provided by the composer, Michael Henkel of Fulda. Heinrich Henkel, the grandson of
Michael Henkel, seems to have access to the same materials given that the biographical
accounts are so close. I have relied on Henkel rather than Gerber because in many cases
the information he provides is more detailed and probably more reliable.
79 W olff 1976, 64: “Laut Besitzervermerk “ad usum F. Fructuosi Roeder O. S. B. I Fuldae
professi” gehorte dieses Exemplar dem Fuldaer Klosterorganisten Fructuosus Roeder, der
es offenbar zusammen mit anderen Musikalien von dem Fuldaer Kanonikus Johann
Heinrich Fischer (so z. B. bezeugt fur den ebenfalls in der Hessischen Landesbibliothek
aufbewahrten 2. Teil der Klaviertibung) bekommen hatte, und zwar nach seiner ProfeB im
Jahre 1764.” Unfortunately the Hessische Landesbibliothek in Fulda is closed for
extensive renovations at this time and I have not been able to determine the nature of the
reference to Fischer on Roder’s print of the Clavier-Ubung part 2. Presumably Fischer’s
name is on the (lost) print or perhaps reference to him is made in a catalog entry.
80 W olff 1976, 64.
81 For Fischer’s birth and death dates I would like to thank again Dr. Edgar Kutzner.
Bistumsarchivar at the Bischofliches Generalvikariat Fulda for searching the local
Kirchenbucher at my request.
82 Leinweber 1991, 90.
122
was the author of Fulda’s regulations for trial proceedings and was widely regarded at his
death as a "thatigen Geschaftsmann and frommen Geistlichen." According to an account
of ca. 1800:
Beziiglich der Musik war Fischer namentlich auch in der Theorie sehr praktisch erfahren
und machte sich ein Vergniigen daraus, Andere zu unterweisen. Er besass eine fur
damalige Zeit belangreiche und ausgesuchte musikalische Bibliothek, welche er in 109
Banden noch bei Lebzeiten der Fuldaer Bibliothek schenkte.83
Fischer died on May 2, 1775 but, as revealed in this account, his music collection had by
this point already belonged to the library in Fulda for some time. The prints acquired by
Fructuosus Roder, including that of Bach’s Opus 1, were probably among the 109
volumes which once belonged to Fischer’s private collection.
This print is distinguished not only by the reference to Fructuosus Roeder on its
title page but also by the fact that it was drastically edited - it contains only 13 of Opus
l ’s 73 pages. That the 60 missing pages were deliberately thrown out rather than simply
lost is confirmed by the willfulness of the selection. The backsides of pages which
contain music from other movements are carefully crossed out with diagonal lines. In
one case a whole movement is crossed out, namely the Menuet from the fourth Partita,
which fits in its entirety on the backside of the first page of the same Partita’s Gigue.
Whoever so severely edited this print clearly wished to preserve the following
movements and the following movements alone:
Partita II: Allemande

Partita III: Gigue
Partita IV: Gigue
Partita VI: Toccata and Air
83 Henkel 1882, 11.
123
These five movements are united by their discrete part writing, which makes them well-
suited to performance on the organ.84 Why the editor retained the Gigues of Partitas III
and IV and threw out those of Partitas V and VI, which present equally discrete,
contrapuntal part writing remains a mystery. In any case it seems clear that the editor did
not simply tear out movements according to their titles but rather showed sensitivity to
the musical content. Most striking is his antipathy for lighter dances exhibited in his
having crossing out of the Menuet to Partita IV, which fits entirely on the back side of the
Gigue to Partita IV. That the print belonged to a Catholic musician or institution prior to
being edited is suggested by the words Laus Deo which appear at the conclusions of the
Gigues of Partitas III and IV and also at the end of the Gigue to Partita V, which appears
(crossed out) on the back side of the first page of the Toccata.
That either J. H. Fischer or F. Roder was responsible for the editing of this print is
unlikely. Both owned a print of Bach's Clavier-Ubung part 2, the French Ouverture of
which includes numerous Galanterien which do not seem to have posed a problem.
More likely the print was edited either before Fischer acquired it or after Roder left
Fulda. The first of these two alternatives is the by far the more plausible. The
conservative rhetoric against dances in church services was far more heated at the
beginning of the 18th century than at the end. Furthermore, prints of Bach's Partitas
increased rather than decreased in value over the course of the 18th century. Even the
84 The Domkirche in Fulda had a large organ built originally in the 1530s and renovated
from 1708 to 1713 by Adam Ohninger and Ludwig Muller. It was repaired in 1744 by
Bartel Brunner. See Rehm 1970, 9-13.
124
most reactionary theologian would have thought twice about throwing out so many pages
from a book he might have sold for five Taler in 1774.85
Thus the projected early history of this print can be summarized as follows. The
print was acquired not long after 1732 by a Catholic individual or institution at which
point the words Laus Deo were written at the end of each Partita. At some point
thereafter the print was severely edited by someone (else?) who sought to discourage
others (students? prefects?) from playing repertoire he deemed inappropriate, presumably
for ideological reasons. The print then came into the possession of J. H. Fischer whose
interest in this print must have been at least partly antiquarian given that it was already so
heavily edited. Finally, at some point after 1765 the print came into the possession of
Fructuosus Roder, who probably left it in Fulda when he departed for Hungary in 1776.
85 Johann Chistian Westphal offered a print of Bach's Opus 1 in 1774 for 12 Marks (= 5
Taler). See Dok III, Nr. 789.
125
Chapter 5
Manuscript Copies of the Partitas: Owners before 1775
The dissemination of music in the first half of the 18th century took place
overwhelmingly through the creation and exchange of manuscript copies. Bach's friend
and colleague, Jacob Adlung (1699-1762), asserted in 1758 that for every print which
was sold in a large city, thirty manuscript copies were made.1Johann Gottfried W alther
reported more conservatively in 1736 that he could find no publisher for his set of chorale
variations because the publishers believed that printing such works was unprofitable
noting that for every print that was sold, ten manuscript copies were made. Walther
recounts further that he had spoken with Bach's engraver and agent, Johann Gottfried
Kriigner, who asserted that Bach himself "habe ihm [Krugner] zwar sehr dazu gerathen."2
Bach's comment must certainly reflect the experience he had selling the Partitas between
1Adlung 1758, 727. "[M]it Kupfernoten sollte man auch billig mehr zuriick halten.
Wenn ein Verleger sein Vermogen dran gewendet, so wird bisweilen in einer grossen
Stadt 1 Exemplar verkauft; 30 und mehr Liebhaber nehmen davon die Abschrift, und der
Verleger muB seine Exemplaren behalten."
2 Dok II, Nr. 381. The relevant portion of Walther's letter of August 4, 1736 to Heinrich
Bokemeyer regarding his plans to publish a set of chorale variations for organ (the
Harmonisches Denck- und Danckmahl), reads: “Mit Herausgeb- und Stifftung eines
Denck- und Danck-Mahls... will es nicht fort, indem die Verleger befiirchten, es mochte
ihnen solch Untemehmen zu Schaden gereichen, weil, wenn 1 Liebhaber Geld anwendet,
ihrer 10 und mehr es abschrieben; welches auch die Wahrheit ist. Dieser Meynung ist so
wol Hr. Krugner in Leipzig, als Hr. Bodenehr in DreBden. Jener meldete, der Hr.
Capellmeister Bach habe ihm zwar sehr dazu gerathen; allein, er erfahre es an dem
Kauffmannischen Wercke, wovon er jetzo der Verleger sey, daB der Liebhaber immer
weniger wiirden, und, wenn es so fortgienge, miiste ers liegen laBen.” The
Kaujfmannisches Wercke is Georg Friedrich Kauffmann's Harmonische Seelen Lust
(Leipzig, ca. 1736), a set of organ works which was engraved by Krugner and sold in
Regina Boetius' shop.
126
1726 and 1736.3 The following section presents an account of those who can be identified
as having made or owned manuscripts of Bach's Partitas before ca.1775.
Manuscripts Owned by Members of the Bach Family
Anna M agdalena Bach
In 1725, perhaps on the occasion of her 24th birthday (September 22, 1725) or
their fourth anniversary (December 3, 1725 ),4 J. S. Bach presented his second wife, Anna
Magdalena Bach, ne W ilcke (1701-1760), with an elegant book of high quality, mostly
blank paper which was tinted gold on the sides and bound in bright green vellum, the
front and back covers of which are decorated with a golden border pattern and bear her
initials as well as the year in golden block print. It was originally held closed with clasps
and red satin ribbons.5 On the first forty-one pages J. S. Bach himself copied Partitas III
and VI in versions which slightly predate those of the print as discussed above. He
clearly copied these works before presenting the book to Anna Magdalena - that is, they
were a substantive part of the gift.
3 Although the Clavier-Ubung part 2 had been released by 1736 as well, Bach turned all
responsibilities for publication and sale of this print over to the professional publisher,
Christoph Weigel jr. In an advertisement of August 13, 1735 Weigel writes that he
would be selling the work during the upcoming Michaelismesse "im Hohmannischen
Hause" in Leipzig's Peterstrasse and outside of the trade fair times from Johann Meindel
in the same house. See Dok II, Nr. 370.
4 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 225. See Schulze 1979, 63-64.
5 The front cover bears circular scratches at the comers which might be traces of this
closure mechanism.
127
Anna Magdalena Bach was an accomplished singer who came from a family of
professional musicians in Zeitz, where her father served as court and military trumpeter.
She was engaged as a well-paid professional singer at the court in Cothen when she first
came into regular contact with the recently widowed Kapellmeister, Johann Sebastian
Bach. Anna Magdalena continued to perform professionally until at least 1729,6 after
which family responsibilities curtailed her performance activities.7 Anna Magdalena was
an amateur keyboardist, as well, as revealed not only by this gift but also by an earlier
Clavierbiichlein her husband presented her in 1722. This too begins with several works
in his hand, including the first five French Suites (BWV 812-816).
W hether or not Anna Magdalena ever learned to play the music her husband
copied into her two Clavierbiichlein (including the two Partitas) is a matter of
speculation. We can be certain, however, that the music she herself copied into these
books closely corresponds to her skills and interests. This repertoire consists almost
exclusively of easy Minuets, Polonaises and other simple Galanterien in two voices. The
most challenging repertoire Anna Magdalena herself copied into the Clavierbiichlein of
1725 consists of the first two French Suites, which she entered sometime before ca. 1733.
This is repertoire she probably mastered around 1722 shortly after her husband copied
them into her first Clavierbiichlein - a period at the very beginning of their marriage
when her leisure time was presumably more ample. The fact that Anna Magdalena
6 Her last documented performances were on July 18, 1724 (Dok II, Nr. 184), December
15 and 22, 1725 (Dok II, Nr. 199) and March 25, 1729 (Dok II, Nr. 259) during trips back
to Prince Leopold’s court in Cothen and on February 23, 1729 a performance at the court
in Weissenfels (Dok II, Nr. 254).
7 She was pregnant nearly every year between 1723 and 1737.
128
reached back to this repertoire several years later seems very much like an attempt to
revisit the pinnacle of her accomplishment at the keyboard. The extreme technical
demands of Partitas III and VI seem out of place in the context of the music Anna
Magdalena copied herself and lead one to suspect that she never really came to terms
with this repertoire, although she must certainly have at least tried upon receipt of the
book in 1725.
Anonymous Member of Bach Family (Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach? Johann
Christian Bach?)
A miniscule book of keyboard music prepared in the 1780s by a scribe known as Michel
who worked on behalf of C. P. E. Bach in Hamburg, includes the two Minuets from
Bach’s first Partita along with a host of other Minuets and Polonaises by J. S. Bach, C. P.
E. Bach, J. C. Bach, J. C. F. Bach and Johann Christoph Altnikol (1719-1759).8 Of these
five composers J. C. Bach is the best represented (at least among the pieces which are
attributed) and it is conceivable that this manuscript might reproduce a Clavierbiichlein
he is known to have begun on April 19, 1747.9 In any case the book which served as a
Vorlage for Michel's manuscript was almost certainly produced by members of the Bach
household in the mid to late 1740s. The Minuets appear in reverse order and are labeled
"Menuetto. J. S. Bach" (Menuet 2) and "Men: di J. S. Bach." (Menuet 1). Richard
Douglas Jones has argued that the version of the Minuets as transmitted in this book
8 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 672.
9 The title page of this book survived into the 20th century but is now lost. See Schulze
1963/64,61.
129
predates the print.10 This may indeed be the case but the changes Bach made before
publication are miniscule and tell us little about the genesis of the piece. At the very least
they connect the contents of the book more firmly with the Bach inner circle.
With the exception of a song and four numbered pieces entitled Prceludium at the
front of the book, the contents consist entirely of Minuets, Polonaises and other short
pieces for the most part in two voices. Clearly the scribe was a young person - probably
either Johann Christoph Friedrich or Johann Christian Bach. One has the sense that this
was the repertoire these young musicians enjoyed composing and playing most in the
later 1740s and that they did so with abandon. The Minuets from Partita I are among the
oldest works in the book. Their appearance in this context suggests that they remained
current in the mind of the young copyist.
Manuscripts Owned by Others
- Leipzig
Christian Friedrich Penzel
A manuscript of Partitas II, III, IV and V preserved today in the Gorke Sammlung in the
library of the Bach-Archiv Leipzig is the work of one of Bach’s last students, Christian
Friedrich Penzel (1737-1801).11 This is revealed not only by the handwriting but also by
an annotation on the manuscript itself made by August Ludwig Leser (died 1848) which
10 See Jones 1978, p.53-54, 72-73 and Jones 1988, p. 77-79.
11 D-LEb: Go. S. 307. See Jones 1978, 42-45 (Source H58).
130
notes that he acquired the manuscript from Penzel while living in Schulpforta, near
Naumburg.12
J. C. Penzel was born in Oelsnitz, the son of a church music director. In his youth
Penzel studied music with the Oelsnitz organist and cantor Johann Georg Nacke (1718-
1804), who himself had likely studied with Bach during his years reading theology at the
University in Leipzig (1741-1742).13 Penzel enrolled in the Thomasschule in Leipzig in
1749 or perhaps even a year earlier.14 His having studied with Bach is suggested by the
fact that Penzel at some point acquired a manuscript in Bach’s hand of French keyboard
music, including Nicolas de Grigny’s Livre d ’Orgue (Paris, 1699), Charles Dieupart’s Six
Suittes de clavessin (Amsterdam, [1701-02]) and Jean Henri d ’Anglebert’s ornamentation
table from the Pieces de Clavecin (Paris, 1689)15 which bears the remark: “Dieses Buch
habe ich von meinem Lehrer J. Seb. Bach zu Geschenk erhalten, als Andenken seiner
Handschrift, Chr. Fr. Penzel. Mersbg.”16 Penzel remained at the Thomasschule until 1756
at which point he seems to have left under awkward circumstances; rector Emesti wrote
in Latin in the student registry that Penzel was ‘a learned young man who was given to
12 The note reads “Diese vortreffliche Sam[m]lung hat der bekannte u. durch die 8. Stim.
Motetto ‘Wenn Christus seine Kirche schiitzt’ beriihmte Penzel, vormahls dritter Lehrer
am Gymnasio zu Merseburg, einst Zogling S. Bachs, geschrieben u. mir, als ich noch in
Pforta war, geschenkt. Aug. L. Leser. 1812.”
13 Kobayashi 1973,106-109. Nacke’s own teacher, G. Gottfried Wagner was a Bach

student as well and the composer of BWV Anh. 162.
14 Lehmann 1988, 70.
15 D-F: Mus.Hs. 1538. See Dok III, Nachtrage zu Band I, Nr. 147a.
16 Kobayashi 1973, 110.
131
misbehavior and chose to leave the school rather than be punished.’17 He entered Leipzig
University in 1756 and remained until 1760 when he accepted a position as Hofmeister to
an unknown court, where he is said to have acquitted himself for two years with
aplomb.18 Penzel subsequently took over his deceased father’s position as Kirchner in
Oelsnitz and in 1766 assumed duties as cantor and teacher in Merseburg. E. L. Gerber
wrote that Penzel’s acquisition of this position was “urn so leichter, da er mit seinen
guten akademischen Wissenschaften und seinen Einsichten in den theoretischen Theil der
Musik auch eine besondere Fertigkeit auf dem Klaviere verband.”19
Penzel’s handwriting in his copy of the Partitas resembles very closely that in his
copy of the English Suites (BWV 806-811)20 and especially that in his copy of Bach’s
Prelude and Fugue in C major (BWV 547),21 suggesting that these manuscripts can be
dated to Penzel’s later years in Leipzig (ca. 1755-1760), as Schulze has suggested.22 They
differ markedly from the handwriting in two large manuscripts of J. S. Bach’s chorale
variations which, according to Kobayashi, Penzel copied in the years around 1770.23 On
17 “ ...doctus iuvenis, sed ad deteriora flexus, et ob earn causam abiit, cum mallet dimitti,
quam puniri.” See Richter 1906, 50.
18 “Nach Vollendung dieser Studien tibemahm er eine Hofmeisterstelle, welcher er 2

Jahre hindurch riihmlich vorgestanden hatte...” Gerber 1812/14, III, 671.
19 Gerber 1812/14, III, 671.
20 D-LEm: Poel.mus.ms.26.
21 D-LEm: Poel.mus.ms.32.
22 Schulze 1977, 16.
23 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 1109 and P 1119. See Kobayashi 1973, 179.
132
the basis of similarities between Penzel’s manuscript, J. S. Bach’s copy of the third
Partita in Anna Magdalena Bach’s Clavierbiichlein and the corrected prints G23, G24,
G25, G26 and G28 discussed above, Richard Douglas Jones has argued convincingly that
Penzel copied this manuscript not from a print but rather from a manuscript of the
Partitas which in all probability came from the Bach household.24 Most probably this
would have come from Anna Magdalena Bach during the period in which she lived with
the Graff family in the Hainstrasse. Thus it seems likely that Bach's autograph
manuscript of the Partitas remained in Leipzig until Anna Magdalena's death in 1760, at
which point it came into the possession of C. P. E. Bach, who is known to have been in
possession of it by August of 1774, as noted above.25
24 Jones 1978,42-45.
133
- Sachsen-Anhalt
Bernhard Christian Kavser. Anonymous O and Ox and Johann Christoph Olev26
O f all the nameless 18th century persons whose manuscripts of J. S. Bach’s music survive
today, the identity of the scribe known in the scholarly literature as Anonymous 5 has
been among the most eagerly sought. Ten manuscripts are known to survive in his hand,
many of which have played an extraordinarily important role in the transmission of
Bach's keyboard and vocal music and several of which were once considered autographs.
We have Anonymous 5 to thank for an early, ornamented version of the Inventions and
Sinfonias (BWV 772-801) as well as a set of Inventions by Bonporti, both of which offer
insight into Bach's teaching practices. His manuscript of the French Suites was prepared
directly from Anna Magdalena Bach's Clavierbiichlein of 1722, was updated several
times to take account of Bach's revisions and presents the earliest known versions of the
peripheral French Suites in A minor (BWV 818) and E-flat major (BWV 819/819a).
Anonymous 5 worked on behalf of Bach as a copyist of Figuralmusik copying scores of
cantatas 154 (“Mein liebster Jesus ist verloren”) and 186 (“Argre dich, o Seele, nicht”),
the latter of which is the work's only known source. The two manuscripts of perhaps the
greatest importance are those of the English Suites (BWV 806-811) and the Well-
Tempered Clavier I (BWV 846-869). Anonymous 5's manuscript of the six English
Suites was prepared with Bach's assistance and represents the earliest surviving source
261 would like to thank Mr. Joachim Grossert (Bernburg) and Mrs. S. Sauerzweig
(Cothen) and especially Mr. Albrecht W ebel (Bernburg) and Mr. Jurgen Samuel (Halle),
to whom I am much indebted for valuable assistance they provided while I was
conducting the research for this portion of the dissertation.
134
for these works. It is all the more valuable for the fact that Bach's autograph does not
survive. Throughout the 19th century and into the 20th it was believed that two autographs
of the Well-Tempered Clavier I survived: the Volkmannsche Autograph (after Robert
Volkmann)27 which was indeed prepared by Bach and the Fischhofsche Autograph (after
Josef Fischhof)28 which was believed to have been prepared by Bach but is in fact the
work of Anonymous 5. O f the two Anonymous 5's copy transmits the earlier version and
is thus of great value for our knowledge of the work's genesis. Anonymous 5 also made a
copy of the sixth Partita which is paired with the Prelude and Fugue in E minor (BWV
548).
In the most important study of Anonymous 5 to date, Marianne Helms was able to
identify ten manuscripts in his hand and to order them chronologically according to
watermarks and handwriting characteristics. I reproduce a compliation of her work here
which is supplemented by remarks made by Alfred Durr in the critical reports for the
English and French Suites:29
27 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P415.
29 This chart represents a compilation of the information provided by Helms in Durr,

1981, 183-195 and by Alfred Durr in the Durr 1981, 16-21 and in Durr, 1982, 16-21 and
27-33.
135
Table 9
Manuscripts Copied by Anonymous 5
Suggested Date Ms. BW V Notes

1717-1720 P 1072 806/1-4 English Suite I: Prelude to Courante 2
1719-1722 P 1072 806/4a, 4b, 5 English Suite I: Doubles o f Courante 2, Sarabande
>1722 P 418 8 1 2 ,8 1 3 ,8 1 4 /1 -4 ,8 1 8 French Suites I, II, III and Suite in A minor
late 1722 P 1092 572 Piece d ’Orgue
1722/23 P 401 8 4 6 ... 869 Most o f the Well-Tempered Clavier I.
1722/23 P 418 813/1-2 Corrections to French Suite II: Allemande, Courante
1723 P 270 Anh. Ill 173-176 Four Inventions by F. A. Bonporti
1723 P 53 186 Score to cantata “Argre dich, O Seele, nicht”
dated “ 1723” and performed in Leipzig on July 11,
1723.
1723/24 P 1072 806/6-8 English Suite I: Bourree 1, Bourree 2 and Gigue.
1723/24 P 130 154 Score to cantata “Mein liebster Jesus ist
verloren”dated “ 1724” and performed in
Leipzig on January 9, 1724.
1724 P 219 772-801 Inventions and Sinfonias
1724/25 P 1072 807-811 English Suites II-VI
>1725 P 418 814/5-6,815/1-5, 819 French Suites III, IV and Suite in E-flat major
>173030 Vienna31548, 830, unknown work Prelude and Fugue in E minor, Partita VI, sketch
o f a work in F major (composed by Anonymous 5?)
>1730 P 418 819a/l, 815/6 N ew version o f the Allemande inserted into
Suite in E-flat major and Menuet
added to French Suite IV.
>173632 P 809 831 French Ouverture
Helms and Durr observed that Anonymous 5 ’s earliest known manuscript, that of the first
English Suite, was copied on paper commonly used in Cothen between 1717 and 1720,
suggesting that his studies with Bach began there and continued into the Leipzig years, as
evidenced by the Cantata manuscripts dated 1723 and 1724.33 Alfred Durr was able to
30 Helms incorrectly gives the date 1731 here. It is possible that our scribe was working
not from the collected edition of 1731 but from the individual print of the sixth Partita
which might have been published in 1730.
31 This manuscript is in the private collection of W alther Laichmann in Vienna.
32 Here Anonymous 5 was working from the second edition of the Clavier-Ubung part II
published in 1736, not the first edition of 1735.
33 NBA V/7 Krit. Bericht (A. Durr, 1981) p. 186.
136
prove that Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber copied his manuscript of four of the English Suites
(BWV 806, 808, 810, 811) from a Vorlage provided by Anonymous 5, revealing that the
latter remained in Leipzig at least until the end of 1724.34 Nothing further has been
known of Anonymous 5 ’s subsequent whereabouts except that he was still alive in 1736,
as evidenced by his having used the second edition of Bach’s Clavier-Ubung part II as a
Vorlage for his manuscript of the French Ouverture (BWV 831).35
A major recipient of manuscripts from Anonymous 5 ’s library was Johann
Christoph Oley (1738-1789), organist in Bemburg from the mid-1750s until early 1762
and in nearby Aschersleben from 1762 until his death in 1789. Oley was able to acquire
at least four manuscripts prepared by Anonymous 5 including those of the English Suites,
the Piece d ’Orgue, the French Overture and the Well-Tempered Clavier, part I. All but
the English Suites bear the possession mark “Joh: Chr: Oley I Bemburg,” revealing that
he acquired them before early 1762 when he moved from Bernburg to Aschersleben.36
Anonymous 5 ’s manuscript of Bach’s Prelude and Fugue in E minor (BWV 548) and
sixth Partita (BWV 830) probably also came into Oley’s possession as it bears the
ownership marking of a later possessor (“v. W .”, in red ink) which is found on nearly all
34 On Gerber’s copying from Anonymous 5 ’s manuscript see Durr 1981, 54-55 and 196-
201. Ernst Ludwig Gerber asserts that his father began studying with Bach a half year
after enrolling in Leipzig University on May 8, 1724 (i. e. November-December 1724)
and had two years of lessons, meaning that Gerber probably left Leipzig in early to mid-
1727. See Gerber 1790/92, 491-492. See also Durr 1978, 7-18.
35 Emery and W olff 1977, 38-40.
36 Despite Oley’s possession mark on Anonymous 5 ’s manuscript of the English Suites,

which reads: “Joh: Chr: Oley. I Aschersleben,” one suspects that he acquired this
manuscript with the others before 1762 and only later applied his ownership marking.
137
of the manuscripts from Oley’s library.37 It is Oley’s acquisition of these manuscripts
which more than anything else casts doubt upon Helms’ and Durr’s tentative conclusion
that Anonymous 5 was Johann Schneider (1702-1788), the organist at Leipzig’s
Nicolaikirche from 1729 until 1788. There is no evidence to suggest that Schneider knew
Oley or, indeed, that Oley was ever in Leipzig. Furthermore, it would have been a
bizarre gesture for an active organist like Schneider to part with such a valuable portion
of his music library before 1762 - some 26 years before his death.
I
Operating under the assumption that Oley was in contact with Anonymous 5 in
the 1750s, a search was undertaken for names and writing samples from leading
musicians in the immediate vicinity of Bemburg. The search led to B ach’s former place
of employment, Cothen, from which the paper for Anonymous 5's manuscript of the first
English Suite came. Prince August Ludwig of Anhalt-Cothen (1697-1755), who
succeeded his brother Leopold in 1728, employed an organist in the 1750s named
Bernhard Christian Kayser, whose work is preserved in a manuscript of easy keyboard
pieces now in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.38 The handwriting within this manuscript
confirms beyond the shadow of a doubt that Kayser is indeed the long sought
Anonymous 5.
37 The only surviving manuscript from Oley’s library which does not bear the later
ownership marking “v. W .” is that of BWV 525-530 (Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek
Wien: Codex 15528). See Kobayashi 1973, 143-44.
38 D-Bds: Mus.ms. 11440.
138
Bernhard Christian Kayser was born in Cothen on August 16, 1705,39 the only
son of a lawyer and notary public, Christian Bernhard Kayser, and his wife Marie
Elisabeth Kayser (nee Geiseler), who were married in the church of St. Jakob on
February 23, 1699.40 If indeed Kayser’s copy of the first English Suite can be dated to
between 1717 and 1720 he could not have been much older than 15 when he began his
studies with Bach and was perhaps as young as 12. That Bach was Kayser’s primary
music instructor in these impressionable years is further documented by the style of
Kayser’s handwriting, which bears a profound resemblance to that of his teacher. Kayser
enrolled in Leipzig University on July 7, 1724.41 His manuscript of cantata 186, however,
is dated “ 1723” and was first performed on July 11 of that year, just seven weeks after
Bach himself arrived in Leipzig and a full year before Kayser enrolled in the university.42
Kayser also produced a score of cantata 154, the first performance of which took place on
January 9, 1724, six months before he enrolled in the university. It is conceivable Kayser
followed his teacher to Leipzig and focused on his musical studies for up to a year before
39 Evangelisches Pfarramt St. Agnus in Kothen. Geburtsregister. Jahrgang 1705, Nr. 44.
The birth record reads: “den 18. Augusti ist getauffet worden Bernhard Christian Kayser
Hr. Christian Bernhard Kayser, Advocat alhir Ehel. Sohn. (nat d. 16 Aug.) die Pathen
sind. (1) Hr. Georg Andreas Findeler, Regierungs Secretarius alhir (2) Hr. Dienstmann
Schumacher von Garmbsdorff [Gramsdorf]. (3) Fr. Johanna Sophia Bonsin, Hr. N.
Bonsen, Pacht-Inhaber zu Gliitzig [Glauzig] Eheliebste.” Kayser was named after his
paternal grandfather, who worked as a “Furstl. Sachsischen Ambts-SchoBer” in
Darenburg near Weimar. His maternal grandfather is described in his parents’ marriage
records as a “burger und bottscher” in Cothen.
40 Evangelisches Pfarramt St. Jakob in Kothen. “Getraute”, Jahrgang 1699, p. 403, Nr. 4.
41 Erler 1909, 191.
42 Dok II, Nr. 138.
139
attending the university. As aforementioned, Kayser’s connection with Heinrich
Nikolaus Gerber suggests that he remained in Leipzig until at least the end of 1724.
Kayser was definitely back in Cothen before September 20, 1733 when he married
Henrietta Charlotta Baudis (1715-1742), the daughter of “Herm Doctor Johann Gottlob
Baudissens weyland Hoch-furstl. Anhaltl. Hof-Medici, wie auch Practici Medicinae
alhier.” In the marriage records he is listed not as a musician but rather as “fiirstl. Anhaltl.
Commissarius, wie auch Hof- und Regierungs Advocat alhier.”43 Henrietta Charlotta
Kayser gave birth to five children between 1734 and 1740:
July 12, 1734 Friederica Charlotta

Oct. 5, 1735 Johann Leopold
Dec. 20, 1736 Regina Elisabetha Charlotta
Dec. 6, 1738 Christian Ludewig Friedrich
Oct. 1, 1740 Carl George Lebrecht
Tragically Kayser’s 27-year old wife died on May 8, 1742 as a consequence of
complications relating to the birth of her sixth child, a boy, who himself died just 12
weeks later.44 In the birth registry Kayser is described in every case as “ [Fiirstl.]
Commissarius alhier,” again without any reference to musical activity. One finds no
suggestion of a relationship to the court Kapella among the 25 individuals who served as
Godparents to Kayser’s children, although numerous court employees are represented
43 Evangelisches Pfarramt St. Jakob in Kothen. “Getraute”, Jahrgang 1733, p. 129, Nr. 14.
44 Evangelisches Pfarramt St. Jakob in Kothen. “Verstorbene”, Jahrgang 1742, p. 355,

Nr. 30 and p. 361, Nr. 50.
140
('Cammerherr, Geheimrath, Cammer Juncker, Hofrath) as well as several members of the
ruling family, including Prince August Ludwig himself.45
Despite the lack of apparent connections to the court Kapella in Kayser’s
biography before 1747, the enthusiasm he displayed for music-making in his early years
suggests that his appointment in Cothen, whether made by Prince Leopold before
November 19, 1728 or by Prince August Ludwig after that date, owed something to his
musical abilities. Kayser’s engagement with Bach’s keyboard music seems to have
continued through the 1730s, as evidenced by his manuscripts of the Prelude and Fugue
in E minor (BWV 548) and the sixth Partita (BWV 830), prepared sometime after 1730
as well as the French Overture (BWV 831), prepared after 1736.46 By 1747 at the latest
Kayser was serving the court as organist and chamber musician and working regularly in
this capacity with musicians who had served under Bach in Cothen, including Johann
Freytag, Torlee [Torlen] senior, Christian Ferdinand Abel (1682-1761) and Christian
Bernhard Linigke (died 1751). He may well have helped Bach’s student Rudolf Straube
(born 1717) obtain a position as chamber musician at August Ludwig’s court in 1747.47 It
45 It is interesting to note that two of the Godparents have tenuous connections with Bach.
Regina von Schnurbein, who served with Bach on August 11, 1728 as Godparent to
Leopold Spiess, son of the Cothen Cammer Musicus Joseph Spiess, also acted as
Godmother to Regina Elisabetha Kayser on December 23, 1736 (see Dok II, Nr. 243).
Similarly, Christoph Ludwig Bramigke, the Cammer Verwalter whose wife served with J.
S. Bach and three others as Godparents to Sophia Charlotta Abel, daughter of the
Cammer Musicus Christian Ferdinand Abel, on January 10, 1720, acted as Godfather to
Christian Ludewig Kayser on December 11, 1738 (see Dok II, Nr. 99).
46 Marianne Helms argued that Anonymous 5’s final revisions to his copy of the French
Suites were made after 1730. See Durr, 1981, 194.
47 Schulze 1984, 121.
141
was probably on Kayser’s instigation that the Leipzig organ builder, Johann Scheibe, was
hired in 1746/47 to repair the organ in Cothen’s Stadtkirche, St. Jakob.48 Scheibe’s 15-
point report on the organ’s defects was annotated by Kayser. For the most part his notes
are intended to clarify organ terminology for lay readers but in one instance Kayser
provides information on the organ’s condition not found in Scheibe’s report, namely that
the valves were rusted (“von Galmei angefreBen”) and in need of renovation.49 Kayser’s
familiarity with the instrument suggests that he himself may have served as organist of
the Stadtkirche.
On the occasion of the August Ludwig’s 50th birthday, Bernhard Christian Kayser
presented the Prince with a collection of keyboard Galanterien in two voices, consisting
of Minuets, Polonaises and character pieces, the title page of which reads:
Musicalisches
B lumen-B uschlein,
oder
Neu eingerichtetes
Galanterie-Wercklein
bestehend
In Ein und funfzig Piecen: als Revellie, Menuets,
Marches, Polonoisen Allegros e.
der Music zugethanen hohen Lieb-
habers zur Ergotzlichkeit componiret
und verfertiget durch
Bernhard Christian Kayser.
The book is attractively bound in brown leather with decorative gold detail on the cover
and includes an elaborate engraving by an artist (“Reduzzi”) of a portrait of August
48 See Henkel 1985, 10.
49 Stadtarchiv Kothen 3/402/C20, “A cta..1 7 6 5 - 1 8 5 2 , My thanks to Frau Monika

Knof of the Stadtarchiv Kothen for sending me photocopies of these materials.
142
Ludwig surrounded by a pastoral scene of angels at a harpsichord and cherubs singing
and playing the flute and violin. Opposite the title page is the following handwritten
dedication:
Durchlauchtigster Fiirst,
Gnadigster Fiirst und Herr.
Ew: Hochfiirstl: Durchl: werffe zu hochst Deroselben Hochgeheiligten FiiBen ein

geringes Musicalisches Werckgen, wie beygehend zu sehen ist. Und wie die Sonne mit
ihren klaren Scheine alle finstere und dunckele Oerter hellglantzend machet; Also bitte
unterthanigst Ew: Hochfiirstl: Durchl: wollen mich unwiirdigen Diener mit hochst
Deroselben Hohen Gnade bestralen und solches geringe Wercklein von meiner
Composition allergnadigst aufnehmen auch als ein groBer Apollo und hoher Schutz-Gott
der Musen, mich unwiirdigen Diener solcher hohen Gnade beleuchten, damit zu femerer
Musicalischcn Arbeit ich ein hohes Asylum erhalten moge. Ew: Hochfiirstl: Durchl: bitte
darneben in tiefster Unterthanigkeit mein kiihnes Unterfangen in hohen Gnaden zu
pardoniren, und diese geringe Musicalische Composition allergnadigst anzuhoren. Gott
der Allerhochste erhalte Ew: Hochfiirstl: Durchl: des altesten regierenden Fiirsten zu
Anhalt samt Dero gantzen Hochfiirstl: Hause in bestandigen Flor und hohen
unverriickten Wohlseyn, damit noch viele und lange Jahre die Musicalischen Gemiither
einen hohen Schutz und allerhochste Gnade erlangen mogen. Zu Ew: Hoch: Fiirstl:
Durchl: werffe ich mich nochmahls an Dero hohen Geburts Tage zu Dero geheiligten
FiiBen nieder und beharre in unterthanigster Devotion,
Ew: Hochfiirstl: Durchl: unterthanigster

Knecht
Cothen den 20“ Juny 1747. Bernhard Christian Kayser.50
Kayser’s flattery seems to have paid off. In 1754 the “Schutz-Gott der Musen”
fired all of the musicians in his kapella without warning except for his “Cammer Musico
und Hof O r g a n i s t Kayser, whom he retained at half salary (50 Taler) in his capacity as
50 Kayser’s dedication shows some rhetorical similarities to that of August Reinhard

Strieker to Prince Leopold in Strieker’s printed Opera Prima. Erster Theil: Bestehet in 6
Italienischen CANTATEN (Cothen: Anton Loffler, 1715).
143
organist.51 Kayser lived only four more years. A brief notice in the Sterberegister of
Cothen’s Agnuskirche for 1758 reads: “den. 20. April ist Hr. Bernh. Christian Kayser
fiirstl. Commissarius und Cammer-Musicus beygesetzt. Gratis.”52 That he was buried at
no charge can be considered another indication that he served as organist in one or more
of the municipal churches.
Kayser’s relationship with Johann Christoph Oley bears closer examination. In
addition to acquiring the five Bach manuscripts prepared by Kayser him self Oley was
able to obtain the following six manuscripts from Kayser's estate which were prepared by
another scribe. Following Yoshitake Kobayashi I will call this second scribe
“Anonymous O”:53
51 See Bunge 1905, 36. Bunge confuses Bernhard Christian Kayser, whom he knew only
as “Kayser,” with Johann Kreyser, who served as a music scribe to the Cothen court in
1717. See Bunge 1905, 25 and 37.
52 Evangelisches Pfarramt St. Agnus in Kothen. Sterberegister, Jahrgang 1758, Nr. 42.
53 Kobayashi 1973, 191. Dietrich Kilian’s suggestion (Kilian 1988, 157-158) that
Anonymous O was Johann Gabriel Meng is incorrect. The only known manuscript by
Meng, now held in the library of the Universitat der Kiinste in Berlin (D-Bhm:
Mus.ms.30449), presents handwriting that bears little resemblance to that of Anonymous
O.
144
Table 10
Manuscripts Copied by Anonymous O
Ms. BW V Title N BA
P 1104 56 2 /1 ,5 4 6 /2 Fantasy and Prelude IV/5+6, B 85
Poel. 3 5 ,154 826 Partita II V /l, H 47, H 47a
P 1069 827 Partita III V /l, H 23
P 1070 829 Partita V V /l, H 24
P 1106 589 Allabreve for Organ IV/7, p. 156-157
M s.525a55 733 Fuga sopra il Magnificat IV/3, R
That these manuscripts too came from Kayser is evidenced by his having penned the title
Fuga Sopra il Magnificat, pro Organo pleno con Pedale on the first page of Anonymous
O ’s manuscript of BWV 589, the title Fantasia pro organo cum pedali obligato on the
first page of BWV 562/1 + 546/2, and nearly the entire title page to Anonymous O ’s copy
of Bach's fifth Partita (BWV 829)56 - only after Kayser had written Clavier Ubung I
bestehend I in I Prcelud: Allemande, Corrente, I Tempo di Menuet, I Passepied, I Gique II
composta I di Joh. Sebast I Bach did Anonymous O add the text “PARTIE. V.” and the
54 Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig. See Jones 1978,40 (Source H47). One leaf of this
manuscript is in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. See Jones 1978, 40 (Source H47a).
55 Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt.
56 One notes here in particular the unmistakable similarity between Kayser’s rendering of
the words Passepied, Gique and Sebast[ian] with those in his manuscript of the French
Ouverture (D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 809). The graphological evidence for Kayser having
written this title page is supported further by its unusual wording. Bach’s original prints
of the Partitas bear an all-purpose title page which promises a general selection of
movement types applicable to all of the Partitas: “Praeludien, Allemanden, Couranten,
Sarabanden, Giguen, I Menuetten und andem Galanterien.” This title page, by contrast,
cites the specific movement types to be found within the fifth Partita: “Praelud:
Allemande, Corrente, I Tempo di Menuet. Passepied, I Gigue.” The only other known
manuscript of Bach’s Partitas with a title page which lists specific movement types in this
manner is Kayser’s own copy of the sixth Partita, the title page of which reads:
“ .. .Toccate Alemande I Corrente Sarabande Tempo di Gavotta I et Gicque.” (Private
possession of Walter Laichmann in Vienna).
145
incorrect date, “ 1726.”57 That Kayser would write the title page to a work copied by
Anonymous O and that the latter would subsequently reclaim the manuscript by making
improvements to the title page suggests that Anonymous O was a pupil, assistant or son
of Kayser.
Alfred Durr observed in 1986 that three movements in Anonymous 5's manuscript
of the Well-Tempered Clavier I (BWV 847/2, 851/1 and 869/1) were subject to an 18th
century music analysis in which scale degrees were written next to virtually every pitch.
He tentatively suggested that some of the markings might be in Bach’s hand and that they
might be interpreted as documentary evidence of Bach’s teaching methods.58 Identical
markings are to be found in Anonymous O's manuscript of the Fantasy in C minor (BWV
562/1). In this case the annotations are indisputably in Kayser's hand as they perfectly
match the ink of the title he added, which differs from that of the musical text.
Comparison of the annotations in the Fantasy with those in the Well-Tempered Clavier
reveals that all are indeed the work of Kayser. Thus D urr’s hypothesis that this method
of analysis might stem from lessons with Bach is rendered somewhat less likely, although
it is not inconceivable that Kayser learned it from Bach, who seems to have been his
primary music teacher from an early age. The annotations in Anonymous O's manuscript
of the Fantasy offer further support for the theory that the two had a teacher/student
relationship.
57 Upon acquiring the manuscript Oley himself added the words “Erster Theil I der” above
“Clavier Ubung” at the top and his possession marking: “Joh: Chr: Oley. I Bernburg” at
the bottom right.
58 Durr 1986.
146
Dietrich Kilian’s hypothesis that Oley may have studied with Anonymous 5 can
be neither confirmed nor denied with certainty but it does not seem particularly likely.59
Ernst Ludwig Gerber asserted in 1792 that Oley was primarily an autodidact: “Seine
Starke und Fertigkeit soil er fast durchaus seinem eigenen FleiB zu danken habe.”60
Oley’s earliest manuscript, that of the French Suite in B minor (BWV 814), was
demonstrably copied from a source other than Kayser’s manuscript of the French Suites.61
Even if he did not study with Kayser, however, Oley must have heard of the court
organist in Cothen and known of his formidable music library. One presumes that it was
this knowledge which inspired him sometime not long after Kayser’s death in April of
1758 to make his way to Cothen in hopes of acquiring a portion of this library. O ley’s
remarkable success in this effort would suggest perhaps that the two had some prior
acquaintance. The court of Bemburg was not a beacon of musical enlightenment in those
days62 and an ambitious young musician such as Oley might well have found occasion to
59 Kilian 1978b, 69-72.
60 Gerber 1790/92, II, 43.
62 Johann Joachim Quantz wrote in his autobiography that Fiirst Karl Friedrich of Anhalt-
Bernburg (1688-1721) attempted to hire as a violinist in 1715 at a very attractive salary,
however “ [w]eil ich ... meine Absicht, in der Musik etwas mehrers zu erlemen, an einem
Orte nicht erreichen zu konnen glaubte, wo ich unter Schlechten der beste seyn solte; so
lehnte ich dieses Anerbieten von mir ab, um eine vortheilhaftere Gelegenheit
abzuwarten.” See Marpurg 1754-1778,1/5 (1755), 205-206. The situation seems not to
have improved under Karl Friedrich’s son, Victor Friedrich of Anhalt-Bemburg (1700-
1765), who assumed the throne in 1721. Rang-Ordnungen of 1741, 1743 and 1754 list
all of his employees from Geheimbte Rath down to Wagen-Meister but aside from a
dance master in the list of 1754 include no names explicitly connected with music-
making (Dessau Landeshauptarchiv, Abteilung Bemburg: A 12 Nr. 12). It will be
remembered that J. S. Bach described Victor Friedrich’s sister, Friederika Henriette
147
visit Cothen in order to hear the court Kapella before 1754 or perhaps to meet the talented
musicians who remained in Cothen thereafter.
The Bach manuscripts which he was able to acquire from Kayser's estate were
clearly a great inspiration to the 19-year old Oley. He set about energetically adding his
ownership markings, copying new title pages to Kayser’s manuscripts of the English
Suites and the Well-Tempered Clavier I and recopying two particularly illegible pages of
the French Ouverture (BWV 831). Kayser’s library may have been the mine for a
number of further Bach sources which came into Oley’s possession during his Bernburg
years. He copied an early version of the Italian Concerto sometime before 1758 -
perhaps from a Vorlage in Kayser's library.63 While still in Bemburg Oley also acquired a
print of the Schiibler Chorales (BWV 645-650, published ca. 1748) which was at some
point corrected to match the emendations in Bach’s Handexemplar.64 This too may have
(1702-1723), who grew up in this environment, as an Amusa who diminished her

husband Prince Leopold’s interest in music and cited her presence as a factor in his
leaving Cothen. See Dok I, Nr. 29.
63 In its original state Kayser’s manuscript of the French Ouverture almost certainly
included the Italian Concerto (BWV 971) as well. At the time he acquired Kayser’s
manuscript Oley had already made a copy of an early version of the Italian Concerto, the
title page of which read simply CONCERTO ex F, dur. Ifu r einem I Clavicymbel m it 2
Manualen. Upon acquiring Kayser’s manuscript of the complete Clavier-Ubung part II,
Oley revised his title page to read: Zweyter Theil I der I Clavieriibung I bestehend aus
einem I CONCERTO und I OUVERTURE Ifiir einem I Clavicymbel mit 2 Manualen. He
then systematically revised the musical text of his old manuscript to reflect that of
Kayser’s version, which itself was copied from the print of 1736. After he had finished
revising his own manuscript from Kayser’s source he separated the pages transmitting
Kayser’s copy of the Italian Concerto from those of Kayser’s copy of the French
Ouverture, discarding the former and retaining the latter. See Emery and W olff 1977, 38-
40.
64 A-Wn: S. H. J. S. Bach 40. Lohlein 1987, 134-135 (source A2).
148
come from Kayser’s library, although the corrections resembling those in the
Handexemplar are the work neither of Kayser nor of Oley.65 At some point during his
time in Bemburg Oley acquired (from Kayser?) a source for Bach’s Musical Offering
(BWV 1079) and set to work solving the canons.66
Another recipient of Bach manuscripts from Kayser’s estate was Friedrich
Wilhelm Rust (1739-1796), later music director in Dessau and grandfather of Wilhelm
Rust (1822-1896), who was instrumental in publishing the complete Bach Gesellschaft
edition of Bach's music. Kayser's manuscript of the French Suites bears Rust's ownership
marking and was described by Hans Bischoff in 1881 as “ein Autograph, welches von
Friedemann Bach an F[riedrich] W[ilhelm] Rust kam, von diesem an Hrn. D.r W[ilhelm]
Rust.”67 Rust did indeed study with Wilhelm Friedemann Bach while living in Halle
between 1758 and 1763, which would seem to lend Bischoff s claim credibility despite
65 Heinz-Harald Lohlein’s assessment (Lohlein 1987, 135) that the corrections are
“anscheinend von Oleys Hand” is probably incorrect. Most likely either Kayser or Oley
acquired the print in its corrected state.
66 Oley’s manuscripts of movements from the Musical Offering in the Staatsbibliothek zu

Berlin (D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach P 947 [BWV 1079/2] and P 1064 [BWV 1079/l+4g; 2+4i
and 4k; 4h, 4a-4e]) are both signed “Joh: Chr: Oley I Bernburg.” His further manuscripts
in the D-Bds (Mus.ms.St. 326 [BWV 1079/4f]) and in the Fuchs Collection of the
Gottweig Benediktinerstift (Nr. 7 [BWV 1079/2]) were originally part of P 947. The
project of solving the canons lasted into his early Aschersleben period, as evidenced by
the internal annotations “J. C. O. 1763” and “vorherstehende verschiedene Canones liber
das Konigliche Thema ganz aufgelost I J. C. O. 1763.” Dietrich Kilian suspected from the
remarkable cleanliness of these copies that Oley was simply copying the solutions from
another source.66 The relatively broad timespan for the solution of the canons, however,
and the pride exhibited by Oley’s internal remarks suggest rather that he himself was
responsible for their solution.
67 Joh. Seb. Bach’s Clavierwerke. Volume 2 (Steingraber: Leipzig, [1881]). See Durr
1982, 16.
149
his mistaken belief that the manuscript was an autograph. How or why Wilhelm
Friedemann Bach might have acquired Kayser’s manuscript of the French Suites,
however, is difficult to explain. A more plausible provenance chain presents itself with
the realization that Friedrich Wilhelm attended the lutherische Gymnasium in Cothen
from “Martini 1755” until sometime before September 30,1758 when he enrolled in the
University of Halle. He presented an Ode to his schoolmates in Cothen in 1758,
revealing that he was still there around the time Kayser died.68 Most probably he acquired
this manuscript directly from Kayser's estate. The story of Rust’s having received the
manuscript from the hands of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach is easily explained as an effort
on the part of 19th century scholars to bolster the manuscript’s supposed autograph
status.69
It seems probable that Kayser was Rust's teacher in Cothen and perhaps played a
central role in instilling his lifelong interest in Bach’s music. Kayser may well have been
the source for a lost copy of the rare, early version of the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue
(BWV 903a), the envelope of which was signed by Friedrich W ilhelm’s elder brother, the
Bernburg Kanzellist, Johann Anton Ludwig Rust (1721-1785) and dated “Bemburg
68 Buchmann 1987, II, 6-13.
69 A similar tale was proposed by Friedrich Conrad Griepenkerl (1782-1849) in the case
of Kayser’s manuscript of Bach’s Inventions and Sinfonias. According to a note in
Griepenkerl's hand on the manuscript's inside cover, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach sold this
Bach 'autograph' sometime between October 1770 and April 1774 to the Braunschweig
Domorganist Carl Heinrich Ernst Muller (1753-1835), who in turn sold it to a certain
“ Vicarius Franke,” from whom Griepenkerl himself was able to acquire it. Here too one
suspects that the early links in this provenance chain were imagined in hopes of
substantiating the manuscript's spurious autograph status.
150
1757.”70 Rust claimed in his autobiography that at age 13 he could play ’’die ersten 24
Praludien und Fugen aus alien Tonen vom alten Sebastian Bach vom Anfang bis zum
Ende auswendig.” He also claimed to have attended the Stadt-Schule in Cothen from age
13, although he demonstrably began his studies in Cothen at age 16. Rust's retrospective
association of the Stadt-Schule in Cothen with the Well-Tempered Clavier make it all the
more likely that he learned to play these works between 1755 and 1758 under Kayser's
guidance and perhaps even from Kayser's surviving manuscript.
The identification of Anonymous 5 as Bernhard Christian Kayser sheds light on a
relationship between J. S. Bach and one of his students which cannot have been entirely
typical. The modest size of Cothen and the relatively small number of students Bach
taught there, the fact that Kayser enjoyed direct access to Bach family materials such as
Anna Magdalena Bach's first Clavierbiichlein of 1722 and especially his having followed
Bach to Leipzig perhaps as much as a year before enrolling in the university all suggest
an unusual level of familiarity between teacher and student. It seems most likely that H.
N. Gerber met Kayser in Leipzig through his contact with Bach, and Gerber's having
used Kayser's manuscript of the English Suites as a Vorlage suggests that the latter stood
between Gerber and Bach, perhaps even serving as an assistant. Beyond his own close
contact with Bach Kayser's identification is also of interest because it reveals that Bach's
contacts to the musical establishment in Cothen did not come to an end with Prince
Leopold's death in 1728 but continued throughout his lifetime. Bach's keyboard music
was manifestly of interest to musicians in Cothen in the 1730s and 40s including not only
70 W olf 2000, 119-120 (Source A2).
151
Kayser but also Anonymous O. Finally, the acquisition of Bach manuscripts in Kayser's
library by J. C. Oley and F. W. Rust illuminates the early history of some of the most
valuable manuscripts of Bach's keyboard music known today and provides welcome
evidence of a lively exchange of Bach's keyboard music in mid-18th century Sachsen-
Anhalt.
With regard to the Partitas it is clear that upon his death Kayser owned
manuscripts of at least Partita VI (in his own hand) and Partitas II, III and V (in the hand
of Anonymous O), all of which were subsequently passed on to Oley. All four of these
manuscripts are written on very thick paper with the watermark Wilder Mann mit Baum-
Ast. Anonymous O ’s manuscripts of Partitas II and III stem from the Opus 1 edition of
1731 while his copy of Partita V goes back to the individual print of 1729. That at least
Anonymous O ’s manuscript of the fifth Partita was copied from a manuscript rather than
a printed Vorlage is revealed by the collaborative nature of its creation. Anonymous O
copied all movements except the Tempo di Minuetta, for which he entered only the title,
clefs, key signatures, first measure of music and all of the bar lines for six systems,
according to his standard practice. At this point, perhaps because his source was illegible
or incomplete, Anonymous O turned the manuscript over to a colleague who I will call
Anonymous Ox, who copied the notes for the rest of the Tempo di Minuetto, adding a
system and his own clefs and key signature for the final four measures. Anonymous Ox
was somewhat less careful, forgetting an accidental and displacing a note head in
measure 24 and making transposition errors from soprano to treble clef in measures 37
and 39. The fact that Anonymous O and Anonymous Ox used markedly different colors
of ink makes it possible to see that Anonymous O carefully checked Anonymous O x’s
152
work, adding a sharp to the bass clef key signature in the last system (so that it matched
in detail his own key signatures entered earlier) as well as an augmentation dot which the
other scribe had omitted on the final dotted half note. Even Anonymous O x’s more
blatant errors in the musical text were not corrected by Anonymous O. It might also
serve as an indication that this music was not a high priority for the early owners of this
manuscript - Anonymous O, Kayser and Oley, all of whom were unusually fastidious
scribes who in other cases painstakingly edited their work - neglected to correct
Anonymous Ox's errors.
Kayser’s own manuscript of Partita VI is quite accurate and may have been
copied directly from a print (of 1730 or 1731) but it is oddly paired with a copy of Bach’s
Praeludium und Fuge in E minor (BWV 548). The title page reads as follows:
SONATA
Pour
l’orgue et
Clavecin
consistente
in
Praelude Fugue, Toccate Alemande
Corrente Sarabande Tempo di Gavotta
et Gicque.
del Sigre
Johann Sebastian
Bach.
The back page of the Tempo di Gavotta - where the Gigue would logically have begun -
was originally left blank and the final folio of the manuscript (12) was excised.
Indications of dried glue residue on the last folio (1 lv ) suggest that more pages were
originally pasted onto it; they probably presented the Gicque promised on the title page.
This might suggest that Kayser already owned a separate manuscript of the Gigue at the
153
time he copied the sixth Partita which he then chose to paste to the back of Partita VI
rather than to recopy. At some point after the pages at the end had been removed
Anonymous 5 himself used this blank last page (folio 1 lv) to sketch the first 71 measures
of an unknown ensemble work in F major.71
Kayser was a careful scribe who edited this manuscript after he had finished
copying it. In two instances in the Toccata he initially copied the musical text exactly as
it appears in Bach’s print and later made alterations which he clearly regarded as
improvements, slightly changing the harmony.72 In the Sarabande, he seems to have
accidentally left out two beats of music in the lower two voices while copying and later
filled them in without reference to his source text, recomposing the right hand line.73 It
cannot be determined with certainty why Anonymous 5 designated the Praeludium and
Fugue (BWV 548) together with the sixth Partita as a single Sonata. He added a clear “II
fine” designation at the end of the Praeludium and Fugue (folio 6r), indicating that he
recognized these two pieces to be distinct and in no other known manuscript are they
transmitted together. A similar situation is found in one of Anonymous O ’s manuscripts,
which pairs two unrelated works in C minor: the Fantasy (BWV 562/1) and Prelude
(BWV 546/2),. Kayser's having owned at least two manuscripts which combined
disparate works according to key suggests that he had access to a wealth of music from
71 Folio l l v.
72 Toccata measures 58 and 73.
73 Sarabande m. 23. That the scribe filled in the lower voices at a later time is suggested
by the fact that the variant - which appears in no other known source - is written in very
small notation.
154
which he could copy and was able to select the repertoire according to key. It may even
be an indication that Kayser returned to Leipzig on a regular basis to acquire more music
directly from his former teacher's library.
Oley's relationship to the Partitas seems to have been rather ambivalent. He
conscientiously added his ownership markings to Anonymous O ’s manuscripts of Partitas
II, III and V but made no recognizable annotations to their musical texts, neglecting even
to correct Anonymous Ox’s numerous notational blunders, as noted above. Oley did not
even add even his ownership marking to Kayser’s manuscript of Partita VI - perhaps an
indication that for Oley this music was of a lower priority.
Johann Friedrich Grabner and Christoph Ernst Abraham Albrecht von Boineburg
The Gorke Sammlung of the Bach-Archiv Leipzig includes a manuscript which presents a
number of keyboard works by Wilhelm Friedemann and Johann Sebastian Bach
including the Inventions and Sinfonias, the Allemandes from French Suites III and IV
and English Suite III, the Courante from French Suite IV, the Gigue from French Suite
VI as well as the Corrente from Partita I and the Gigue from Partita VI, labeled
respectively Allegro and Allegro. Fuga. d. J. S. Bach.14
The copyist has been identified by Hans-Joachim Schulze as Johann Friedrich
Grabner (died 1794).75 Grabner’s birthplace, date and ancestry are unknown. He may
74 D-LEb: Go. S. 7. See Jones 1978, 41 (Source H55). For a complete list of contents see
Schulze 1977, 16.
75 Schulze 1984,88-89.
155
have been related to the Dresden organist Johann Heinrich Grabner (1665-1739),76 whose
son Christian Heinrich Grabner (17057-1769) studied with Bach in the 1720s and served
as organist at the Frauenkirche (1733-1742) and later the Kreuzkirche in Dresden (1742-
1769). Johann Friedrich Grabner may also have been related to Christian Grabner (1665-
1729), organist at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig (1701-1729) who was Bach’s colleague
from 1723 to 1729.77 In any case the first position he is known to have held was organist
in the town of Grossenhain near Dresden in 1744.78 In 1748 he won the backing of
Dresden’s influential Count Briihl in his bid for the recently vacated position of organist
at the Wenzelskirche in Naumburg.79 The authorities in Naumburg had the task of
choosing between Grabner (supported by Briihl) and Johann Christoph Altnikol (1719-
1759) (supported by his father-in-law, Johann Sebastian Bach), eventually deciding in
favor of Altnikol. After 13 years in Grossenhain Grabner was appointed organist in 1757
at the Frauenkirche in Dresden. Upon Altnikol’s death in July of 1759 Grabner took
over the position of organist he had sought years earlier at the Wenzelskirche in
Naumburg where he remained until his death in 1794.
The fact that Grabner labeled his copy of the Corrente Allegro suggests that it was
copied from a manuscript source, albeit one not too far removed from the print.
Grabner’s source for the Gigue, however, cannot be traced to the print and bears some
76 Vollhardt 1899,411.
77 Talle 2000, 144.
78 Vollhardt 1899, 149.
79 W erner 1906, 131.
156
resemblance to the version transmitted in Anna Magdalena Bach’s Clavierbiichlein of
1725 in that the note values are halved. Grabner (or the copyist of his source) rearranged
certain sections of the musical text - making the counterpoint more difficult for the eye to
follow but rendering the music less cluttered from the player’s perspective.80 Wherever
the music dips below low C the pitches are transposed up an octave, suggesting that
either Grabner or an intermediary scribe sought to perform these pieces on a keyboard
instrument with a limited lower register.81
The manuscript was probably prepared on behalf of Christoph Ernst Abraham
Albrecht von Boineburg (1752-1840), who studied with Grabner in Naumburg between
ca. 1765 and 1770, and to whom it subsequently belonged.82 Many other manuscripts
were prepared by Grabner on behalf of Boineburg, most o f which present keyboard music
by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.83 Furthermore, the manuscript at hand would appear to
have served a pedagogical purpose. The selections from the French and English Suites
reflect the order that they would have in a complete collection. One has the sense that
80 See measures 7 and 8.
81 See for example the Corrente to the first Partita, measures 26 and 27. These
transpositions could be the work of the scribe who copied Grabner’s source manuscript.
82 See Schulze 1984, 88-89 and Leisinger 1993, 90. The dating of this manuscript is not
aided by its watermark, which is documented in manuscripts by C. F. Penzel prepared in
Leipzig in 1753 - D-Bds: Mus.ms.St. 161 (BWV 1070) and Mus.msSt. 163 (BWV 1029)
- and also in a manuscript by Altnikol prepared in Leipzig or Altenburg sometime
between 1744 and 1759 - Library of Congress ML 96. B 186 (case) (BWV 812-817).
The watermark is variously described as “Kelch mit CEF”(Durr 1983, 23) and “Pokel mit
CEE”(Leisinger Gotha book, 83) but seems to be the work of the paper maker Christoph
Erdmann Fietz (1711-1785). See Herz 1984, 223-226.
83 Leisinger 1993, 30-62.
Grabner created it by combing through various complete collections of Bach's Suites and
other music to which he had access, looking for music which would be appropriate for his
teenage pupil. Thus it seems that Grabner himself did not own a print of the Partitas but
rather a poor quality manuscript from which he copied these two movements on behalf of
von Boineburg.
Johann Christoph Ritter and Two Anonymous Recipients of his Manuscripts
Erwin Jacobi was able to confirm in 1965 that two nearly identical manuscripts, today in
Berlin84 and Zurich,85 which both contain parts 1 and 2 of Bach’s Clavier-Vbung series,
were copied by the Clausthal organist, Johann Christoph Ritter (1715-1767).86 The copy
in Berlin is dated 1740 and the copy in Zurich probably dates from 1755 or later.87
Little is known of Ritter’s life before 1744 when he was appointed organist at the
Marktkirche in the city of Clausthal, near Braunschweig.88 One of the manuscripts bears
the inscription “JCRitter I scripsit c. 1740 I Seb. Bachs Schuler” but other than this note
there is no indication that Ritter studied with Bach; he did not apparently attend the
84 D-Bds: Mus.ms.P 215. See Jones 1978, 33 (Source H2).
85 Jones 1978, 46 (Source H67). Formerly private possession of Erwin Jacobi, Zurich.
86 The manuscript in Berlin also includes a copy of the Allemande from the second
French Suite (BWV 813). See Jacobi 1965, 43-62.
87 Jacobi 1965, 58-59. Jacobi’s dating is based on a comparison with numerous

documents prepared by J. C. Ritter in the course of carrying out his duties in Clausthal.
88 Jacobi 1965, 46-49. Ritter’s obituary from 1767 says that he was 52 years old when he
died, revealing that he was bom in 1715.
158
Thomasschule or Leipzig University.89 Johann Ulrich Haffner published a collection of
Drei Sonaten by Ritter around 1751.90 Hans-Joachim Schulze has pointed out that
Ritter’s name appears ten times as agent for the distribution of his keyboard instruments
made by Balthasar Fritz in Braunschweig between 1750 and 1756, suggesting that Ritter
supplemented his income by supplying music enthusiasts in Clausthal with clavichords.91
Complete copies of Bach’s Opus 1 made before ca. 1760 are rare, which makes
Ritter’s having twice copied both parts 1 and 2 of the Clavier-Ubung all the more
remarkable. Jacobi suggested in 1965 that the 1740 copy probably belonged to Ritter
himself while the other was likely made on behalf of someone else, perhaps on
commission.92 In fact it seems more likely that Ritter made both of the extant manuscripts
on commission. Variant readings reveal that both were copied from a third manuscript
source,93 which was probably Ritter’s personal copy given that it was available to him
over such an extended period (at least 1740-ca. 1755).
89 Jacobi 1965,44.
90 It is dedicated to Gottfried Philipp von Billow of Braunschweig-Liineburg.
91 See Fritz 1757, 25-32. Jacobi cites Hans-Joachim Schulz as the source of this
information.
92 Jacobi 1965, 59.
93 Jones 1978,33.
159
- Berlin
Johann Philipp Kimberger and Two (or Three?") Anonymous Recipients
Three manuscripts in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin transmitting excerpts from Partita I
are the work of Bach's student, Johann Philipp Kimberger (1721-1783):
Table 11
Manuscripts of Music from the Partitas in the Hand of J. P. Kimberger
Partita I_____Title_____________________Jones D-Bds Call Number_______

Praludium Prelude H30 Mus.ms. 30196
Giga Giga del Sigre J. S. Bach H3 Mus.ms.Bach.P 218
Giga Giga del Sigre J. S. Bach H27 Mus.ms.Bach.P 1206
Kimberger may have first come to know Partita I as a student of H. N. Gerber in
Sondershausen, where he lived until 1739 when at the age of 18 he moved to Leipzig to
study with Bach. However, these copies were probably made for the most part between
during the second half of the 18th century - probably in the 1760s or 1770s. Most likely
they were prepared in the context of private lessons which Kimberger offered in Berlin.
This is suggested by the luxurious use of paper, the fingerings in H2794 and above all by
the fact that Kimberger prepared two separate manuscripts of the Giga, both of which
seem to have been rendered with some impatience.95
94 Measure 26 has “1” above the downbeat and m. 32 has “r” to indicate use of the left
(“linke”) hand and right (“rechte”) hands respectively, thus clarifying the hand-crossing
clear for an inexperienced player.
95 That Kimberger prepared both manuscripts in some haste is indicated by messy

corrections above which he was forced to write letter names over the notes in the interest
of clarity (e. g. H3: Gigue m. 4; H27: m. 29). In H3 Kimberger confuses himself with a
copying error in m. 36 and proceeds to write in an enharmonic version of Bach’s printed
160
Johann Friedrich Hering and an Anonymous Recipient
Two manuscripts of the Giga from Partita I preserved in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin
were attributed by Paul Kast to a scribe he named Anonymous 300 who worked on behalf
of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach in Berlin between ca. 1755 and 1767.96 Recently
Anonymous 300 was identified by Peter Wollny as Johann Friedrich Hering (1724-
1810).97 Hering seems never to have held a public position in Berlin but made his living
primarily through private teaching. He was active as a collector, most especially of
music by J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach and W. F. Bach.98
O f Hering's two manuscripts of the Giga that in source H21 is the earlier
according to Wollny's study of the manuscript's handwriting, copied before ca. 1765.99
This copy includes only the last 24 measures of the Giga and was probably rendered from
a manuscript source, as suggested by its title ("Gigue") and the fact that the top line is in
text - perhaps a sign that this piece was well-known to him and that he was writing it out
from memory.
96 Mus.ms.Bach.P 509 and 949. See Kast 1958, 34, 55. See also Jones 1978, 34 (Source
H10) and 36 (Source H21). Anonymous 300 also prepared copies of the B-minor Mass
(BWV 232) which C. P. E. Bach corrected (D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 14 and P 23).
97 See Wollny 1995. Bettina Faulstich was able to determine certain biographical details
about Hering including his birth and death dates but her account is rather confused
because she assumes that J. F. Hering is the same as S. Hering, who was in all likelihood
another scribe. See Faulstich 1997, 510-517.
98 Hering was described as a "musikalischer Verteran Berlins und gar sorgsamer, eifriger
Sammler und ausschlieBlicher Verehrer Bachischer Produkte" by Carl Spazier in 1793.
See Wollny 1995, 84.
99 Wollny 1995, 88 and 105.
161
soprano rather than treble clef. The manuscript consists only of a single bifolio which
also includes a copy of a March in E-flat major by Johann Philipp Kimberger. Since this
work was copied from a print which was published in 1757100 we assume that the entire
manuscript was copied between 1757 and 1765. Hering's second surviving manuscript of
the Giga (Jones H10 - labeled "Gique") is also a single bifolio which includes two works
by C. P. E. Bach: a Prestissimo in F minor (Wq 117/2) and a Fantasia (Allegretto) in F
minor (Wq 117/10). The handwriting suggests that this manuscript was copied
considerably later - no earlier than 1765 and perhaps decades later.101
Both manuscripts of the Giga were almost certainly copied by Hering on behalf of
students. This is suggested by their brevity, by the character of the repertoire, which
seems to have been selected to further the abilities of young students and by the fact that
the Giga was copied on two separate occasions.102 The fact that the Giga, which was first
published in 1726 and perhaps composed some years earlier, found its way so regularly
into the teaching repertoire of J. F. Hering in the second half of the 18th century is a
striking evidence of its stylistic resilience.
100 See Wollny 1995, 88 and Engelhardt 1974, Nr. 196. The piece appeared in part 2 of F.
W. Marpurg's (1718-1795) Raccolta delle piu nuove composizioni di Clavicembalo
(Leipzig: J. G. I. Breitkopf, 1756-57).
101 See Wollny 1995, 103.
102 Hering also copied C. P. E. Bach's Fantasia in F minor (Wq 117/10) at least twice. In
addition to the copy discussed above (Jones H10) Hering copied this work in D-Bds:
Mus.ms.Bach.P 704. See Wollny 1995, 103.
162
- Schwerin
Johann Jacob Heinrich Westphal
The library of the Conservatoire Royal de Musique in Brussels contains a volume of
keyboard music by Couperin, D'Andrieu, P. Fevrier, J. Haydn, G. S. Loehlein, Rameau,
J. C. Schmiigel, Telemann and E. W. W olf as well as a copy of the Giga from Partita I,
labeled Gique e Piece pour le Clavecin de Bach.103 Most of the music comes from prints
and music periodicals of the 1760s. It was copied by a young musician in Schwerin
named Johann Jacob Heinrich Westphal (1756-1825), probably between 1768 and 1778.
From 1778 he would serve as organist at various churches in Schwerin and teacher at the
local Gymnasium. The appearance of Bach's Giga alongside much more modern and
fashionable music in a manuscript of the 1770s is a further testament to the durability of
its charms.
- Thiiringen
Johann Gottfried Miithel
A manuscript now in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin preserves copies of two short excerpts
from Bach’s Opus 1 - the first 7 bars of the Sinfonia {Grave Adagio) to Partita II and the
Sarabande from Partita V - in the hand of another of Bach’s last students, Johann
Gottfried Miithel (1728-1788).
103 B-Bc: 6323 MSM. For virtually all information about this manuscript I rely on
Leisinger and Wollny 1997, 25-30 and 373.
163
Miithel, the son of the municipal organist in Molln, began keyboard lessons at age
6. At an early age he traveled to Liibeck in order to study with Johann Paul Kuntzen
(1696-1757) and was hired in 1747 to serve as Kammermusikus and Hoforganist at the
court of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. In Schwerin it was also Muthel’s job to perform at the
harpsichord during court assemblies and to give Prince Ludwig (bom 1725) and his sister
Princess Amalie (bom 1732) music instruction.104 Thus Miithel had a degree of practical
experience when, in April of 1750 - at the age of 22 - he was granted permission by
Duke Christian Ludwig II of Mecklenburg-Schwerin to travel to Leipzig in order to study
with Bach.105 Miithel arrived in late April or May of 1750 and studied for a few months
with Bach, during which time Gerber reports that he lived in the Thom askantof s home
and became closely acquainted with his sons.106 After Bach’s death on July 28, 1750,
Miithel traveled to Naumburg, where he studied with Bach’s son-in-law, Johann
Christoph Altnikol (1720-1759), eventually developing an intimacy with this family as
well, as evidenced by his having served as Godfather to Altnikol’s daughter, Augusta
Magdalena, on June 2, 1751.107 He subsequently made a grand tour of sorts, visiting
famous musicians such as Johann Adolph Hasse (1699-1783) in Dresden, Georg Philipp
Telemann (1681-1767) in Hamburg and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach in Berlin. In 1753
104 Kemmler 1970, 7 and 15-18.
105 Dok II, Nr. 602, 603.
106 Dok III, Nr. 818, 950.
107 Dok III, Nr. 640.
164
he was appointed Kapellmeister to the Russian privy councilor von Vietinghoff in Riga
where he remained for the rest of his life.
It was probably in Altenburg while living with Altnikol or perhaps in Berlin while
visiting Emanuel Bach that Miithel copied the two short excerpts from B ach’s Partitas
cited above. Gerber wrote that the time Miithel spent in Altenburg had “viele Nutzen fiir
seine Kunst.”108 In any case, the handwriting in these two Partita excerpts is identical to
that in Miithel’s collection of Suites, entitled Les heures agreables et innocentes, which
were definitely copied before June of 1753, when he left for Riga.109
The two excerpts Miithel copied are not incomplete fragments or sketches but are
rather deliberately excerpted sections transcribed by Miithel onto a single bifolio. One
suspects that this short manuscript was meant to serve as a supplementary appendix to a
complete manuscript or printed exemplar of the Partitas (or at least of Partitas II and V).
Although they are cleanly ended here, the first seven bars of the Sinfonia (Grave Adagio)
in particular cannot stand alone in performance as the seventh bar ends on a dominant
chord before entering a new section (Andante).
Both of the pieces copied are very heavily ornamented and it is clear that their
detailed ornamentation is what inspired Miithel’s interest. Miithel does not seem to have
invented this ornamentation himself. His embellished version of the Sarabande is very
108 Gerber 1790/92, II, 986.
109 Miithel idenfies himself on the title page of this manuscript (D-Bds: Mus.ms. 15764) as
Musicien de la Chambre et Organiste de la Cour de Son Altesse Serenissime Mgr le Due
regnant de Meclenbourg, a title he gave up in June of 1753. These Suites were
subsequently reworked as Sonatas and published around 1756 by Johann Ulrich Haffner
in Niirnberg under the title: III Sonates et II Ariosi avec XII Variations pour le Clavessin.
165
similar to that found in one of the corrected prints (G26), as discussed above. Clearly
both Miithel and the original owner of G26 had access to similar source material,
although neither seems to have been copied directly from the other. Miithel’s beaming
and rhythmic details differ enough from the print to reveal that he was copying from a
manuscript source.110 The Grave Adagio of Partita II, which is so elaborately decorated
that the ornamentation could not possibly have been added legibly to a printed text, was
also certainly copied from a manuscript source. While ornamentation was certainly not a
new concept for Miithel he clearly felt that owning an explicit record of how Bach or
members of his circle himself performed these works would be of advantage.
Johann Peter Kellner and his students. Wolfgang Nicolas Mev and Johannes Ringk
A manuscript of Partita I in the hand of Johann Peter Kellner (1705-1772) and another of
Partita III prepared for the most part by Kellner are preserved today in the
Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.1U
O f all the 18th century aficionados of J. S. Bach’s keyboard music, Kellner must
be counted as among the most enthusiastic. In the course of a short autobiographical
sketch he penned on November 1, 1754, Kellner recalled:
Ich hatte sehr viel von einem grossen Meister der Musik ehemahls theils gesehen, theils
gehoret. Ich fand einen ausnehmenden Gefallen an dessen Arbeit. Ich meine den
nunmehro seligen Herrn Capellmeister Bach in Leipzig. Mich verlangte nach der
110 For beaming discrepancies see m. 12, 14, 26. For differences in rhythmic detail see m.
23, 28.
111 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 574 and P 804.
166
Bekanntschaft dieses vortreflichen Mannes. Ich wurde auch so gliiklich, dieselbe zu
geniesen.112
Kellner was bom in the small town of Grafenroda in 1705, just “drei Meilen” from Gotha
in Thuringia, where his father worked as a lampblack merchant. Upon entering school
Kellner took up singing lessons with the local cantor, Johann Peter Nagel and eventually
also keyboard lessons with Nagel’s son, Johann Heinrich. His parents were very much
against his pursuit of a musical career but the boy persevered and they finally acquiesced.
When his keyboard teacher was hired as cantor in Ditendorf, the 14-year old Kellner was
allowed to follow and study with him there for an additional two years. At age 16 he felt
he had learned as much as he could from Nagel and moved to Zella to study with the
well-known organist Johann Schmidt. While in Zella Kellner had composition lessons
with one of Schmidt’s neighbors, Hieronymus Florentius Quehl, who worked as an
organist in the nearby town of Suhl. At age 17 Kellner moved back to Grafenroda, where
he worked for three years as a private music tutor to the local pastor’s young sons. There
he was able to learn not only “good manners,” as he writes in his autobiography, but also
Latin, as the pastor allowed him to sit in on the boys’ private classes. On October 21,
1725 - at age 20 - Kellner was hired as cantor and organist in nearby Frankenhain.
There he remained until December of 1727 when was called back to Grafenroda to serve
as assistant to his elderly singing teacher, J. P. Nagel, who had grown frail. Upon
Nagel’s death in 1732 Kellner was officially named cantor and organist and remained in
his home town of Grafenroda until his own death in 1772.
112
See also Dok III, Nr. 950.
167
The handwriting characteristics in Kellner’s copy of the first Partita suggest that it
dates from shortly after the print’s initial release - in late 1726 or 1727 - while he was
living in Frankenhain.113 The manuscript is unusual for Kellner in its extraordinary
attention to detail and very few deviations from the printed text. Kellner is so concerned
here with beauty and accuracy that he even adds clarifying graphic details to his copy
(such as “3”s over triplets) which do not appear in the print.114 One suspects that Kellner
had access to a printed rather than a manuscript Vorlage. His fastidiousness might be
interpreted as a manifestation of the "grosses Aufsehen in der musikalischen Welt" which
Forkel asserts attended the print’s release.
Kellner’s signature at the bottom right-hand side of the title page of Partita I
originally read Scrips. Johann P .115 but the P was subsequently changed into an R which
became the first letter in Ringk, revealing that it was at some point acquired by Kellner's
student, Johannes Ringk (1717-1778). Ringk grew up in Frankenhain and studied music
with both Kellner and Georg Heinrich Stolzel (1690-1749), Hofkapellmeister in Gotha.
He seems to have moved to Berlin in 1740 or earlier, where he worked as a music teacher
and opera composer and copyist until 1755, when he was appointed organist at the
113 See Stinson 1989, 23 and 26. Given the similarities in Kellner’s handwriting in this
manuscript and manuscripts on which he included dates such as BWV 772-801 (dated
1725), BWV 894 (dated 1725), and BWV 1001, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1006 (collectively
dated “Frankenhayn. 3. Juli 1726.”) Stinson’s conclusion that Kellner’s copy of BWV
825 was prepared around 1726 is probably correct.
114 See the Sarabande, m. 11.
115 A similar signature by Kellner, in unaltered form, can be found on his copy of BWV
966 in D-Bds: Mus.ms.P 804, p. 203-208.
168
Marienkirche.116 Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg was overjoyed at Ringk’s appointment,
noting that Ringk’s skills - particularly in the realm of strict counterpoint and fugue -
were unimpeachable.117 Interestingly, among Ringk’s numerous surviving manuscripts
one finds no other Suites or Galanterien whatsoever.118 Even his well-documented early
training seems to have been focused on 17th and early 18th century organ repertoire by
Bruhns, Buxtehude, Bohm, Werckmeister and Buttstedt rather than more modern
Galanterien,119 although it is possible that he pruned his manuscript library of the lighter
repertoire only in his later years. In any case the fact that Ringk acquired (and retained)
Kellner’s copy of Bach’s first Partita, which in terms of its genre contrasts sharply with
the repertoire he was most famous for playing, suggests that it had a special attraction for
him beyond that of most Galanterien owing to its unusually contrapuntal nature.
One presumes that Kellner offered Ringk his manuscript of the first Partita at
some point before the latter left for Berlin - that is, definitely by 1740. That Kellner
116 That Ringk arrived in Berlin around 1740 is suggested by his application for the
position of organist at the Marienkirche, dated December 16, 1754, in which he claims
that he had been offered the position of organist at Berlin’s Nikolaikirche fourteen years
earlier but that the arrangements had somehow fallen through. See Kilian 1978a, 198.
117 Marpurg 1754-1778,1/5 (1755), 477: "Wer einen tiichtigen Organisten nicht nach
wilden unregelmaBigen, und auf keine gewise Anzahl von Stimmen eingeschrankten
Fantasien, wenn Sie auch im Allabreve Styl waren, sondern nach einer regelmaBigen und
ordentlichen und schon ausgefiihrten Fuge zu beurtheilen, im Stande ist, wird bey
Anhorung dieses wackem und geschickten Mannes, allezeit seine vollkommene
Rechnung finden. W ir freuen uns, daB in diesem Tempel die Ehre der Fuge so gliicklich
wiederhergestellt wird."
118 See Kilian 1978a, 198-205. Ringk’s closest documented connection to another Suite
is his copy of the Prelude and Fugue from H andel’s D minor Suite (HWV 427/1-2) in D-
Bds: Mus.ms.9160/6. Here he neglected to copy the dance movements.
119 See D-Bds Mus.ms.30381. Kilian 1978a, 200.
169
would wish to part with a manuscript to which he had obviously devoted such an
extraordinary amount of care in 1726/27 seems strange. His giving the manuscript to his
student before 1740 was probably occasioned by his having acquired the only thing better
than an immaculate manuscript: an original print. This he could conceivably have
acquired from Georg Balthasar Schott (1686-1736). In March of 1729 Schott moved
from Leipzig to Gotha in order to take up the position of cantor there. Schott had spent
the previous eight years as organist at Leipzig’s Neue Kirche and director of the
Collegium Musicum, of which Bach himself assumed the reigns in 1729.120 J. P. Kellner
would not have missed the opportunity to get to know a personal friend and musical
associate of J. S. Bach who had taken up residence just drei Meilen away. As someone
who dealt constantly with students in Leipzig it is inconceivable that Schott was
unfamiliar with Bach’s Partitas - at least the first four, which had been released before he
left in 1729. Upon Schott’s death in March of 1736 Kellner might well have acquired
materials from his library, perhaps including a print of the first Partita, which in turn
inspired him to give (or perhaps sell) his immaculate copy of the same work to Ringk.
Kellner’s copy of the third Partita121 can be traced to the single print of 1727 but
was prepared in considerably more haste.122 He copied the first three movements
120 J. S. Bach’s letter of March 20, 1729 to Christoph Gottlob Wecker, which contains a
postscript that reads: “Das neueste ist, daB der liebe Gott auch nunmehro vor den
ehrlichen H. Schotten gesorget, u. Ihme das Gothaische Cantorat bescheret hat;
derowegen Er kommende Woche valediciren, da ich sein Collegium zu iibemehmen
willens.” (Dok I, Nr. 20).
121 D-Bds Mus.ms.P 804. See Jones 1978, 35 (Source H 18).
122 The fact that this copy was prepared from the original print of BWV 827 rather than an
accurate copy is suggested first by the lack of significant variants from the printed text
170
carelessly, displacing noteheads, leaving out rhythmic detail, and omitting accidentals.123
After the Corrente he turned the work over to an anonymous scribe, who Russell Stinson
has identified as his student, Wolfgang Nicolaus Mey.124 Almost nothing is known of
M ey’s biography except that he probably studied with Kellner in the 1720s and perhaps
the 1730s and must have lived in the vicinity of Grafenroda at the time. He made many
more manuscripts of J. S. Bach’s keyboard music, primarily early works, most of which
seem to have been copied on behalf of Kellner.125
Based on Kellner’s having written the date 1727 on the title page of his
manuscript of the third Partita Stinson has asserted that this copy was prepared in 1727.
However, the fact that Kellner copied all details of the entire title page (even including
the words In Verlegung des Autoris) makes it far more likely that he wrote the date 1727
on the title page simply because that was the date on the source from which he was
but also by the fact that unusual notation from the print is carried over into Kellner’s copy
(e. g. Gigue, m. 50).
123 See, for example, the Fantasia (m. 6, 33, 49, 72). the Allemande (m. 4, 12, 16) and the
Corrente (m. 3 and 6).
124 Stinson reference to Mey copying some of Partita III in B-Bds Mus.ms.Bach.P 804.
125 Mey and Kellner collaborated on at least one other manuscript, a copy of Bach’s
Praludium in G minor (BWV 535/1), which Kellner also began and Mey finished. M ey’s
copy of a Prelude in C major (BWV 943) is believed to contain numerous annotations in
Kellner’s hand. Mey also copied several (primarily early) keyboard works by Bach,
including fugues (BWV 896/2, 949, 951), a Sonata (BWV Anh. I I 153), a Chorale (BWV
639), an Imitation (BWV 563/2) and five arrangements of concertos by Italian composers
(BWV 977, 983, 985, 986, 987). See Stinson 1989, 32-33. That Mey was working on
behalf of Kellner is suggested by so many of his manuscripts having turned up in
Kellner’s estate, some with his possession markings. See Kilian 1978a, 199-200.
171
copying.126 This possibility is raised but quickly dismissed by Stinson on the grounds
that, based on the handwriting, Kellner might have prepared this manuscript in 1727. A
close comparison of the handwriting in Kellner’s copies of the first and third Partitas,
however, makes this unlikely.127 It is far more plausible that the two manuscripts are
separated by several years. Since Kellner could not have copied the first Partita before
late 1726, Partita III was probably copied with the help of Wolfgang Mey in the later
1720s or early 1730s.128 He may have received a printed Vorlage for the third Partita from
the library of Georg Balthasar Schott (1686-1736), who - as mentioned above, arrived in
Gotha in 1729.
126 Kellner’s title page reads in full: “Clavier Ubung I bestehend in I Praeludien,
Allemanden, Courante, Sarabanden, I Gigl. Menuetten, und andem Galanterien, I Denen
Liebhabern zur Gemuths Ergetzung I verfertiget von I Johann Sebastien Bach. I
Hochftirstl. Anhal-Cothnischen wiirkl. I Capellmeistem und I Directori Chori Musici
Lipsiensis I Partita III. I In Verlegung des Autoris. I 1727.”
127 Compare, for example, the letters “P” in “Praeludien” and “Partita” and “d” in
“bestehend”, “und”, and “andern” on the two manuscripts, along with the treble clefs
(black dot at the top in the first Partita; loop in the third) and half notes with downward
stems (noteheads fully closed and stems on the far right side in the first Partita; notehead
open at the top and stem more towards the middle in the third) and also the general
position of the descending note stems on eighth and quarter notes (on the far right in the
first Partita; much more towards the middle in the third). The upward note stems lean far
more to the right in Kellner’s copy of the third Partita than they do in his earlier copy of
the first.
128 Unfortunately it is difficult to pinpoint even the approximate year in which Kellner
most likely made his copy of BWV 827 because he stopped writing dates on his
manuscripts after 1726.
172
Johann Nicolaus Mempell
The large manuscript collection of keyboard music by Bach known as the Sammlung
Mempell-Preller in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig includes a copy of Bach’s
fourth Partita attributed in the Bach literature to an anonymous scribe working on behalf
of Johann Nicolaus Mempell (1713-1747).
Little is known of M empell’s life beyond the most rudimentary dates and places
of activity: he was born in Heyda north of Illmenau in Thuringia on December 23, 1713,
the son of a schoolmaster. On the basis of manuscript evidence connecting Mempell to
Johann Peter Kellner it is very likely that Mempell was in contact with J. P. Kellner in
nearby Grafenroda and perhaps studied with him beginning sometime in the mid- to late-
1720s, as mentioned above. In 1740 Mempell moved to Apolda where he would serve as
cantor and organist until his death at age 34 in 1747. It was during these years that he
came into contact with a gifted young musician named Johann Gottlieb Preller, who
thereafter inherited a large portion of his manuscript library.
Peter Krause suggested in his 1964 survey of the Bach manuscripts in the
Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig that the majority of manuscripts on which one finds
Mempell’s possession markings were not in fact the work of Mempell but rather of a
copyist working on his behalf.129 Hans-Joachim Schulze, in his pioneering essay on the
origins and transmission of the Sammlung Mempell-Preller ,130 accepted Krause’s
distinction, referring generally to “Kopien aus dem Besitz Mempells bzw. von dessen
129 Krause 1964.
130 Schulze 1984, 69-88.
173
Hand oder von dessen Kopisten geschrieben.”131 Krause’s distinction between Mempell
and his purported copyist seems not so much to have been based on handwriting
characteristics as on M empell’s possession markings; manuscripts with ownership
markings beginning with Poss or Possessor are typically attributed to M empell’s copyist
while those beginning with M empell’s name are typically assigned to Mempell
himself.132 Based on the handwriting characteristics I would argue rather that all of these
manuscripts were prepared by Mempell himself.133 While the handwriting in the earliest
manuscripts is indeed quite different from that found in latest, intermediate stages of
handwriting development are clearly evident throughout.
M empell’s copies of Suites - the fifth French Suite (BWV 816), the Suite in A
minor (BWV 818a), the first English Suite (BWV 806) and the fourth Partita (BWV 828)
- seem to have been copied relatively early, probably some time before he was appointed
cantor in Apolda in 1742 at the age of 27. M empell’s copy of the fourth Partita was
probably made in the 1730s, most likely from a source provided by his teacher, Johann
131 Schulze 1984, 78. At one point Schulze also raises the possibility that Mempell
inherited or otherwise acquired his manuscript collection rather than actively taking part
in its creation. See Schulze 1984, 84.
132 Krause attributes to the following Bach works in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig
to M empell’s “Kopist”: BWV 585, 586, 1027a, 762, 747, 527.1, 548, 676, 662a, 659a,
787-793, 794-801, 806, 828, 971, 818a, 901, 984, 981, and 1036=Anh III 186. The
remainder he believed to be copied “vermutlich” by Mempell himself: BWV 754, 743,
532.1/921/551, 550, 635, 816, 846, and 912.
133 This is in fact intimated by Krause with regards to BWV 846 - “Vielleicht 2
verschiedene Stadien einundderselben Hd (J. N. M em pell?...) and also by Schulze in
reference to manuscripts in the possession of J. P. Kellner (BWV 818a, 579, and 963)
which he describes as being “samtlich von der Hand J. N. Mempells”. See Krause 1964,
40 and Schulze 1984, 83.
174
Peter Kellner or a member of Kellner’s circle. The source goes back to the individual
print of the fourth Partita from 1728, not the collected edition of 1731.134 MempelTs
manuscript is thick with typical copyist’s errors both small (missing accidentals and
augmentation dots, displaced gracenotes and noteheads) and large (omitted measures and
parts of measures).135 It cannot be determined with certainty whether Mempell introduced
these errors himself or he simply copied them from a corrupt source but, judging from the
generally careless style displayed in his other manuscripts, it seems likely that he himself
was responsible for the majority. After skipping measure 80 of the Gigue, for example,
Mempell abandons the alto line of the erroneously back-to-back measures 79 and 81,
thereby acknowledging his mistake but not attempting to address the problem through
recopying or recomposition.136 In several cases he meticulously renders the detail
surrounding a quarter note but forgets the quarter note itself.137 It seems impossible that
he would not have noticed his many errors and omissions in playing through this music.
Indeed, on the basis of the many errors and omissions, it seems unlikely that Mempell
ever performed the fourth Partita in public.
134 As revealed by Mempell’s following the 1728 print in the Allemande, m. 15.
135 See, for example, the Allemande m. 48 and the Gigue m. 22 and 80.
136 Similarly large-scale omissions can be found in the Courante (measures 3 and 40).
137 See, for example, the Ouverture m. 27, Allemande m. 18 and 56.
175
Johann Gottlieb Preller and Johann Gabriel Meng
Upon M empell’s death in 1747, his manuscript of the fourth Partita came into the
possession of Johann Gottlieb Preller, who likewise made no effort to correct it. Preller
was bom in OberroGla near Apolda in 1727. There he studied between 1740 and 1744 -
that is, between the ages of 13 and 17 - with Mempell.138 Preller spent long hours during
these years making manuscript copies of keyboard music by Bach - most of which
undoubtedly came from M empell’s personal collection. In 1744, at the age of 17, he
moved to nearby Weimar to attend the Gymnasium.139 He continued to copy keyboard
works by Bach which may have come from a variety of sources, including Georg
Christoph Eylenstein (1682-1749), Bach’s former colleague in the W eimar Hofkapelle
who directed the Collegium Musicum at the Weimar Gymnasium during Preller’s years
there, the virtuoso organist and former Bach student, Johann Caspar Vogler (1696-1763),
and Bach’s colleague and second cousin Johann Gottfried Walther (1685-1748).140 In
1747 his former teacher, J. N. Mempell, died and Preller was able to acquire a large
number of music manuscripts from M empell’s estate. Preller then seems to have gone
through M empell’s manuscript library discarding those which transmitted works he
already owned. In 1750 Preller enrolled at the University in Jena and in late 1753 or
138 Schulze 1984,71.
139 Synofzik 2001, 50-51.
140 Synofzik also points out that, while studying with Mempell in the early 1740s, Preller
had copied repertoire Bach had recently composed in Leipzig, while in W eimar his
interests narrowed and he focused on organ repertoire Bach had composed while he
himself had lived in Weimar.
176
early 1754 moved to Dortmund, where he worked as Cantor and Organist at the
Marienkirche, teacher at the Archigymnasium, and Landmesser until his death in 1786.141
In addition to M empell’s manuscript of the fourth Partita, which Preller acquired
in 1747, manuscript copies of the second, fifth and sixth Partitas survive in Preller’s own
hand.142 Thomas Synofzik, in a recent study of Preller’s Bach copies, observed that these
works - and all of Preller’s other copies of Suites, including the second and sixth French
Suites (BWV 813 and 817) and an early version of the French Ouverture from the
Clavier-Ubung part 2 (BWV 831a) - were copied early in Preller’s career, most probably
during his years as a student in Apolda.143 Synofzik’s theory is supported by evidence
from Preller's manuscript of Partita VI. Preller was an extraordinarily fastidious scribe;
he not only rendered musical and verbal texts as scrupulously as possible but in many
cases even imitated characteristic details of the writing style found in his models.144 The
text in his copy of Partita VI shows a proclivity to use exclamation points in the titles
(Clavier-Ubung!, Sarabande!) which is atypical. His teacher, Johann Nikolaus Mempell
(1713-1747), however, was an enthusiastic user of exclamation points145 and it follows
141 Schulze 1984, 73 and 76.
142 Jones 1978, 40 (Source H50). D-LEm: Ms. 8: Nr. 10 (Partita 2), Nr. 12 (Partita 5) and
Nr. 13 (Partita 6).
143 Synofzik 2001, 48-49.
144 Schulze 1984, 86.
145 See, for example, M empell’s copies of Bach’s Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV
894 in D-Bds Mus.ms.Bach.P 1084 (“Praeludium u. Fuga! in a. mol. I di I Bach”), the fifth
Partita from Bach’s Opus 1, BWV 828 in LEm Ms. 8, Nr. 12 (“Ouverture!”) and fifth
French Suite, BWV 816 in LEm Ms. 8, Nr. 6 (“Allemande! Courante! Sarabande!
Boure!”).
177
that Preller’s source was almost certainly provided by Mempell. Preller’s source for the
fifth Partita can be traced back to the individual print of 1730146 but it was probably
copied from a manuscript rather than a print, as suggested by copyist’s errors147 and also
by the title page, on which one finds numerous deviations from the printed text (e. g.
“Preludiis” rather than “Preludien”, “Couranden” rather than “Couranten”, “Sarabaden”
rather than “Sarabanden”, “Galandrien” rather than “Galanterien” ; “Gigl” rather than
“Giguen”).148 Although it is theoretically possible that Preller reproduced the title page
from memory, the fact that he consciously corrected “Giguen” to “Gigl” suggests that he
was striving to reproduce the (inaccurate) title page of his source as accurately as
possible.
Preller’s manuscript of Partita II was demonstrably copied from a manuscript
source. It shares numerous variant readings with a manuscript of the same work prepared
in 1742 by a scribe named Johann Gabriel Meng.149 Virtually nothing is known of
M eng’s biography but the paper he used over the course of at least six years (1736-1742)
146 See Jones 1978, 40. Presumably Jones made this assertion on the basis of variant
readings in the Allemande (m. 19 and 26) and in the Gigue (m. 61).
147 See, for example, the Praeambulum m. 13, 68; Allemande m. 20; Sarabande m. 1, 30;
Tempo di Minuetta m. 22; Passepied m. 39-40; Gigue m. 23, 50.
148 Clavier Ubung I bestehend in I Praludiis, Allemanden I Couranden, Sarabaden, I

Gigl., Menuetten I und andern Galan- I drien; I Denen Liebhabern zur I Gemiiths
Ergotzung I verfertiget I von I Johann Sebastian Bach I Partita V.
149 D-Bhm: Mus.ms.30449 (1-5). See Jones 1978, 48 (Source H73). Examples of
common readings can be found in Preller’s and M eng’s copies of the Sinfonia (m. 14, 21,
27) and the Allemande (m. 2, 5-6, 7).
178
was produced at a paper mill in Wutha near Eisenach150 suggesting that he lived
somewhere in Thuringia. The manuscript in which Bach’s second Partita represents the
only known sample of his work.151 It is in fact a compilation of several manuscripts
prepared individually, as revealed by dates on different items which do not correspond to
their order in the book:
Table 12
Contents of D-Bhm: Mus.ms.30449 (1-5)
Folio Composer Title Date

lr-7r Graupner Januarius and Februarius
from Monstliche Clavir-
Friichte (1722)
7 v - llr Graupner Suite des pieces pou r Jan. 9, 1737
le Clavecin del Sig:
Graupner. 152
llv -1 5 r Handel Suite in F minor (1720) Aug. 22, 1736
15v-20r Bach Partita II (1727) 1742
20v-22r - [Harmony Exercises]
22v Meng? Keyboard Piece
23r-32v Telemann Excerpts from fugirende
und vercendernde Chorcele
(1734/35)
That Meng was quite young when he copied the Suites by Graupner, Handel and
Bach is suggested by his immature handwriting, which often changes in style153 and his
150 According to Dr. Andrea Lothe of the Deutsches Buch - und Schriftmuseum der
Deutschen Biicherei Leipzig, Papierhistorische Sammlungen, paper with the watermark
“Blossom” and “CH”, “CHS” (or sometimes, though not in this case “ICHS”) can be
traced to Johann Conrad Haberstolz, who worked at the paper mill in W utha from 1718
until 1758(7). The Deutsches Buch - und Schriftmuseum has given this paper the catalog
number II 385/0/3.
151 As noted above, Dietrich Kilian’s claim (Kilian 1978a, 156-157) that D-Bds:
Mus.ms.Bach.P 1106 (a copy of BWV 589) was copied by Meng does not hold up to
closer examination.
152 The movements are as follows: “Men:” [F: 8v] - “Courante” [d: 9r] - “M enuet”
[G:10r] - “ 1. Aria en Gavotte” [G: lOv] - “2. Aria en Gavotte” [d:10v-llr] - “Aria en
Gavotte 3.” [G: llr ] - “Chacene” [G :llv-12r],
179
strong penchant for experimenting with decorative detail. This was music which he
clearly copied for his own purposes. Interestingly, the notes in Bach’s Partita II which
extend below C are transposed up an octave, revealing that he expected to play these
works on a keyboard with a limited range.154
Neither Meng nor Preller seem to have copied directly from one another and yet
the similar readings reveal that they share a common ancestor.155 O f the two manuscripts
M eng’s is the further from Bach’s printed text. Not only does Meng present a host of
small-scale misreadings but in several cases entire measures are omitted or collapsed
together.156 Certain changes were clearly willful in nature, for example the addition of a
scalar run in the bass in measure 23 of the Sinfonia, modeled on (authentic) scalar runs in
measures 15, 19 and 25. Given that similarly willful changes can be found in M eng’s
copies of Graupner’s Monatliche Clavir Frtichte, one suspects that he him self was the
153 The clefs change in style several times as does his writing in titles. His descending
note stems, for example, switch sides between the Sinfonia and the Allemande of Bach’s
second Partita.
154 For example in the Allemande (m. 8 and 19). Range problems may also help to
explain why Meng did not copy Bach’s Capriccio, the only movement in Partita II in
which d ’” is required.
155 M eng’s manuscript has numerous variant readings not found in Preller’s manuscript,
but in some cases M eng’s manuscript is actually closer to the print than is Preller’s, for
example in the Sinfonia (m. 18 and 33), revealing that he was not copying directly from
Preller.
156 Measures 54, 55, and 56 of the Sinfonia are collapsed into a single bar as are measures
9 and 10 of the Allemande. M eng’s copy of the Rondeaux is missing measures 29-30
and 78. The variant readings do not suggest that Meng had access to an early version of
the piece. Aside from the obviously erroneous omission of measures this is proven by a
small-scale misreadings in M eng’s copy of measures 5 and 7 of the Allemande, which
clearly stem from ambiguity in Bach’s printed text.
180
innovator in many of these cases.157 However, many of his more outlandish readings are
rendered without erasures, crossings out, or other telltale signs of deliberation, indicating
perhaps that he found them in his source. Preller’s manuscript is also fairly far removed
from the print and shares a number of deviations from the print with M eng’s copy, some
of which are typical misreadings (displaced noteheads158 or incorrect rhythms159) and
others of which look more like willful changes, such as a sharpening of rhythmic detail.160
Preller must certainly have found these readings in his source as he was an unusually
careful scribe. The following diagram summarizes the relationship I propose between the
copies of Partita II prepared by Preller and Meng:
157 Large-scale ornaments are inserted for elaboration (e. g. Januarius, Courante m. 14,
Gavotte m. 20) and bass notes are clumsily added to triads Graupner intended to leave in
first inversion (e. g. Januarius, Gavotte m. 1,5, Air m. 12, 24). For further variants see
the Prelude of Graupner’s Februarius Suite (m. 3, 13, 25).
158 Sinfonia (m. 27), Allemande (m. 5, 7).
159 Sinfonia (m. 14), Allemande (m. 5-6).
160 Sinfonia (m. 21), Allemande (m. 2). In both of these cases straight pairs of 8th or 16th
notes are rendered as dotted 8th-16th or dotted 16th-32nd.
181
Figure 3
Proposed Transmission of Preller/Meng Manuscript of Partita II
Opus 1 Print
(17,31)
▼
[?]
A ' '▲
[Mempell?] Meng
▼
Preller
Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber
A manuscript of Partita VI in the hand of Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber (1702-1775) is
preserved in the Gorke Sammlung at the Bach-Archiv Leipzig.161
Gerber is among the Bach students whose biography is most clearly illuminated,
thanks in large part to his son Ernst Ludwig’s unusually detailed account in the
Historisch-Biographisches Lexicon der Tonkiinstler,162 Gerber was bom in Wenigen-
Ehrich near Sondershausen in 1702, the son of a farmer. From age 7 he was captivated
by the sound of an organ newly built for his small community church. At age 13 Gerber
was sent off to study with a cantor named Irrgang in Bellstedt who was to teach him
161 D-LEb: Go. S. 8. Jones 1978, 41 (Source H56).
162 Gerber 1790/92 and 1812/14.
182
music along with the other subjects of the Schulwesen. At age 15 Gerber was sent to
Miihlhausen to study and was very impressed by the cantabile playing of the local
Organist, Johann Friedrich Bach (1682-1730), but was not allowed to hear him as often
as he would have liked, partly because he was obliged by the school to attend a different
church and partly because Friedrich Bach was infamous for his drinking and was seldom
fit for teaching. Gerber nonetheless attributed his Manier aufder Orgel to J. F. Bach
alone. Between 1721 and 1724 he lived again in his home town of Sondershausen where
he attended the local Gymnasium. On May 8, 1724 Gerber enrolled in the University of
Leipzig in order to study “theils die Rechtsgelahrtheit und theils die Musik bey dem
groBen Sebast. Bach.” For the first half year he heard “manche vortrefliche Kirchenmusik
und manches Conzert unter Bachs Direktion” but did not dare approach him for lessons
until a fellow student, Friedrich Gottlieb Wild (1700-ca.l762), introduced him. Gerber
reports that because he, like Bach, was from Thuringia, the Thomaskantor gladly took
him on as a student and always called him Landsmann. Bach asked Gerber immediately
if he had studied fugues and put before him at the first lesson the Inventions and
Sinfonias (BWV 772-801), a copy of which in Gerber’s hand is dated January 22,
1725.163 After Gerber had mastered these to Bach’s satisfaction he was confronted with a
series of “Suiten und dann das temperirte Klavier.” On the pretext of not wanting to
teach, Bach is said to have performed the Well-Tempered Clavier for Gerber on three
different occasions, ‘transforming the hours into minutes.’ Finally Gerber studied
continuo realization with Bach, primarily on the example of the Albinoni violin solos.
163 NL-DHgm: 56.249.
183
After two years studying with Bach (from late 1724 or early 1725 until 1727),
Gerber returned home to his father’s farm near Sondershausen where his son writes that
he ‘employed two years of leisure to put into order and apply the manifold good and
beautiful things he had brought with him from Leipzig.’164 In 1728 Gerber was hired as
organist in Heringen but shortly after he arrived a fire decimated the entire town and
Gerber was once again out of work. To make matters worse he was being relentlessly
pursued by military recruitment officers who had long sought to draft him on account of
his unusual height. Gerber managed with the help of two friends to stow away in a
covered wagon and thereby escape to the larger city of Sondershausen, where he stayed
for a while in order to avail himself of performances by the well-known court kapella of
Prince Gunther XLIII of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen. However, he found himself so
traumatized by the horrific fire and consequent human suffering he had witnessed in
Heringen that he returned to his father’s farm outside the city in hopes of recovery. Late
in 1731 Gerber returned to Sondershausen where he auditioned for and was awarded the
position of court organist to prince Gunther. He remained in the service of the court for
the rest of his life, from 1749 on working in a bureaucratic capacity which consumed a
great deal of time and took him away from music-making.
164 This period is documented in a book of music in manuscript recently discovered by

Peter Wollny in the Scheide Library at Princeton University, which seems to have
accompanied Gerber from before 1715 until at least the mid 1730s. It contains
Chaconnes from his very early years, miscellaneous studies, Inventions, newly composed
Menuets, a series of 12 Suites dated July 17, 1727, Concerti for solo keyboard (including
one by Johann Adolph Scheibe) and Chorale Preludes and more inventions entered at a
later time. For the most part they are not working copies but rather clean copies of music
worked out elsewhere. See Wollny 2003.
184
Gerber was a University student in Leipzig in 1726 when Bach released the first
in his series of printed keyboard Partitas and thus experienced firsthand the grosses
Aufsehen in the musical world inspired by this first publication. W hether or not it was
among the “Reihe Suiten” he prepared for his lessons it seems likely that he gained
access to the first Partita as soon as it was released, if not before. Eventually Gerber was
able to acquire manuscripts of all six Partitas, as suggested by an entry in a catalog of
manuscripts prepared by H. N. Gerber and inherited by his son in the Gesellschaft der
Musikfreunde in Vienna which reads: “Bach, J. Seb. Klavier-Ubung in VI Suiten. Leipz.
1726. q. folio.”165 Most of these Partitas were copied or acquired after Gerber had left
Leipzig.166 There is some evidence that a manuscript of the second Partita which had been
in Gerber’s possession survived into the twentieth century, but has since been lost.167
The only currently known manuscript of music from Bach's Opus 1 in Gerber's
hand is a copy of the sixth Partita, copied sometime after Gerber left Leipzig since the
text can be traced to collected edition of 1731 (or perhaps to the individual print of
1730/31).168 His source was certainly a manuscript rather than a print, as revealed by the
165 See Durr 1978, 17-18.
166 Theoretically Gerber might have copied certain of the Partitas before they were
released in print. However, this is demonstrably not the case in his manuscript of Partita
VI, which was composed for the most part by 1725, as discussed above.
167 See Jones 1978, 50 (Source [H75]). According to a catalog of Erich Prieger’s musical
estate in 1924, a manuscript of Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier I copied by Gerber and a
second scribe (now in the Riemenschneider Bach Institute in Berea, Ohio. Call number:
K542: Vault) was accompanied by a manuscript of Partita II in the hand of the second
scribe alone. See Kinsky 1924, 17.
168 See Jones 1978, 41. Jones’ assertion that Gerber’s manuscript goes back to the
individual print of 1730 rather than the collective print of 1731 cannot be substantiated
185
musical text, which shares a number of striking variants with a manuscript of the same
Partita prepared by Preller discussed above.169 Neither manuscript was copied directly
from the other, revealing that they definitely share an ancestor other than the print.
Synofzik's handwriting evidence and the exclamation point argument presented above
suggest that Preller's source came from J. N. Mempell. Mempell himself probably
received his own source for the sixth Partita from J. P. Kellner, with whom he studied in
the mid- to late- 1720s.170 In his autobiography Kellner mentions having performed at a
because no prints of the individually issued sixth Partita of 1730 (Source [F]) have
survived.
169 The hypothesis that Gerber was copying from a manuscript rather than from a printed
source is supported further by a number of variants on his title page, which reads:
“Clavier Ubung I Bestehend I in I Praeludien, Fantasien, Allemanden, I Couranten, I
Sarrabanden, Menuetten, und andem I Galanterien, I Denen Liebhabern zur
Gemiiths=Ergoetzung verfertiget I von I Johann Sebastian I Bach I Hochfurstl.
Anhalt=Coethnischen I Wurcklichen Capellmeister und Di= I rectore Chori Musici
Lipsiensis. I Partita VI.” The fact that Gerber gives Bach’s title of “Hochfurstl.
Anhalt=Coethnischen Wurcklichen Capellmeister41might be read to suggest that his
manuscript could be traced back to the individual print of the sixth Partita released in
1730, of which no prints survive. The eighth line of the Opus 1 title page reads:
“Hochfurstl: Sachsisch-Weisenfelsischen wurcklichen Capellmeistem”, reflecting the
association with the court of Weisenfels which Bach negotiated after the death in 1728 of
Leopold of Cothen. Bach’s title of “Hochfurstl. Anhalt=Coethnischen Wurcklichen
Capellmeister” seems to have been no longer valid after Leopold’s deah in 1728.
However, it appears on the title page of the fifth Partita, released in 1729, and for this
reason it seems likely that it appeared on the sixth Partita as well. However, two
misspellings (“Sarabanden”, “Coethnischen”) the absence of the date of publication
(1730) and the words “Giquen” and “In Verlegung des Autoris” and especially Gerber’s
insertion of the word “Fantasien” between “Praeludien” and “Allemanden” betrays the
title page as an unreliable guide to this manuscript’s provenance. M ost likely, the
manuscript source from which he was copying did not have a title page. Gerber, who at
this stage was not one to let go such a prime opportunity for decorative handwriting,
modeled his title page on that of the Partita (or Partitas) he already had. If he had known
the date (1730 or 1731) he would certainly have included it here.
1701 am referring here to the manuscripts cited by Hans-Joachim Schulze in his

pioneering study of the Mempell-Preller Sammlung (Schulze 1984, 78, 82, 83). Mempell
186
number of illustrious German courts, including that of “dem hochseligen Fiirst Giinthern
von Schwarzburg Sondershausen” (1678-1740), Gerber’s employer from 1730.171
Kellner's visit to Sondershausen must have taken place before Prince Gunther died in
1740. That Kellner and Gerber were able to exchange manuscripts upon the occasion of
Kellner’s visit in the 1730s is suggested further by a manuscript in Gerber’s hand of
Kellner’s chorale, Wer nur den lieben Gott lasst walten, which appears at the back of his
Orgelbuch in handwriting which is virtually identical to that in his copy of the sixth
Partita.172 It is entirely plausible that Kellner and Gerber exchanged further manuscripts
on the occasion of Kellner’s visit. J. N. M empell’s surviving copy of the first English
Suite (BWV 806) shares a number of variants with that of Gerber, which might too have
been transmitted by way of Kellner.173
Johann Tobias Krebs sr.
Gerber's copy of the sixth Partita was definitely used by Johann Tobias Krebs sr. (1690-
1762) as a Vorlage for his own manuscript of this work, preserved today in the
prepared manuscripts of music composed by Kellner (D-Bds: M us.ms.l 1544, Nr. 9, 10

and 11 as well as D-LEm: Ms. S7) and a manuscript of BWV 848/1 which was copied by
Kellner (D-LEm: Ms. 8, Nr. 16). Kellner also owned several manuscripts copied by
Mempell: BWV 818a, 579 and 963 (all three are in D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 804).
171 In his reprint of Kellner’s autobiography (p. 255, fn. 266) Willi Kahl incorrectly
assumes that the “Fiirst Gunther” to whom Kellner referred was Gunther XLIV (1720-
1774). This, however, is impossible because Kellner - writing in 1754 - uses the
adjective “hochselig” (deceased) before the Prince’s name. See Kahl 1948, 255.
172 See Gerber’s Orgelbuch (p. 15-16) now held in the Princeton University Library (US-
PRu: AM 16915).
173 See Durr 1981, 196-197.
187
Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.114 Krebs was born in 1690 in Heichelheim near W eimar.175 He
was sent around 1703 to the Weimar Gymnasium where he was to follow a course of
study in theology. He also studied music during these years (probably with Johann
Gottfried Walther as well as J. S. Bach) and in 1710, at age 20, he successfully auditioned
for the position of cantor, organist and teacher at the Mddchenschule in Buttelstadt, a city
of some 1200 on the main road between Leipzig and Erfurt. On November 24, 1711 he
married Magdalena Susanne Falck (1677-1721), daughter of a preacher in Loquitz, with
whom he had two sons, Johann Ludwig (1716-1780) and Johann Tobias jr. (1716-1782).
Between 1710 and 1717 Krebs regularly undertook the strenuous journey from
Buttelstadt back to W eimar in order to continue his musical training under Walther and
Bach. After his first wife died in 1721 Krebs moved his family from Buttelstadt to
Buttstadt. There in 1723 he married Katharina Dorothea Beyer, daughter of a wealthy
bourgeois merchant, who brought a sizable fortune into the family and with whom he had
another son, Johann Karl (1724-1759). With her money Krebs was able to acquire a
174 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 1204. That Krebs copied from Gerber is suggested above all
by the number of variant readings the two manuscripts share (Toccata m. 80; Allemande
m. 3; Air m. 15 and m. 30; Tempo di Gavotta m. 9; Gigue m. 11 and 36 first half) but
above all by Gerber’s variants which are initially copied by Krebs and then corrected to
more closely resemble the print (Toccata m. 54; Gigue m. 32 and 36-37). Although
Gerber’s manuscript presents a number of variant readings which are not found in Krebs’
copy (e. g. Toccata m. 108 - Gerber leaves off double resolution of final suspension;
Allemande m. 2 - Gerber leaves the flag off of an 8th note; and Sarabande m. 5, Gerber
forgets the third beat in the lower voices; m. 23, Gerber splits half note into two tied
quarters, perhaps because of a line break in his source; and m. 24, Gerber erroneously
adds a low 32nd note F in the bass line) virtually all of these variations are clearly errors
which could easily have been recognized and avoided by Krebs as he was copying.
175 Most of the biographical information on J. T. Krebs I provide here is from Loffler
1940-48, 136-145.
188
house and to send his three sons to the Thomasschule in Leipzig. In August of 1733 both
Krebs and his son Johann Ludwig auditioned unsuccessfully for the position of organist
in Naumburg. He remained in Buttstadt until his death in 1762 at age 72. From 1750
until 1759 he was often assisted with the church music by his son Johann Karl, who
served as rector at the Stadtschule. That Krebs was living quite comfortably for most of
his 42 years in Buttstadt as a result of his wife’s inherited fortune is suggested by his
elaborate and expensive funeral.176
As in the case of the sixth Partita, Krebs demonstrably copied the sixth English
Suite (BWV 811) from a manuscript in Gerber’s library - probably on the same
occasion.177 That the two professional organists and former Bach students came to know
one another comes as no surprise given that they lived in close proximity to one another -
176 His son Johann Tobias jr. was described in 1734 (as an 18-year old student at the
Thomasschule) as something of a wealthy dandy: “ein kleines Mannchen, mit steifen
SchoBen und Aufschlagen, mit Saffianschuhen und hohen Absatzen... von roter Farbe,
stets elegant, oft prachtig gekleidet, denn er war ein vermogender Mann.”See Loffler
1940-48, 144.
177 Gerber’s manuscript of the English Suites is in the private possession of Ralph Cohen,
London. Krebs' manuscript is in D-BDS Mus.ms.Bach.P 803. Alfred Durr’s evidence
that Krebs copied directly from Gerber’s manuscript comes from the title page (which is
almost identical, though not as florid) to numerous idiosyncratic readings which, as with
BWV 830, Krebs attempted later to correct (e. g. Prelude m. 96-97 erroneous natural
signs; Gavotte II m. 11-13 in which Gerber copies in bass line to m. 18-20 instead of that
for 11-13. Krebs does the same initially but later corrects his manuscript by means of
deduction, not through the use of another source. See Durr 1981, 200-201. Krebs' copies
of BWV 811 and 830 have similar watermarks from the Amstadt paper mill (in the case
of BWV 811 cursive “A ” and “JMS” ; in the case of BWV 830 cursive “A” and “M ”),
although the ubiquity of similar watermarks from the Arstadt paper mill in Thuringian
manuscripts of the mid-18th century necessarily tempers its persuasive power in this
context. The paper used by Krebs for BWV 811 is cut in such a way that it is half as
large as that of BWV 830: 17 x 20.5 cm (BWV 811) vs. 34.5 x 20 cm (BWV 830).
189
Krebs in Buttstadt, Gerber in Sondershausen - for more than thirty years.178 Most likely
Krebs copied these works on a visit to Sondershausen, which is only 60 km away from
Buttstadt (implying a travel time in the 18thcentury of approximately 15 hours). That
Gerber visited Krebs is less likely since Buttstadt had relatively little to recommend it and
before 1740 Gerber’s ability to travel was strongly curtailed by the military recruitment
officers.179 The court kapella in Sondershausen, however, was a powerful attraction for
music enthusiasts and Krebs' comfortable financial circumstances would have made
traveling relatively unproblematic.
To summarize, the schema I propose with regard to the manuscripts of Partita VI
by Preller, Gerber and Krebs is as follows (solid lines indicate direct connections; dotted
lines indicate connections which may be separated by intermediary sources; brackets
indicate hypothetical, lost sources):
178 From Gerber’s return to Sondershausen in the late 1720s to Krebs' death in 1762.
179 Gerber 1790/92,1. 495.
190
Figure 4
Proposed Transmission of Preller, Gerber, J. T. Krebs Manuscripts of Partita VI
Print
(1730/31)
I
I
I
II
i
[Kellner]
Gerber [Mempell]
J. T. Krebs sr. Preller
- Hessen
Christoph Graupner j r .180
The Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek in Darmstadt contains five
manuscripts of Bach’s keyboard music prepared by an anonymous scribe known
variously in the Bach literature as Darmstadter Berufskopist, unbekannter Darmstadter
Kopist, or Griinewald? Graupner? following remarks on the title pages made by
1801 wish to thank Dr. Oswald Bill, Dr. Silvia Uhlemann and Mrs. Christiane Pilz of the
Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt for their help with the research
presented here.
191
Friedrich Noack from the first half of the 20th century. The works by Bach preserved in
his hand are as follows:
Table 13
Bach Manuscripts in the Hand of the Anonymous Darmstadt Scribe
BW V Title______________________________________ Call Number N BA

827 Partita III in A minor Ms. 68 V /1 .H 3 7
903a Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue Ms. 69 V /9.2, A1
913 Toccata in D minor Ms. 65 V /9 .1 .E
914 Toccata in E minor Ms. 64 V /9 .1, H3
974 Arrangement o f a Concerto by A. Marcello Ms. 66 V /l 1, C
With the exception of the Marcello Concerto, all of the manuscripts show a remarkably
consistent handwriting style and are copied on the same type of paper, which bears a
watermark (Steigender Lowe with the letters TB) frequently found in cantatas by the
Darmstadt Kapellmeister Christoph Graupner (1683-1760) prepared in the years 1730-
1735.181 The Marcello Concerto arrangement, by contrast, is copied on paper which bears
a watermark (Narrenkopf) typically found in the years 1731-1732. The work is also
copied with a greater degree of care, as exhibited in decorative brackets, smaller note
heads and ornamental titles. One suspects that it was the first of the five to have been set
to paper.
Our scribe's sources for these five manuscripts are a mixture of the ordinary and
the extraordinary. Bach’s Partita III was copied from the complete edition of the Clavier-
181 Dr. Oswald Bill and Frau Christiane Pilz have prepared a catalog of watermarks found
in dated cantatas by Christoph Graupner. The Lowe watermark was not used after ca.
1735.
192
Ubung part I which first appeared in 1731,182 probably without an intermediary source, as
suggested by traces of characteristic notational detail183 and transposition errors from
treble into soprano clef.184 A manuscript catalog of keyboard music in the Darmstadt
court library which was prepared in the late 18th or early 19th century reveals that the
Darmstadt court did indeed at one time possess a bound print of Bach’s Partitas which
could have served as a Vorlage.m His copy of the Toccata in D minor (BWV 913)
represents the only 18th century source for the work in modem notation, though it does
not appear to transmit an unusual version.186 Our scribe's copy of the Toccata in E minor
(BWV 914) bears some resemblance to those of Johann Benjamin Tzschirich,187 an
unknown Leipzig scribe ca. 1750188 and Leonhard Scholz,189but none of these seem to be
182 The Fantasia (m. 62-63 and 70), the Allemande (m. 8, 9, and 10) and the Corrente (m.
17, 54 and 55) all present details found in the collected edition of 1731 but not in the
individual print of 1727.
183 A line break found in the print (Sarabande, m. 16) clearly confused the copyist, who
was forced to erase a pair of barlines he had put in the wrong place.
184 Our scribe was clearly copying from a source notated in treble clef and transposing to
soprano clef as revealed by copying errors made in the Corrente (m. 7) and in the Scherzo
(m. 6).
185 The catalog, which has no call number, is entitled: Musikalien-Verzeichnis, Band II:
Klaviermusik, Lieder undArien, M usikfiir Blasinstrumente. Entry #131 reads “ 1 Buch
mit Clavier Musik enthalt 6. Partien” with an incipit to the Prceludium of Bach’s first
Partita (BWV 825/1).
186 Wollny 1999, 76 and 79.
187 Formerly in D-Bds (Mus.ms. 30500) now in D-Bhm. See Wollny 1999, 89 (Source
H I)
188 Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale: Fetis 7327 C Mus. 8. See Wollny 1999, 89-90 (Source
H2)
193
directly related.190 The Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue (BWV 903) and Bach’s
arrangement of the Marcello concerto (BWV 974) in this scribe’s manuscripts, however,
are more interesting in that they both transmit rare, early versions of these works.191
In addition to the manuscripts of music by Bach, the collection of the Hessische
Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek preserves a sizable number of comparable manuscripts
in the hand of the same scribe transmitting keyboard works by other composers including
the following:
Table 14
Manuscripts by the Anonymous Darmstadt Scribe of Music

by Composers Other than Bach
Call Number Composer Works

Ms. 406/2 Christoph Graupner Aria (GWV 136)
Ms. 406/3 Christoph Graupner Partita (GWV 141)
Ms. 468 J. H. Buttstedt and Anon. 2 Suites from Buttstedt’s
Musikalische Klavierkunst und
Vorratskammer (Erfurt, 1713) and
Anonymous Suites and keyboard dances
Ms. 477 Various Composers M iscellaneous keyboard dances
Ms. 478 Schattemann and Anon. 2 Suites
Ms. 479 Anonymous Gigue
Ms. 483 Christoph Graupner Praeludio (GWV 826)
Ms. 487-491 Gottfried Griinewald 5 Partitas
Ms. 493 Anonymous 1 Suite
M s.1036/1 G. P. Telemann 1 Suite (TWV 32:2)
Ms. 1036/2 Christian Pezold 1 Suite (TWV Anh. 32:3)
The content and character of these manuscripts would suggest personal rather than
professional use. Ms. 479 contains miscellaneous dance pieces copied for the most part
by Darmstadt’s Kapellmeister, Christoph Graupner, but also including a Gigue copied by
189 Bach-Institut Gottingen: Scholz 5.9.5. See Wollny 1999, 91 (Source H5).
190Wollny 1999, 89-91.
191 W olf 2000, 119-120 (Source A2) and Heller 1997, 61-64 (Source C).
194
our scribe as well as a pair of Minuets in a very rough script which are probably also his
work.192 Ms. 477 is a Clavierbiichlein of sorts containing Minuets, Polonaises and other
character pieces attributed in three cases to Telemann but otherwise without attribution.
It was prepared almost entirely by our scribe on paper with a Lowe watermark,
suggesting that it too can be dated to the early 1730s.193 Folio 14r presents a Menuet
which was clearly a collaborative effort between the scribe of the Bach manuscripts and a
much younger contemporary. Our scribe wrote in the movement title, clefs, key and time
signatures and allowed the other to fill in the notes, clearly as a pedagogical exercise.
The identity of our scribe has to this point remained a mystery. It is tempting to
attribute all of these manuscripts to Johann Samuel Endler (1690-1762) who was hired in
Darmstadt as an alto singer and violinist on January 1, 1723. The handwriting here is
extremely similar to that of Endler and his well-known Leipzig connections (he graduated
from the university in 1716 and led the “Fasch” Collegium Musicum in 1721 and 1722)
offer a link to Bach’s immediate vicinity.194 However, subtle characteristics of the
handwriting in these manuscripts are foreign to Endler’s script both before and after the
1921 am referring here to the two Minuets on folio lv.
193 A later owner of this manuscript has penciled in a few further attributions to
Telemann, Handel and Couperin.
194 Noack 1967, 210. Bach's only documented visit to Leipzig before 1723 was in late
January of 1718, when he was hired to assess the organ in Leipzig’s Paulinerkirche. (Dok
I, Nr. 87 and Dok II, Nr. 87-89). The only known example of a musician from Leipzig
visiting Cothen during Bach’s time there is Johann Gottfried Vogler, who visited on Dec.
16, 1718. (Dok II, Nr. 93). The exchange of musical materials between Bach in Cothen
and musicians resident in Leipzig was probably far more extensive than surviving
documents would suggest.
195
period 1730-35.195A likely explanation is that our scribe was a student of Endler from an
impressionable age. That the two were at least acquainted is confirmed by a set of
manuscript parts for Telemann’s Sonata in C major for recorder, gamba and continuo
(TWV 42: C2) for which our scribe copied the first and second movements and Endler
the third and fourth.196
That our scribe was also a close associate of Kapellmeister Christoph Graupner is
revealed by two letters preserved in the Hessischen Staatsarchiv Darmstadt.191 Both were
presented on January 17, 1755 and pertain to hiring musicians for the court kapella.
Although both were signed by Kapellmeister Christoph Graupner (1683-1760), neither
was actually written by him, as indicated clearly by his signature, which is diagonal to the
page and in a very insecure, nearly childlike hand. The Kapellmeister was completely
blind by this point and obviously dictated the letters, in his characteristically tortuous
syntax, to an assistant. A comparison of the handwriting in the Latin text of the letters
with that of the movement titles in the music manuscripts reveals that Graupner's
assistant was none other than our scribe.198 Given the extraordinary vulnerability of
195 Compare, for example, D-DS: Mus.ms. 260/1 and 260/2 (both dated 1729) and
Mus.ms.261/5 (dated 1755) and M us.ms.1193 (dated 1759). The rounded bass clefs of
our scribe have a pronounced and very consistent underbite found only exceptionally in
Endler’s signed manuscripts. Endler’s text script is also quite different from that of the
scribe in question.
196 D-DS: Mus.ms. 1042/35.
197 Two of the letters are reproduced in Bill 1987, 167 and 171. A third letter, presented
on September 3, 1755, is likely the work of the same scribe but could not be examined.
See Bill 1987, 172.
198 Unfortunately no extended writing sample produced by our scribe in the early 1730s is
known but the lettering in the relatively unembellished movement titles in the music
196
Kapellmeister Graupner at this point one suspects that his assistant was either a close
friend or, more likely, a relative.
One of the manuscripts prepared by our scribe (Ms. 477) bears the name
Christoph Graupner on its cover. That this indication is a signature and not just an
attribution attempt by a later owner is suggested by its appearance - the relaxed way the
letters flow into one another and the manner in which the last “r” turns back on itself in a
final flourish.
Figure 5
Signature on the Cover of D-DS: Mus.ms.477
That this is the signature of Darmstadt’s Kapellmeister, Christoph Graupner , however,
can be dismissed as it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Kapellmeister’s surviving
manuscripts and the Latin text of the letters written in 1755 show an unmistakable
similarity. Compare, for example, the capital M in the letters (Musicus, Memoriali,
Musiquen) with that in Ms. 477 (Menuet - 14r, 15r), the capital R in the letters (Respect)
with that in Ms. A l l (Rondeaux, Rigaudon - 4v, 6v), the capital S in the letters
{Secretarius, Schetky, Supplicant[en], Schoene) with that in Ms. 68 (Sarabande), the
lowercase d of the letters (dato) with that of Ms. A l l (Rondeaux, Badine), the internal s
of the letters (Respect, Secretarius, Musicus, Access, instrumenten) with that of Ms. 68
(Burlesca), the final e in the letters (Capelle, Schoene, travertiere) with that in Ms. A l l
(Double, La Badine - 6r, 7v), and the two types of final t in the letters (type 1: Respect,
instrument', type 2: qualificirt) with those in Ms. A l l (type 1: Menuet - 14r, 14v; type 2:
Menuet - 15r).
197
signatures. The most plausible explanation is that the signature is that of Kapellmeister
Graupner’s eldest son, Christoph Graupner jr. (1715-1760). Might he also have been the
scribe of Ms. 477 and thus also of the Bach manuscripts cited above?
This hypothesis is supported by what is known of Christoph Graupner jr.’s
biography. He was bom on May 19 and baptized on May 20, 1715. His Grandfather,
another Christoph Graupner, served as Godfather but could not attend the baptism and
was therefore represented by a close friend of the family, Gottfried Griinewald.199 As
mentioned above, characteristics of his handwriting make it likely that he had music
instruction with Johann Samuel Endler. This would have begun sometime after Endler’s
arrival in 1723.200 From 1727 until 1732 Christoph jr. attended the Darmstadter
Padagogium, in the records of which he is listed in 1727 as “Post examen auctomnale
1727 accesserung novitii... ad 2.” and in 1732 as “In examine vemali 1732 exempti.”201
On April 17, 1736 both Christoph jr. and his younger brother Johann Christoph (1719-
1771) enrolled as law students at the University of Strasburg.202 At some point thereafter
Christoph jr. returned to Darmstadt and began work as a Fiirstl. Kanzlei-Akzessist at the
Darmstadt court, availing himself of the court appointment his father had secured for him
199 Noack 1967, 302.
200 There is some evidence that Endler’s responsibilities at court in the 1720s were
frustratingly light, making it all the more likely that he would have had time to teach the
son of Darmstadt's Kapellmeister. See Noack 1967, 209.
201 D-DSsa: Personengeschichtliche und heraldische Quellen, Ludwig-Georgs-

Gymnasium Matrikel (C 1 D Sig: 9), 110 and 116. This is a typewritten manuscript
prepared from the original manuscript documents ca. 1930 by Ernst Eduard Becker.
202 Knod 1897-1902, II, 373.
198
in 1723 when he was just seven years old.203 Christoph jr. remained single his entire life
and very likely lived as an adult with his father in the large Graupner family home in
Darmstadt’s Luisenstrasse. That he would help his father by taking dictation for his
official submissions to the court in the 1750s seems entirely natural. His mother, Sophie
Elisabeth Graupner, had died in 1742 and the Kapellmeister’s blindness (from 1754)
meant that he undoubtedly needed a great deal of assistance. Christoph jr. died on May
16, 1760, less than a week after his father. Intriguingly, a notice announcing the death of
Kapellmeister Graupner which appeared in the Hamburger Relations-Courier on May 29,
1760 includes a brief account of the death of his eldest son. After thoroughly praising the
skills and personality of Kapellmeister Graupner, the Darmstadt correspondent reports:
"Sein altester Sohn folgte ihm den 16ten darauf in die Ewigkeit nach, in dem man, ausser
vielen andern Geschicklichkeiten, auch einen unvergleichlichen und reitzenden Meister
auf dem Clavier zu friih bedauert.1,204
The attribution of the Bach manuscripts to Christoph Graupner jr. is strengthened
by further circumstantial evidence. As noted above, it is inconceivable that manuscripts
such as Mss. 477 and 479 were prepared for official court use.205 An additional
203 Noack 1967, 210.
204 Hamburger Relations-Courier, Nr. 86. May 29, 1760. Quoted in Neubacher 2001, 4.
Noack 1967, 302 gives March 19,1760 as the death date of Christoph Graupner jr. This
is, however, clearly an error since she writes that the son died shortly after his father,
whose death date she gives correctly as May 10, 1760. Noack's information came not
from the church records but rather from Ernst Pasque's article in Die Muse of October 24,
1854, 676-678 (esp. p. 677) which gives May 19, 1725 as Christoph Graupner jr.'s death
date. Pasque most likely confused the death and burial dates.
205 The theoretical possibility that these collections were prepared for the purpose of
instructing younger members of the Landgraf s household can also be dismissed as they
199
manuscript preserved in the Darmstadt court library (Ms. 476/1-4) presents a
Clavierbiichlein-sty\e assortment of keyboard pieces copied by a contemporary of our
scribe and including a piece with the title Menuet de Ms. Weizmann a Strasburg, which
suggests a link to the Graupner family, and in particular to the two eldest sons.206 Most
likely the majority of the materials copied by our scribe which are preserved today in the
Hessische Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek - including the Bach manuscripts - were
created within the Graupner household and found their way into the possession of the
Landgraf as a result of the litigation which ensued after the death of Kapellmeister
Graupner.207 The Kapellmeister himself had requested that all of his manuscripts be
burned upon his death but neither his surviving children nor the court seem to have
considered this option. After the Kapellmeister’s burial Landgraf Ludwig claimed that,
because he and his father, Landgraf Ernst Ludwig (1678-1739), had paid the
Kapellmeister a salary over the course of his fifty-four year career in Darmstadt, this
music was legally the property of the court. Graupner’s children countered that their
father’s internationally acclaimed oeuvre constituted work well above and beyond the call
bear no resemblance whatsoever to the large number of manuscripts explicitly designed

for this purpose preserved in the Pretlack Sammlung of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.
These keyboard manuscripts, prepared on behalf of Landgraf Ernst Ludwig’s daughters
from his second marriage, Luise Charlotte Grafin von Epstein (1727-1753) and
Friederike Sophie Grafin zu Epstein (1730-1770), are all in the same format and
meticulously arranged by key area. See Joachim Jaeneke, Die Musikbibliothek des
Ludwig Freiherrn von Pretlack 1716-1781 (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1973),
274-277.
206 See Hofmann-Erbrecht 1987, 306-307.
207 For information on the conflict between Graupner’s heirs and Landgraf Ludwig, I rely
here on Nagel 1908-09, 568-610. Nagel based his research in part upon materials which
have since been lost.
200
of duty and that the manuscripts rightfully belonged to them. On May 28, 1760, when it
became clear to Ludwig that his ownership of Graupner’s musical estate was to be
contested, he commanded that the court’s music library be put under lock and key and
under no circumstances (“nichts nicht jemahls”) was any item to be removed.208 On
February 12, 1761 the Rats-Kollegium in Darmstadt decided the case in favor of the
Landgraf and on March 28, 1761 Ludwig requested that his Oberhofmarschall summon
Graupner’s surviving children to solicit the remainder of the Kapellmeister’s
manuscripts. This decree reveals that a sizable portion of Kapellmeister Graupner’s
library at this point was still in the possession of his surviving family members.209 By the
summer of 1761, however, the bulk of this material too seems to have come into the
court’s possession. The children pleaded with Ludwig that the repertoire which had been
seized consisted not of music Graupner had prepared for court use but rather of “Tafel-
und andere Musiquen” which the Kapellmeister had assembled “ausser seiner
Obliegenheit, mit sehr schweren und grossen Kosten aus alien Orten der Welt, mit
Anwendung seines eignen Vermogens.”210 It seems entirely likely that the manuscripts
which I have argued were the work of Christoph Graupner jr. - most obviously Ms. 476,
477 and 479 but also the manuscripts of music by Griinewald, Graupner, Telemann, Bach
and others - were among these “Tafel- und andere Musiquen” which came into Ludwig’s
208 Nagel 1908-09, 608.
209 Nagel 1908-09, 609.
210 Nagel 1908-09,610.
201
possession as a consequence of the legal hostilities.211 A consolidation of musical
materials may have taken place after Christoph jr.’s death just six days after that of his
father but it is perhaps more likely that the collections of father and son were combined
much earlier.
Although we lack definitive proof in the form of a signed writing sample, the
mass of circumstantial evidence pointing to Christoph Graupner jr. makes it difficult to
conceive of anyone else as the scribe of the Darmstadt Bach manuscripts. We seek a
scribe who studied with J. S. Endler, was active in Darmstadt both in the early 1730s and
in 1755, had a strong interest in virtuosic keyboard music, was extraordinarly close to
Kapellmeister Graupner and whose keyboard manuscripts found their way into the court
library, most probably as a result of the legal hostilities which followed the death of the
Kapellmeister in 1760. No other employee at the Darmstadt court or son of
Kapellmeister Graupner seems to fit the necessary criteria.212 When we add to these
indications the signature on the cover of Ms. 477 the identification of Christoph Graupner
jr. seems virtually certain.
Presumably Christoph jr. copied Bach's third Partita in the early 1730s for his
own purposes. The fact that he was well known as a keyboard virtuoso at his death in
211 Indeed, one of the Griinewald manuscripts cited above (Ms. 489) bears the remark
Nemini Officium (“not official business”) in an 18th century hand, which may be a product
of the circumstances described.
212 The only other Graupner son who would come into consideration is Johann Christoph
Graupner, who worked in Darmstadt as Kammerrat. His death in 1771, well after the
battles over his father's estate, and his many potential heirs (he had six children) make it
unlikely that his manuscript library (if it ever existed) would have come into the court's
possession. See Bill 1987, 98.
202
1760 suggests that he remained an active performer his whole life. It seems very likely
that he was active to some extent as a member of Darmstadt's Hofkapelle - perhaps
informally but more likely in a formal capacity as Accessist. Indeed, this was the position
for which his father pleaded on behalf of the sons of two members of the Hofkapelle,
Ernst Schetky and Martin Schone, in the letters Christoph jr. copied for him in 1755. The
identification of the Darmstadt scribe of Bach's third Partita allows us to situate this
music within the context of repertoire favored by a young keyboard virtuoso. As far as
can be determined the keyboard music Christoph jr. copied consists entirely of
clavichord/harpsichord rather than organ repertoire and favors Suites and other
Galanterien over all other genres. One suspects that this repertoire was performed at
court but this remains a matter of speculation.
“Me.” and the two Grafinnen von Epstein. Luise Charlotte and Frederika Sophie
As discussed above, the Pretlack Collection in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin holds a
manuscript which includes an early version of the “Giga” from Bach’s first Partita.213 In
addition to the Giga by Bach (labeled Allegro), the manuscript presents solo keyboard
music by Fortunato Chelleri (1690-1757), Johan Joachim Agrel (1701-1765), Gottfried
Kirchhoff (1685-1746) and Carlmann Kolb (1703-1765), all of which are in B-flat major.
This is one of eighteen extant manuscripts prepared in Darmstadt by a scribe who signed
his name “M e.” on behalf of L. C. C. Z. E. - Luise Charlotte Grafin von Epstein (1727-
213 D-Bds: N.Mus.BP 714. The title page reads: “B Tonus I von I Unterschiedlichen
Auctoribus I auf das I CLAVECIN. I vor I L. C. C. Z. E. I Anno I [1742].” The year is
repeated on the first page of music, along with the copyist’s identification mark: “M e.”
203
1753) - between 1742 and 1745. Another twenty-one manuscripts in the Pretlack
collection were prepared by the same scribe at the same time for her younger sister, “F. S.
C. Z. E.” - Friederike Sophie Grafin zu Epstein (1730-1770).214 These two young women
were the daughters of Landgrafen Ernst Ludwig von Hessen-Darmstadt (1678-1739)
from his second marriage, to Louise Sophie Grafin von Spiegel (1690-1751). Upon
Luise Charlotte’s death in 1753 - at the age of 26 - Frederike acquired her elder sister’s
manuscripts. In 1764 she married Ludwig Freiherm von Pretlack (1716-1781), with
whom the collection has subsequently been associated.
These thirty-nine manuscripts were clearly prepared in the course of music
instruction which Luise Charlotte and Friederike Sophie enjoyed at the court in
Darmstadt - music lessons which are unfortunately not documented elsewhere. It has
been reported that the slightly older daughters of their half-brother, Landgraf Ludwig
VIII of Hessen-Darmstadt, Caroline Luise (1723-1783) and Luise Auguste Magdalena
(1725-1742), had keyboard lessons with Johann Samuel Endler beginning in 1736.215 As
has been suggested above, it would seem likely that Endler was responsible for Luise
Charlotte’s and Frederike Sophie’s musical education as well. As noted above, the fact
that “Me” frequently left his attributions blank (e. g. “Allegro del. S ig r.___________”)
214 The manuscripts contain sonatas and concertos by Agrell, Foerster, Graun, Heinichen,
Kelleri, Kolbe, Loewenstem, Martini, Platti, Scheibe, Sorge, Telemann und Tomer, as
well as arias by Hasse, Kelleri and Vinci. For a complete list of contents see Jaeneke
1973, 274.
215 Lauts 1980, 13.
204
suggests that he was a professional copyist who was not himself selecting the
repertoire.216
The lessons were not confined to playing the keyboard but also included some
composition, as evidenced by a manuscript entitled “SONATA I a I Cembalo Solo I ex C
dur I del Madam. Illustr: I F. S. C. Z. E.” dated October 1744.217 The manuscript contains
copies by “Me.” of a “Menuet 1” (in C minor) along with staves and clefs but no notes
for “Menuet 2” (in C major). There is also an inserted sheet which includes a “Menuet”
(also in C minor and with a similar theme) written in a much less mature hand - probably
that of the 14-year old Frederike Sophie herself. Both Menuets show inventiveness and
an understanding of the genre but contain a number of blatant notational errors. Clearly
Frederike Sophie was not accustomed to setting her musical ideas to paper -
understandable given that “Me.” did most of the copying. Luise Charlotte’s own hand is
visible in a manuscript prepared in March of the same year which is labeled “ex F D ur. I
Allegro I Moderato I del Sigl. I Seybert.” Although her handwriting is more mature she
too makes a number of bizarre notational errors, suggesting that she too was not used to
preparing her own manuscripts. Both girls’ handwriting is obviously modeled on that of
“Me.”
The combination of their familiarity with the courtly Minuet and unfamiliarity
with the mundane business of copying music is one manifestation of the mixture of
privilege and limitation which seems to have characterized the upbringing of these two
216 See for example D-Bds: N.Mus.BP 704 (folio 7v) and 706 (folio 7v).
2,7 D-Bds: N.Mus.BP 95.
205
young women. They fought constantly against the discipline imposed by their
governesses Frau Ebberlin and Madame de Schade and their mother, Louise Sophie, the
Grafin von Spiegel. In disputes, both sides appealed regularly to the girls’ half-brother,
Landgraf Ludwig VIII (1691-1768). In 1741 Luise wrote to Ludwig complaining about
her governess, Frau Ebbelin, who she claims cannot even govern herself and has
subjected her to a “unwurdige Sclavery.” In response Frau Ebbelin wrote her own letter
to Ludwig on August 24, 1741 complaining of “les peines & insulte que je suis obligee
de souffrir continuellement de Made. La Contesse D ’Epstein” who apparently viewed her
governess as “la plus vil persone du monde.”218 A letter signed by both Luise and her
sister on February 7, 1744 pleads with their half-brother Ludwig to allow them to enjoy
coffee, tea and sugar again, as they had been denied these luxuries for the past eight
months, no doubt because these had been forbidden by their governesses.219 Both Luise
Charlotte and Frederika Sophie enjoyed dance lessons in these years with the court’s
dance master, Monsieur de Moll, despite the fact that dancing was forbidden by the
governesses on the grounds that it was “iippig und stindlich.”220
As they were daughters of Landgraf Ernst Ludwig from his second marriage,
Luise Charlotte and Frederike Sophie did not have the status enjoyed by Landgraf
Ludwig V III’s own daughters. Their mother too apparently suffered from a lack of
218 D-DSsa: D4 379/6.
219 D-DSsa: D4 379/5.
220 D-DSsa: D4 379/6. Letter of November 12, 1746 from their mother to Landgraf
Ludwig.
206
respect at the court in Darmstadt.221 This quasi-illegitimate status must have weighed
heavily upon them and probably contributed to their tendencies to subvert the restraining
measures of the governesses. The discipline they demonstrated in dancing and music-
making - as revealed by the constant stream of keyboard repertoire, with which one
presumes they were able to come to terms - was probably inspired to some degree by
their ambiguous status as well. Skill in dancing and music making was not a matter of
inheritance but rather of talent and discipline and were thus admirably suited to outdoing
those in the direct line of descent. Indeed, this may have been one reason why their
mother was anxious to defend their freedom to dance in public, as they had recently at the
home of the Stallmeister von Schorockofski, which they had executed with extraordinary
“Vollkommenheit” and “unter allgemeinem Beifall.”222
The repertoire chosen by their music instructor was display-oriented and one
imagines it was performed in similar contexts. It is most often flashy and virtuosic and
never includes strict counterpoint. The ear of the listener is drawn in this music either to
the bass line or to the melody but almost never to both at once. The selection of such
works by their teacher was engineered to give the impression that these young ladies
were talented, disciplined and fashionable. The goal was clearly to dazzle listeners.
Bach’s Giga was admirably suited to this context with its delightful hand-crossing, which
221 D-DSsa: D4 379/6. She wrote on November 12, 1746 of having suffered “Beleidigung
und Grobheit” at the hands of “kaum aufgewachsenen Buben, [die] mich fast iiber den
Haufen laufen, nicht einmal, um mich zu honoriren, an den Huth greifen, vielweniger
solchen abnehmen und nach gar nicht war das SchloB herausfordem wollen.”
222 D-DSsa: D4 379/6. Letter of November 12, 1746 to Landgraf Ludwig. In the same
letter their mother requested permission of Ludwig to hold a private ball for the girls and
other young aristocrats in her private rooms.
207
gave listeners a visual as well as an aural thrill.223 However, most of the repertoire in
Bach’s Opus 1 forms a striking contrast with that which fulfilled the needs of these two
young Grdfinnen as it is far more challenging to the skills of the listener and player than
is anything in the 39 manuscripts prepared for Luise Charlotte and Frederika Sophie.
Most of the music in Bach's Partitas projected an image of intellectual engagement and
seriousness which was apparently not desirable in this context.
Johann Baptist Pauli and Padre Martini
On February 13, 1750, Johann Baptist Pauli (1699/1700-1773), Hofkapellmeister in
Fulda224 sent a print of the Musikalisches Opfer (BWV 1079) and a manuscript of four
movements from Bach's sixth Partita - the Toccata, Allemanda, Corrente and Gigue - to
his colleague, the Franciscan organist and music theorist in Bologna, Padre Giovanni
Battista Martini (1706-1784).225 Pauli himself prepared the manuscript, most probably
from a printed exemplar, given the exact resemblance of the movement titles and the
musical text to those of the print. Pauli's commentary on these works will be discussed in
detail below.
223 Hand-crossing is found not only in the early version of Bach’s Giga but also in several
works in D-Bds: N.Mus.BP 706.
224 Dok II, 546.
225 The beginning of Pauli’s journey is undocumented but he returned to Fulda shortly
before June 25, 1748, as revealed by a letter Pauli wrote to Padre Martini on that date,
advising the latter of his safe return. See I-Bc: H. 86-94.
208
- Niirnberg
Lorenz Sichart and Leonhard Scholz226
A manuscript of three of J. S. Bach’s organ works, the Prelude in C major (BWV
531/1), the Prelude and Fugue in D major (BWV 532) and the Sonata in A minor (BWV
967), preserved today in the collection of Stuttgart’s Wurttembergische Landesbibliothek
has long been suspected to be the work of the Niirnberg organist, Lorenz Sichart.227 It is
dated May 20, 1740, signed “Possess21LS” and bears a notice on the title page
acknowledging Wilhelm Hieronymus Pachelbel (1686-1764), organist in at Niirnberg’s
church of St. Sebald at the time, for providing the Vorlage.22S
It has to this point escaped scholarly attention that the same LS who copied these
organ works is also responsible for manuscripts of eight chorales from Bach’s
Orgelbuchlein (BWV 600, 603, 604, 606, 607, 610, 614 and 616) and Partitas III-VI
(BWV 827-830) from Bach’s Clavier-Ubung part 1 preserved in the Leonhard Scholz
226 My thanks to Dr. Uwe W olf and Dr. Christine Blanken of the Johann-Sebastian-Bach-
Institut Gottingen and to Professor Yoshitake Kobayashi of Seijo University (Tokyo) for
their time and energy in helping me with the research presented in this portion of the
dissertation.
227 D-Sl: Mus. II, fol. 288. See Kilian 1978a, 152 (Source B 156). Kilian’s suspicion that
this manuscript was the work of more than one scribe is in my view unwarranted.
228 The annotation reads: Descripsi a Domino I W. H. Pachelbel Orgn- I nista. SS. Sebaldi
a Norimb:. W. H. Pachelbel served as organist at various churches in Niirnberg from
1706 until his death in 1764.
209
collection (divided today between a private owner in Niimberg and the library of the
Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut Gottingen):229
Table 15
Manuscripts by Lorenz Sichart
BWV Title Librarv/Call number N BA

531/1 ,5 3 2 , 967 Organ works Wiirttemb. Landesbib. Mus. II, fol. 288 IV/5+6, B
600...616 Orgelbiichlein Bach-Inst. Gottingen: Scholz 4.1.1 IV/1, Q 6
827 Partita III in a Private Possession (Niimberg) V /l, H 44
828 Partita IV n D Private Possession (Niimberg) V /l, H 45
829 Partita V in G Bach-Inst. Gottingen: Scholz 5.1.2 V /l, H 40
830 Partita VI in e Bach-Inst. Gottingen: Scholz 5.1.2 V /l, H 40
That these manuscripts found their way into the possession of, but were not written by
Leonhard Scholz (1720-1798) should put to rest any remaining doubts that LS is indeed
Lorenz Sichart. Scholz was named Sichart’s assistant at Niimberg’s St. Egidien in 1769
and in 1771 was appointed his successor.
Lorenz Sichart (Sighard, Sichert) was born on December 12, 1694 in Niimberg,
the son of a local baker, Johann Leonhard Sichart and Maria Barbara Stark, who were
married on November 21, 1693 in Niimberg’s St. Sebald.230 On May 28, 1726 Sichart
married Kunigunde Pfeifer, daughter of the Niirnberger Wildrufmacher and Horndreher
Georg Pfeifer. The couple had three children: Rebecca Maria (baptized May 11, 1727),
229 The Bach-Institut Gottingen purchased the Scholz Collection from a private owner in
Niimberg through the music dealer Hans Schneider in 1968/69. The private owner later
requested some of the manuscripts back but in the meantime they had been microfilmed
and the watermarks cataloged by the Bach-Institut.
230 Maria Barbara Stark was the widow of David Stark, baker and Korporal der
Biirgerschaft in Niimberg.
210
Conrad (baptized May 1, 1729) and Maria Catharina (baptized December 29, 1731).231
The baptism records for all three children list the father’s profession as Musicus und
Organist aufden Chor bey Unser Frauen, revealing that Sichart served from at least May
1727 until December 1731 as organist at Niimberg’s Marienkirche (Frauenkirche). That
he was organist aufden Chor indicates that Sichart was not the Frauenkirche’s primary
organist but was chiefly responsible for accompanying the congregation. Indeed, another
organist, W olf Gottlieb Meiner, received payments for serving at the Marienkirche
between 1729 and 1743 and one suspects that he handled most of the more elaborate
playing. Johann Gottfried W alther mentions Sichart in his Lexicon but seems to have
known him only through the SONATA per L'ORGANO Composta da Lorenzo Sichart,
Organista del Choro dei Musici nella Chiesa di Sta. Maria a NORIMBERGA, which
must have published sometime before March of 1731.232 Sichart is documented as
organist at Niimberg’s Mgidienkirche by payments made in 1743, 1754, 1763 and 1771.
A series of Kirchweih-Kantaten von M gedien were composed and performed by Sichart
between 1745 and 1769 and published by Bieling in Niimberg.233 His wife died in late
January of 1769 and Sichart himself followed two years thereafter, as revealed by a burial
231 Sichart's children had only one Godparent each. For Rebecca Maria Sichart it was
“Jungfrau Rebecca Maria, Valentin Mair, Handelsmanns Eheliche Tochter.” For Conrad
Sichart it was “Conrad Lotthes[,J Handelsmann.” And for Maria Catharina it was “Georg
Ludwig Rosel[,] merc[atoris?] filia virgo.”
232 D-Swl: Mus 5088. See Walther 1732, 568. Walther sent the manuscript of his
Lexicon to his publisher Wolfgang Deer in March of 1731. See Beckmann and Schulze
1987, 132.
233 See Dupont 1971, 283. Dupont lists published cantatas for the years 1745, 1746,
1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763 and 1769.
211
notice of May 6, 1771 which reads: “Lorenz Sichart, Organist bey St. Egidien in der
Catharinen GaB wegen Armut zahlt.” It was presumably upon Sichart’s death in 1771 that
his assistant and successor, Leonhard Scholz, was able to acquire the manuscripts cited
above.
A chronology of Sichart’s Bach manuscripts is made virtually impossible by the
fact that only one manuscript is dated. The unusual variability of his script constitutes a
further obstacle - the style of his clefs and independent eighth notes, for example,
changes regularly even on a single page. Nor are the watermarks in the paper of much
use; the paper on which he copied the Partitas was made in Regensburg and the same
type of paper was used in one document dated 1756 but may have been used over a long
period.234
A manuscript of Bach’s first Partita (BWV 825) in the Wiirttembergische
Landesbibliothek may also be connected with Sichart.235 Given that this and Sichart’s
manuscript of BWV 531, 532 and 967 discussed above are the only two 18th century
manuscripts transmitting Bach’s keyboard music in the Wiirttembergische
Landesbibliothek, one suspects they were acquired together.236 Furthermore the
manuscript of Partita I definitely came from the library of Leonhard Scholz, who wrote in
234 The watermark is classified by the Deutsche Buch- und Schriftmuseum der Deutschen
Biicherei Leipzig, Papierhistorische Sammlungen as Signatur I I 152/0/1 and described as
a) Eichenbaum mit 5 Eicheln a u f Zierwurzel b) gekreuzte Schliissel, darunter GL. I wish
to thank Andrea Lothe of the Deutsche Buch- und Schriftmuseum for this information.
235 D-Sl: Mus. II, fol. 289. See Jones 1978, 46 (Source H63).
236 Unfortunately the library’s records are incomplete. The consecutive call numbers
(Mus. II, fol. 288 and 289) would suggest that both manuscripts were first cataloged
between 1958 and 1963.
212
the name Johan[n] Sebastian Bach above the first movement. The title page of this
manuscript bears reference in a 19th century hand to the Hoffmeister and Kiihnel edition
of Bach’s Partitas (Vienna, ca. 1806) which is also found on Sichart’s manuscripts of
Partitas III, IV and VI.237 The basic handwriting characteristics here are similar to those in
the manuscripts discussed above except that this manuscript is extraordinarily clean and
consistent, which seems not to have been typical of Sichart's style. If indeed this
manuscript does represent Sichart’s work his painstaking effort may have been inspired
by a particularly reliable source. While his manuscripts of Partitas III-VI (BWV 827-
830) were rendered from a manuscript which can be traced back to the second or third
print run of Bach’s collected Opus 1 edition (first released ca. 1732),238 the manuscript of
Partita I was copied directly from the print of 1726, as evidenced by the scribe’s having
imitated a number of the print’s graphic details.239
237 This reference, which reads Nach der Kuhnelschen Ausgabe is accompanied by
catalog numbers: 19 (Partita I), 21 (Partita IV), 22 (Partita III) and 23 (Partitas V and VI).
That these additions were made in preparation for an auction is suggested by the prices
which appear on some of the manuscripts; Sichart’s copy of Partita IV was priced at 20
Groschen while his copies of Partitas V and VI together cost 1 Taler (= 24 Groschen).
238 That Sichart copied at least the sixth Partita from a manuscript rather than a print is
suggested not only by the high number of variants from the printed text but also by
crosses placed above the staff at approximately regular intervals between beats and
measures. These apparently represent line breaks in his source and do not correspond to
those of the print. He seems to have copied Partitas III-V at the same time, and probably
from the same source, as the paper in all cases bears the same type of watermark and the
handwriting is virtually identical.
239 A number of graphic details from the print are here carefully reproduced including the
round and pointed fermata signs above and below the final chords of the Corrente,
Sarabande, Menuet 2, and Giga as well as the characteristic repeat symbols of the two
Menuets, made with four dots and two dots, respectively. Although many of the mordent
symbols in Bach’s text are here rendered as tr signs (see, for example, the Corrente,
measures 13, 14, 15, 22, 33, 50, 51 and 52 and the Sarabande, measures 2 and 21)
213
The purposes for which Sichart copied the Partitas remain a matter of speculation.
The Galanterien seem to have been a lower priority than the standard movements of the
Partitas. Sichart copied the movement titles and initial key signatures of the Tempo di
Minuetto and Passepied of Bach's fifth Partita but failed to write in the notes. The music
of these two movements was filled in by Leonhard Scholz some time later - whether
minutes, years or decades cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
In addition to these two Galanterien, Leonhard Scholz copied numerous excerpts
from the Partitas which are preserved in the Sammlung Scholz'.
Table 16
Manuscripts of the Partitas by Leonhard Scholz
Partita Movement Scholz Title Librarv/Call number Jones

Prseludium Fantasia D-Gb: Scholz 4.7.4 H38
Praeludium Praeludium Priv. Pos. (Niimberg) H42
II Sinfonia (m. 1-7) - D-Gb: Scholz 8.1.1 H43a
II Sinfonia (m. 30-91) - D-Gb: Scholz 5.1.1 H39
II Capriccio (m. 83-96) - D-Gb: Scholz 8.1.1 H43a
III Fantasia Fantasia D-Gb: Scholz 5.1.1 H39
III Gigue Fuga D-Gb: Scholz 5.1.1 H39
IV Ouverture - Priv. Pos. (Niimberg) H46
V Praeambulum Praeambulum Priv. Pos. (Niimberg) H46
V Corrente Allegro Priv. Pos. (Niimberg) H46
V Tempo di Minuetto Tempo di Minuetto D-Gb: Scholz 5.1.2 H40
V Passepied Passepied D-Gb: Scholz 5.1.2 H40
V Gigue Fuga D-Gb: Scholz 5.1.1 H39
VI Toccata Toccata con Fuga D-Gb: Scholz 5.1.3 H41
Leonhard Scholz was born in 1720, the son of a Holz-, Bein-, Horn-, Metall- und
Silberdreher. When he was married in the Niimberg’s Sebaldkirche in 1747 he is
described as a spice dealer (Spezereihandler). Scholz was probably interested in music
corrections reveal that the scribe’s source had mordents (for example, in the Sarabande,
measure 2, where the scribe first copies Bach’s mordent symbol and then adds a “tr” sign
above it. That the scribe’s printed source was the 1726 print rather than the collected
edition of 1731 is revealed by the missing mordent in measure 59 of the Corrente and by
the missing augmentation dots in the bass lines of the Sarabande (measures 12 and 28).
214
from early in his life but seems to have become professionally involved relatively late.
His first known appointment was as adjunct organist, at Niimberg’s Egidienkirche in
1769 (at age 39) and then primary organist beginning after Sichart's death in May of
1771. In 1772 he was appointed organist at Niimberg's Lorenzkirche and from 1781 until
his death in 1798 at the Sebaldkirche.240
One suspects that Scholz's manuscripts of the Partitas were used in church
services. Except for the Tempo di Minuetto and Passepied of Partita V which Scholz
completed in the Sichart's manuscripts (and can thus be considered an exception), one
notes that Scholz's collection of excerpts from the Partitas is completely free of
Menuetten und andern Galanterien. Among the remaining movements he strongly
favored those featuring strict counterpoint, even renaming the Gigues of Partitas III and
V Fuga. In setting these two works to paper Scholz eliminated the repeat signs and in the
case of the Gigue to the third Partita added a musical liaison at the end of the first reprise
to avoid a pause and maintain the intensity into the second reprise. It seems likely that
these changes were part of an effort on Scholz’s part to disguise these pieces’ original
identity as Gigues by playing down their bipartite structure - another sign that they were
probably performed in church. In H43a Scholz recomposed the first seven bars of the
Sinfonia to the second Partita extending them to a total of 21 bars, probably because in its
original form this section of he piece was not long enough to serve on its own as music
for a Prelude or Offertory. Again except for the music to the Tempo di Minuetto and
Passepied of Partita V, Scholz's manuscripts are virtually all copied on independent, stiff
240 All of the biographical information on Leonhard Scholz comes from Kilian 1978a,
159-160.
215
sheets of paper which he could conveniently have set on the organ's music rack without
fearing that they would close (as a thick manuscript might).241 He strenuously avoided
page turns, even shortening the end of the Toccata to Partita VI to fit it onto a single
page.242 While is cannot be proven with absolute certainty, it seems most plausible that
Scholz's interest in Bach's Partitas was largely driven by a desire to serve the practical
needs of accompanying church services in Niimberg.
- Location Unknown
Anonymous Erbprinz Scribes 1 and 2
As discussed above, Bach presented a dedicated print of his first Partita to Emanuel
Ludwig, Erbprinz of Cothen in the autumn of 1726. The dedicated print itself is no
longer extant but a manuscript which recently became available to the Bach-Archiv
Leipzig on extended loan from an owner living in southern Germany was clearly copied
from a source which can be traced to this print and to individual prints of Partitas II, III
and IV which were probably also presented by Bach to the ruling family of Cothen
between 1726 and 1728, as hypothesized above.
The manuscript is of interest not only for what it tells us about B ach’s relationship
to the court in Cothen in the years after 1723 but also on its own terms. It was prepared
by at least two anonymous scribes who divided up the copying as follows:
2411 am grateful to Dr. Ulrich Leisinger for this observation.
242 In Scholz's copy the last 20 measures of the piece (m. 89-108) are recomposed and
thus reduced to 11 measures.
Table 17
Contents of the Erbprinz Manuscript
folio____________ Contents__________________________________________ Scribe

lr Text o f title page (modeled on individual print o f Partita I) Scribe 1
lr J. S. Bach attribution at bottom right o f title page Scribe 2?
lv -2 v Dedicatory Poem to Erbprinz Emanuel Ludwig Scribe 2?
3r-8v Music o f Partita II and Partita III to Corrente (m. 1) Scribe 2
8v-13v Music o f Partita III from Corrente (m. 1) to end o f Gigue
and Partita IV, Ouverture Scribe 1
14r Music o f Partita IV, Allemande (m. 1-24) Scribe 2
14v-18v Music o f Partita IV, Allemande (m. 25-56) to end o f Gigue Scribe 1
Scribe 1 obviously lacked experience, as evidenced not only by his generally immature
writing style but also in a number of spectacular copying errors. Scribe 2 shows himself
to have been a more experienced, if also rather casual copyist. He could well have been
Scribe l ’s teacher. The dedicatory poem may have been copied by one of these two
scribes but could conceivably be the work of a third copyist.
The layout of the manuscript itself is odd in that the title page and dedicatory
poem promise Partita I but the musical text of this work is nowhere to be found in the
manuscript. The natural suspicion that this Partita was at some point excised can be ruled
out on the grounds that the title page, poem and music of Partitas II, III and beginning of
IV are all part of a single fascicle (folia 1-12) from which no pages are missing.
Errors made by Scribe 1 suggest that he and Scribe 2 were using a manuscript
rather than a printed Vorlage, at least in the case of the Ouverture to the fourth Partita,
which is in a state of some disarray. Scribe 1 copied the movement’s measures in the
order 1-30, 25-29, 31-112, suggesting that he repeated a line of music in his source. The
analogous line in Bach’s print begins not with measure 25 but rather with the third beat of
measure 23. A similar state of affairs can be found in Scribe l ’s portion of the
Allemande to Partita IV, where he inserts measure 23 between measures 28 and 29,
217
suggesting that measure 23 was the beginning of a line in his Vorlage. The analogous
line in Bach’s print begins with the second beat of measure 21. It is theoretically possible
that these errors, and a number of others,243 were already in this scribe’s source
manuscript but it is far more likely he himself was responsible for the majority.244 In any
case it is abundantly clear that these scribes did not have access to the dedicatory print
itself but rather to a manuscript copy thereof.
Unfortunately little more can be determined about the two scribes of this
manuscript. The presumption that they were working in or near Cothen can be neither
confirmed nor denied given the fact that they seem not to have had access to the
dedication print itself. Furthermore, there is no visible watermark in the paper. The
handwriting of both scribes suggests that the manuscript was completed in the 1730s or
40s. As I have suggested above in the case of Johann Nikolaus Mempell, the uncorrected
copying errors here make it unlikely that this manuscript was ever used for intensive
study or performance given the tremendous, uncorrected errors in the fourth Partita.
Anonymous 10491 Scribe and Recipient
This manuscript, once in the possession of Heinrich Spitta, contains a copy of the
Praeludium of Partita I which is labeled: Prceludium. I pour le I Clavicembalo. I di C: P:
E: Bach. The erroneous attribution to C. P. E. Bach suggests first of all that the copy was
243 In addition to labeling the Burlesca of the third Partita Bundesca, Scribe 1 collapsed
measures 58 and 59 into a single measure and repeated measure 82 twice.
244 After recopying measures 25-29 for the second time in the Ouverture to Partita IV,
Scribe 1 left the inner voices out of measure 31, suggesting that he recognized his error.
218
most likely made not from a print but rather from an accurate manuscript which had a
title page with a false or incomplete attribution. The C. P. E. Bach attribution suggests
further that the copy was made after 1750, a time when C. P. E. Bach was better known
as a composer of keyboard music than was his father. The cleanliness of this manuscript
and its title page, which bears an incipit of the piece within, suggest that it was created by
a professional copyist or music instructor working on behalf of an amateur musician.
That the owner was a relatively young in any case is suggested by the presence of
fingerings in pencil throughout the musical text, which appear to be the work of the
scribe.
Anonymous “WMeve” Scribe and Recipient
A manuscript formerly in the possession of Leipzig University, now apparently lost,245
presents Bach’s Opus 1 in its entirety. It is an exceptionally exact copy, rendering in
precise detail Bach’s titles, clefs, accidentals and musical text. Even the positioning of
the titles and the page numbers are painstakingly modeled on a print of Opus 1 from the
second print run.246 Handwriting characteristics place this manuscript around the middle
245 Jones 1978, 45. (Source H60). This manuscript was formerly in the library of Karl
Marx University (now D-LEu) and had the old call number M.pr.Ms.20a and the newer
call number N. I. 10271. Extensive searches of the University’s collection unfortunately
yielded no hints as to this manuscript’s present whereabouts. I owe my knowledge of this
manuscript to Dr. Uwe Wolf, who was kind enough to send me a photocopy from the
collection of the Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut Gottingen.
246 The reference to Regina Boetius of the first print run does not appear on this scribe’s
title page, nor does the additional pagination of the third print run.
of the 18th century. It was almost certainly prepared on commission by a professional
scribe.
At some point - probably in the 19th century - this manuscript came into the
possession of someone whose possession mark reads “WMeve,” who also owned a
complete 18th century manuscript copy of Bach’s B-minor Mass (BWV 232) from the
collection of Friedrich Conrad Griepenkerl (1782-1849).247 Unfortunately nothing more
is known of WMevejs] or the provenance of his manuscript of the Partitas.
247 Smend 1956,19.
220
Chapter 6
Literary and Other References to the Partitas before ca. 1775
The nature of the audience for Bach's Partitas is documented not only in prints
and manuscripts but also in surviving commentaries. Those which can be dated to before
1775 offer tremendous insight into the early reception of the Partitas and are surveyed
below in chronological order.
Johann Gottfried Walther
J. G. W alther wrote of the Partitas in his pioneering Musicalisches Lexicon of 1732:
Von seinen vortrefflichen Clavier Sachen sind in Kupfer heraus gekommen: an. 1726
eine Partita aus dem B dur, unter dem Titul: Clavier-Ubung, bestehend in Prceludien,
Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden, Giquen, Menuetten, u. Dieser ist gefolgt die
Zweyte, aus dem C moll; die 3te aus dem A moll; die 4te aus dem D dur; die 5te aus dem
G dur, und die 6te aus dem E moll; wormit vermuthlich das Opus sich endiget.1
Walther's commentary on the Partitas occupies approximately one third of the total space
he devoted to J. S. Bach's biography. In fact they are the only works by Bach in the
entire entry which Walther mentions by name. This is all the more striking for the fact
that Walther undoubtedly knew Bach’s music in as close to its totality as did anyone in
the first half of the 18th century. Walther was an avid collector and was well acquainted
with Bach, whose music he revered. In 1712 Bach served as Godfather to W alther’s son,
1Dok II, Nr. 323.
221
Johann Gottfried jr.2 Bach sold the first installment (the letter “A”) of W alther’s Lexicon
on commission in 17293 and offered publishing advice to Walther in the mid-1730s.4
W alther made numerous manuscript copies of Bach's cantatas, organ and keyboard
works, particularly during the period during which Bach served as H o f organist and
Konzertmeister in W eimar (1708-1717) but also thereafter. The central position the
Partitas enjoyed within Bach's ceuvre was a consequence of their having been published,
or presented to the light of day (ans Tageslicht gegeben). These were works which Bach
himself had identified as worthy of representing him to the wider public. As a
consequence they represented the most accessible works to readers of Walther's Lexicon
who wished to become more familiar with Bach's music.
Johann Mattheson
In his Grosse General-Bass-Schule Oder: Der exemplarische Organisten-Probe Zweite/
verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage[...] published in Hamburg in 1731, the pioneering
musicologist Johann Mattheson (1681-1764) briefly mentions Bach’s Partitas. The
comment appears in the last section of the book, the Ober-Classe/ bestehend in Vier und
zwantzig etwas schweren Exempeln.5 Specifically Mattheson is discussing his eighth
Prob-StUck, an exercise in continuo playing in the form of a Cantabile Aria:
2 Dok II, Nr. 54.
3 Dok II, Nr. 260.
4 Dok II, Nr. 377,381,427.
5 It follows the Unterste Classe/ bestehend in einer Vorbereitung and the Mittel-Classe/
bestehend in Vier und Zwantzig leichten Exempeln.
222
Keiner wolle sich indessen einbilden man gebe diese Arie fur Hand-Sachen aus: denn die
miissen gantz anders kommen. Ein Kunst-beflissener beliebe auch nur etwa eine Suite
aus des Herm Capell-Meister Graupners so genannten Partien auf das Clavier oder aus
meinem Harmonischen Denckmahl oder aus des Herm Capellmeister Bachs Partite
dagegen zu halten so wird er den Unterschied leicht finden. Hand-Sachen wollen geiibet
seyn und wer sich unterstehet dieselbe so gleich zu treffen handelt sehr vermessen und
gedencket den Zuhorem durch seine Gauckel-Streiche eines aufzubinden wenn er auch
der Ertzcymbalist selbst ware.6
Mattheson groups Bach’s Partitas together with Christoph Graupner’s eight
Partien a u f das Clavier (Darmstadt, 1718) and his own collection of twelve Suites, the
Harmonisches Denckmahl (London, 1714) under the rubric Hand-Sachen and draws a
distinction between these and the preceding continuo exercise, entitled Cantabile. The
distinction Mattheson sought to draw has been routinely interpreted as one of technical
difficulty - that is, the Suites/Partitas of Bach, Graupner and M attheson are far more
challenging technically than is this simple Aria.7 Mattheson’s comment has even been
understood as constituting a lukewarm reception of Bach’s Opus l.8 This is certainly
incorrect, as revealed by the laudatory nature of the index entries for this comment at the
back of Mattheson’s book: "Bach/ Cantor in Leipzig/ Lob seiner Clavier-Sachen"9 and
"Graupners Hand-Sachen werden angepriesen."10
6 Dok II, Nr. 304.
7 Stauffer 1983, 355. The NBR translates the passage as follows: "Let no one think, by
the way, that this aria is being offered as an example of a technical [ly advanced] etude
[Hand-Sachen]: for such pieces are of a different sort." The bracketed portions in the
citation here are original. See NBR, 326.
8 Lescat 1991,10.
9 Mattheson 1731, 466.
223
Certainly M attheson’s, Graupner’s and especially Bach’s Suites are demanding
from a technical standpoint, and Mattheson makes special reference to this point with
regard to his Harmonisches Denckmahl later in the book,11 but the technical difficulty of
these published collections of Suites was not the primary reason for M atthson’s
mentioning them. Indeed, the Cantabile Aria exercise is as challenging in a technical
sense as is much of the music in the collections by himself, Graupner and Bach. The
distinction he draws between the exercise and the published Suites is primarily one of
musical expression rather than technical demand. He was inspired to draw the distinction
in the first place by the attractive musical qualities of the exercise, or “Aria” as he calls it,
signaled by the Cantabile designation at its outset. The vast majority of M attheson’s
other exercises in the Ober-Classe have either strict tempo designations (Allegro,
Andante, Presto assai etc.) or, more often, no designations at all. They are exercises,
intended to be practiced until one can play them fluently. With this Cantabile exercise,
into which he “zur Abwechselung eine kleine Melodie einfliessen lassen,” Mattheson
hoped to demonstrate that in playing continuo one can apply ornamentation and include a
10 Mattheson 1731,468.
11 Mattheson writes at a later point in his Grosse General-Bafi Schule of professional

musicians who have been critical of the difficulty of his Harmonisches Denckmahl for
exactly this reason: “Wollen sie doch mein Harmonisches Denckmahl nicht gelten lassen,
vielweniger ihren Schiilern zu kauffen anrathen, unter dem Vorwand: Die Sachen
konnten, wegen der Schliissel und anderer Umstande/ hier zu Lande nicht gebraucht
werden; da doch die wahre Ursache ist, daG die guten Helden nicht fahig sind, die Stiicke
zu spielen. Und derowegen, ihre Unwissenheit zu beschonen, einfaltigen Leuten
einpragen wollen, der Verfasser sey eben so ein Schops, wie sie, und konnen sein eigen
Machwerck selbst nicht spielen, alsdann vermeynen sie sich recht wol verantwortet zu
haben.” See Mattheson 1731, 443.
bit of melodic interest. In the passage which follows the quotation cited above Mattheson
derides in his typically satirical style the arrogance of musicians who pride themselves on
simply playing the right notes in the right order, even when these same players know
nothing of musical taste:
Das Treffen hat seine Verdienste/ seine grossen verdienste; allein deBwegen gibt es noch
andere Verdienste/ die/ wo nicht vorzuziehen/ doch wenigstens jenen gleich zu schatzen
sind... Das zierliche/ das reine Wesen in der M usic... die Beurtheilung/ mit welcher
Anmuth eine Sache will gespielet seyn; der gute Geschmack; die Empfindung dessen so
man spielt oder singet.. ,12
He makes reference to Bach’s Partitas in order to emphasize the comparatively modest
musical ambitions of this Cantabile Aria. Thus the Partitas here are held up, along with
those of Graupner and Mattheson, as music which demands not only solid technique but
also a highly cultivated sense of taste and expression which can only come through
experience. The distinction he draws is thus between technical exercises and real music.
While much of Mattheson's revolutionary music criticism was directed at a broad
public of galant amateur musicians, the Grosse General-Bass Schule seems to have been
primarily aimed at a market of aspiring organists.13 One can assume from his comments
that he expected these organists to recognize the works he cites. However, given his
implication that they are more challenging from a musical perspective than even the most
12 Mattheson 1731, 345.
13 In the preface of the Grosse General-Bass Schule he implies a distinction between this
book and others which were directed at a broader market. Mattheson 1731, unpag. 2 of
20: “Es wurde schon vor acht Jahren von einer neuen Auflage der Organisten-Probe
gesprochen und geschrieben, weil die Exemplare zu solcher Zeit bereits diinne zu werden
begunten; welches gleichwol bey dieser Art Schrifften eben nichts gemeines ist.”
225
difficult exercises in his book, one presumes that he expected mastery of Bach's Partitas
to follow the course of training outlined in his book.
Luise Viktorie Adelgunde Kulmus
On May 30, 1732 the 19-year-old Luise Viktorie Adelgunde Kulmus (1713-
1762), wrote a letter to Professor Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700-1766) of Leipzig
University thanking him for packet of music by Bach and Johann Christian Weyrauch
(1694-1771) he had recently sent in the mail:
Die iiberschickten Stiicke zum Clavier von Bach, und von Weyrauch zur Laute, sind eben
so schwer als sie schon sind. Wenn ich sie zehnmal gespielet habe, scheine ich mir
immer noch eine Anfangerin darinnen. Von diesen bey den groBen M eistem gefallt mir
alles besser als ihre Capricen; diese sind unergriindlich schwer.14
Professor Gottsched was the leading literary figure in Leipzig during Bach’s time.
His primary interests lay in reforming the German literary language and the theater (not
least the opera), most especially ridding them of the highly stylized rhetorical traditions
of the 17th century. These goals were pursued through the founding of innovative
periodicals and literary socities which gave Gottsched a nearly dictatorial preeminence in
Leipzig’s literary world. On a visit to Danzig in 1729, he met the 16-year old Luise
Kulmus, who he found fascinating, owing to her “Neigung zu den Wissenschaften und
ihr feiner Witz, der schon verschiedene kleine Gedichte hervorgebracht hatte; ihre
Geschicklichkeit in der Musik, und iiber dem, ihre angenehme Gestalt und artige Sitten.”
With the permission of her parents the two began a regular exchange of letters which
14 Dok II, Nr. 309.
226
eventually led to courtship and marriage in 1735. Gottsched’s letters of the early 1730s
often included gifts which he asserted were carefully selected to solidify Luise Kulmus'
interests in the arts and sciences.15 Most often these consisted of books but sometimes
also, as in the above instance, printed or manuscript music.
Luise Kulmus was an extraordinarily enthusiastic and talented amateur musician.
She received keyboard and lute instruction as a child and, upon marrying Gottsched and
moving to Leipzig in 1735, began composition lessons with J. S. Bach’s pupil Johann
Ludwig Krebs (1713-1780), who was so impressed that he dedicated his own first
publication to her, writing: “ [d]ie Kunst, so hoch sie steigt, sieht nirgend Deines
gleichen”16 In a similar dedication of his third collection of odes, Johann Friedrich Grafe
(1711-1787) praises highly Luise’s “Fertigkeit in der Poesie und M usic”.17 According to
her husband writing on the occasion of her death in 1763, Luise played the lute so well
that she could sightread the works of Silvius Leopold Weiss (1686-1750), who himself
heard her on a visit to Leipzig in 1740.18 Luise engaged in a regular exchange of materials
15 Gottsched 1763 (Luise Gottsched's Nekrolog), unpag. 5-6/86: "Ihre Neigung zu den
Wissenschaften, und ihr feiner Witz, der schon verschiedene kleine Gedichte
hervorgebracht hatte; ihre Geschicklichkeit in der Musik, und iiber dem, ihre angenehme
Gestalt und artige Sitten, bewogen denselben, sich bey ihren Aeltem den Briefwechsel
mit Ihr auszubitten. Diesen erhielt er, und suchte sie dadurch, mehr und mehr in dem
Geschmacke an den Wissenschaften, und freyen Kunsten zu befestigen: zu welchem
Ende er sie dann allmahlich mit allerley deutschen und franzosischen Biichern, die ihrer
Fahigkeit gemab waren, verforgete."
16 Johann Ludwig Krebs. “Erste Piece, bestehend In sechs Leichten, und nach heutigen
gusto, Wohl-eingerichteten Praeam bulis...” (Niimberg, 1740).
17 Johann Friedrich Grafe. “Dritte Sammlung verschiedener und auserlesener O den...”

(Halle, 1739)
18 Gottsched 1763, unpaginated 14/86.
227
from her library with local and visiting musicians.19 Although no musical materials are
listed in the catalog of her library compiled by her husband upon her death, certain
manuscripts of lute-based chamber music by Ernst Gottlieb Baron (1696-1760) and a
composer named Meusel which once belonged to this library are preserved in the
Koninklijke Bibliotheek in Brussels, all of which appear to be the work of professional
copyists.
Gottsched and Bach must certainly have been well acquainted by 1731. The
former regularly attended services at the Thomaskirche for which Bach provided the
music and the two men shared a father confessor.21 Gottsched served as the librettist for a
wedding cantata (BWV Anh. 1 14) which Bach performed on November 27, 1725 and
also for Cantata 198, the Trauerode for the death of Christiane Eberhardine, Kurfiirstin of
Saxony and Queen of Poland, which Bach performed in Leipzig’s Paulinerkirche on
October 17, 1727.22 In 1728 Gottsched described Bach as the best musician in all of
Saxony and - with Telemann and Handel - one of the three greatest German musicians in
19 She exchanged manuscripts, for example, with the lutenist Adam Falckenhagen (1697-
1761), two letters from whom are dated October 25, 1738 and March 22, 1739 and
preserved in D-LEu (Cod MS 1342, Vol. IV, fol 457-458 and Vol. V, fol. 63-64).
Falckenhagen sent her his own works and others by Pfeiffer and requested in return
music by Luise’s teacher in Danzig, who is unfortunately not named.
20 B-Br: Ms. II. 4087 (Fetis, Nr. 2912) and Mus. II. 4089 (Fetis, Nr. 2914) both include
manuscripts with her ownership marking, LAVG.
21 Stiller 1976, 166-172.
22 Gottsched also wrote the libretto for the Abendmusik (BWV Anh. 113) for August III
Elector of Saxony and King of Poland among others which was performed on April 28,
1738.
228
the world.23 Thus it comes as no surprise that J. C. Gottsched would send the music-
loving object of his affections a collection of Bach’s keyboard music.
The exact works Gottsched sent to Luise cannot be determined with certainty. It
has been asserted on the basis of Luise’s reference to Capricen that she received a print
of the second Partita (BWV 826), the last movement of which is entitled Capriccio.24
However, the fact that she uses this word in the plural makes it more likely that she meant
to refer to a genre rather than to a specific movement. Capriccio was often used by
theorists of the early 18th century as a synonym for Prelude or Fantasia - for example by
Martin Fuhrmann in his Musicalischer-Trichter (1706),25 by Johann Mattheson in Das
neu-erdjfnete Orchestre (1713),26 and Der vollkommene Capellmeister (1739)27 and by
Johann Gottfried W alther in his Musicalisches Lexicon (1732).28 Gottlieb Muffat referred
in the later 1720s to the contents of his Componimenti Musicali (Augsburg, >1726) as
"allerley Gattungen artiger Caprices, oder so genanten Galanterie-Stuck" by which he
meant Suite movements in general. Unfortunately no music by the Leipzig lutenist,
23 Dok II, Nr. 249: “ .. .der Herr Capellmeister Bach ist in Sachsen das Haupt unter seines
gleichen.” See also Dok II, Nr. 483 for similar comments Gottsched wrote in 1740.
24 Dok II, Nr. 223.
25 Fuhrmann 1706, 86. See Fuhrmann's definition of “Fantasia” in his glossary.
26 Mattheson 1713, 176.
27 Mattheson 1739, 232.
28 Walther 1732, 141.
229
composer and notary public, Weyrauch, survives which might help to illuminate the
matter.29
Despite the dearth of evidence, it is nonetheless likely that the keyboard music by
Bach which Gottsched sent to Luise consisted at least in part of music from the Partitas.
Opus 1 was by far the most public offering Bach had yet made of his keyboard music and
as a major public figure in Leipzig J. C. Gottsched could not but have been aware of the
grofies Aufsehen Forkel describes as having attended the release of these works.
Furthermore, a gift of a print or manuscript copy of the Partitas would have accorded well
with other musical gifts Luise Kulmus is known to have received from Gottsched. On
October 15, 1732, she wrote to him from Danzig:
Hochzuehrender Herr, vor alien Dingen danke ich Ihnen fur die iiberschickten
Musikalien. Die schone Symphonie von Hasse soil das nachstemal im Concert gespielet
werden. Ich werde meine Finger fleiBig iiben um das trefliche Stiicke nicht unerkenntlich
zu machen.30
Here she is almost certainly referring to a keyboard arrangement of the orchestral
Sinfonia to Johann Adolph Hasse’s Cleofide, premiered on September 13, 1731 at the
29 Weyrauch was bom in Knauthain near Leipzig the son of the local cantor (Dok I, Nr.
67). He applied for the position of music director at Leipzig’s Neue Kirche in 1729,
auditioning on April 19 with a cantata entitled “Also ist’s geschrieben und also muBte
Christus leiden” which made extensive use of the lute. Weyrauch’s application for the
position seems to have failed ultimately because he could not play the organ (Glockner
1990, 88-89, 131). Bach wrote a recommendation on W eyrauch’s behalf on January 14,
1730 for another failed application - this time to be cantor of the St. Jakobi church in
Chemnitz (Dok I, Nr. 67 and Dok II, Nr. 274). Weyrauch married Elisabeth Christiane
Heimbd in 1739 with whom he had a son named Johann Sebastian for whom Johann
Sebastian Bach and the luthier Johann Christian Hoffmann served as Godparents. He
worked as a notary in Leipzig and also transcribed BWV 997 (D-LEm: III. 11.55) and
1000 (D-LEm III. 11.4) into lute tabulatur. See Schulze 1966, 32-39.
30 Kording 1999, 36.
230
Dresden court. The performance, attended by both J. S. and W. F. Bach, was a
tremendous sensation. Keyboard arrangements of this Sinfonia and excerpts proliferated
in the years that followed, examples can be found in collections prepared for other
musically-inclined women.31 Since no version of this Sinfonia was printed before 1732, it
is virtually certain the Gottsched’s gift in this case consisted of a manuscript. In a letter
of March 7, 1733 Luise Kulmus thanks Gottsched for yet another music-related gift,
W alther’s Musicalisches Lexicon:
Hochzuehrender Herr, sie horen nicht auf meine Btichersammlung zu bereichem. Das
Musicalische Lexicon war mir noch ganz unbekannt. Ich habe schon viele
Zweifelsknoten dadurch aufgelost und jedesmal erinnere ich mich dabey an Ihre Giite,
die mir solches zugeschickt hat.32
Like Hasse's Cleofide Sinfonia the W alther Lexicon was an immensely popular book in
the early 1730s.33 Bach's Partitas have a kinship with these other gifts in that they all
31 See, for example, a manuscript of this Sinfonia prepared in 1732 for P. C. D[e]. H. in
Dresden (D-Dlb: Mus.2477-F-10) and a manuscript prepared in 1743 for Frederika
Sophia, Grafin von Epstein in Darmstadt (D-DS: N.Mus.BP 705, folia 5v-7v).
32 Kording 1999, 43. Luise’s copy of the W alther Lexicon was also found in the book
collection of her estate catalog. See Gottsched 1763, 508 (entry #32).
33 In an advertisement in the Leipziger Post-Zeitung of August 17, 1731 the publisher

Wolfgang Deer apologizes to subscribers for a delay in production of the Lexicon
because more people were interested in the work than had been expected and the print
run had to be increased: “Auf Doct. Edw. Stillingfleets kleinere geistreiche Schrifften in
4. Dock. Ed. Leighi Commentarius in N. T. und Joh. Gottfried Walthers Musicalisches
Lexicon wird nur bis ultimo dieses aufs erstere 1 thlr. 4 gl. und beyde letztere jedes 1 thlr.
prcenumerando angenommen, bey jedem Buche aber das dritte Theil des Preises ersparet.
Und weil der Verleger, Wolfgang Deer, allhier zu beyden letztern mehr Liebhaber findet,
als er sich eingebildet, und dahero die Auflage starcker machen, beym letzten aber alle
vorkommende Noten und musicalische Zeichen sauber in Kupffer stechen lassen muB;
Als wird niemanden von denen Prcenumeranten iibel nehmen, wenn sich die Verfertigung
derselben um einen Monath langer hinaus verziehen solte, das erstere aber ist nechstens
gantz fertig.” Leipziger Post-Zeitung. Nouvellen, XXXIII Woche, Aug 17, 1731, p. 132.
231
advertise Gottsched's familiarity with the latest and most fashionable goings-on in
Saxony's famously vibrant musical world. This was not true, for example, of the French
Suites or the Well-Tempered Clavier. It seems thus most likely that Gottsched sent Luise
either a print or a professionally copied manuscript of music from the Partitas.34
Just as he encouraged his wife and other women, such as Christiane Marianne von
Ziegler (1695-1760), to cultivate their intellectual capacities through writing and
translating, Gottsched encouraged his wife to confront the intellectual side of music
making, whether through W alther’s Lexicon or by confronting repertoire typically
deemed too serious for women. In a poem he clearly wrote with his wife in mind (“Als
sie spielte” in J. F. Grafe’s third collection of Oden in 1741 and set to music by Conrad
Friedrich Hurlebusch), J. C. Gottsched mentions her playing fugues in particular:
O Reichthum neuer Fantasien!

Wie schnell, wie fertig, voll und schon,
Hort man die bunten Fugen gehn!
Wie wenig dorft ihr euch bemiihen!
Weil, wie man deutlich hort und sieht,
Was Hohers Nerv und Finger zieht.
34 The price of Walther's Lexicon varied between 1 Taler and 1 Taler 16 Groschen
depending on whether one subscribed in advance (See the Leipziger Post-Zeitung
Nouvellen, XXXIII Woe he, Aug 17, 1731, 132 [1 Taler] and XI Woche, 14 March, 1732,
44 [1 Taler, 16 Groschen] as well as Georgi 1742, IV, 288 [1 Taler 12 Groschen]). In
any case Gottsched was clearly willing and able to invest at least 1 Taler to buy a gift for
Luise. That she writes of his never ceasing to increase her library suggests that he parted
with sums of this order on a regular basis. A single edition print of one of the Partitas
from Bach’s Clavier-Ubung cost only 12 Groschen - that is, half the price of W alther’s
Lexicon. The collected Opus 1 edition of 1731 cost 3 Taler, two or three times as much
as the Lexicon but certainly not placing it beyond his means.
232
Gottsched proudly summarized his w ife’s musical accomplishments by stating that in the
realm of music Luise tried to overstep “die gemeine Bahn des Frauenzimmers.”35 His
decision to send her keyboard music by Bach - in all likelihood the Partitas - reflects his
view of her skills and interests as beyond those achieved by most women.
Luise's own view of the matter is more difficult to interpret. She herself modestly
downplayed her musical and intellectual accomplishments in these letters, stressing the
difficulty she had in playing the music by Bach, Weyrauch and Hasse and emphasizing
her lack of music-historical knowledge which she was able to improve with Walther's
Lexicon. Her remark that the pieces by Bach she had received in the mail were "eben so
schwer als sie schon sind" and the enthusiasm she displayed in practicing it ten times
diligently (allegedly without improvement), however, suggests that she saw value in this
repertoire and wished to come to terms with it. The reports of her virtuosity by Krebs
and others suggest she was eventually able to do so.
Lorenz Mizler
In 1736 Lorenz Mizler (1711-1778) mentioned Bach’s Partitas in his review of a (lost)
keyboard instruction book published sometime earlier in Augsburg:
Augspurg, verlegts Merz und M eyer Buchhandlere 1731.

Ich bin ganz miide geworde[n] biB ich die Aufschrifft dieses Buches durchgelesen. Wenn
alles wahr ware was auf dem Titel-Blat stiinde, so miiste es ein groses Buch seyn, das
ganze Werk aber an und vor sich bestehet in 6 ganzen Bogen, ohne den Uebungs-Plan.
Die Aufschrifft scheinet so weitlauffig geraten zu seyn, weil viele gute Freunde, wie in
der Vorrede stehet, daran gearbeitet haben. Es bestehet in drey Abtheilungen. Die erste
Abteilung handelt von den allerersten Griinden der Musik, absonderlich von der
35 Gottsched 1763, unpag. p. 14 of 86.
233
Abwechselung der Finger, welche mir aber gar nicht gefallet. W er die Finger nicht
besser zu versetzen weiB, wird schwehrlich unsers beriihmten Herm Bachens zu Leipzig
Partien auf das Clavier spielen lemen konnen. In der andem Abteilung sind die
allergemeinsten Regeln so man bey Erlemung des General-Basses zu merken hat,
hingesetzet. Die dritte Abtheilung handelt vom ut re mi fa, und was dazu gehoret. Der
Uebungs-Plan siehet auf dem Papier besser aus, als er in die Ohren fallet. Nach dem
heutigen Geschmack ist diese Setz-Art nicht.36
M izler’s reservations about this Augsburg keyboard treatise are focused on the
discrepancy between its arrogant claims of comprehensiveness and its paltry length and
incompleteness. Clearly it was intended to attract buyers who sought to become masters
of the keyboard in the shortest time possible. Mizler's highlights the failings of the book
by citing a prominent example of difficult keyboard repertoire - Bach's Partitas - the
challenges of which will remain well beyond the grasp of those who have mastered all of
the exercises in the treatise. Mizler's comment reveals that Bach's Partitas were attractive
(if only as a distant goal) to beginning keyboard players and that they were widely
recognized as extremely difficult (particularly as regards fingering). This was music
which could only be mastered through the patient building of a solid technical
foundation, which was beyond the scope of the Augsburg treatise.
Johann Christian Voigt
The Waldenburg organist, Johann Christian Voigt (16957-1745), published a book in
1742 entitled Gesprach von der Musik zwischen einem Organisten und einem
Adjuvanten37 in which he mentions at one point Bach's Partitas. The book’s chief subject
36 Mizler 1736-54,1/5 (1738), 74-75.
37 For identification of the authorship of this anonymous treatise we have Lorenz Mizler
to thank. See Mizler 1736-54, II/l (1740), 157.
234
is an organist’s responsibilities, both professional and moral, and it hoped to find an
audience not of geiibte Organisten but rather by ungeiibten C la vier-S ch iller.It is written
as a dialogue between a teacher (the Organist) and his student (Adjuvant). The suspicion
that Voigt himself was the organist and that the stories he tells are true cannot be
confirmed.39 Most likely they are a combination of his own experiences, the experiences
of others of which he had heard and perhaps also fictional tales.
The reference to Bach’s Partitas appears within the context of the organist’s tale
of a charlatan who came to visit him vor etlichen Jahren. This Ampullas Loquens had
abandoned his theology studies at an unnamed University in order to pursue a career in
music and boasted of having had a great deal of success performing and teaching in
Leipzig, Dresden and elsewhere. After seating himself at the organist’s Clavier and
quickly and carelessly plowing through some keyboard music he had prepared in
advance, the organist set before him printed works by Johann Matthias Leffloth (1705-
1731),40 and W ilhelm Hieronymous Pachelbel (1686-1764),41 both organists in Niirnberg.
38 See Voigt 1742, Vorrede.
39 The Organist makes reference to his having been bom in Miihlhausen ca. 1695 (see
below). No one named Johann Christian Voigt could be located in the baptism records of
the six Protestant churches between 1693 and 1697. I appreciate very much the help of
Frau Kuschke of the Evangelischen Kirchenkreis Miihlhausen for looking into this matter
on my behalf.
40 The only works which come into question here are Leffloth’s ‘Sonata und Fuge”and
the “Divertimento musicale; consistente in una partita da cembalo,” both of which were
advertised in the Niirnberg Friedens- und Kriegs-Currier as available from FelBecker in
1726 (see Heussner 1968, 335 and Adlung 1758, 715-716) and neither of which survives
today.
235
The charlatan was barely able to hack through these pieces, playing each chord two or
three times rapidly before moving on to the next. The organist politely suggested that his
visitor slow down a bit so that the tempo might remain steady but the young man
responded angrily that Leffloth and Pachelbel never should have published such rubbish
and that: "man hatte sonsten ja Sachen genug aufs Clavier von denen Italianern und
Franzosen, wie auch von dem bekannten Bach schone Clavier-Ubungen, welche gewiB
recht gut gesetzt waren."42 No doubt to the dismay of this charlatan, the organist
responded by retrieving Bach’s Clavier-Ubungen and placing them on the music stand:
Ich war nicht faul, suchte des bemeldeten Herm Bachs seine Clavier-Sachen hervor, und
zeigte ihm dieselben, hatte er aber zuvor nicht gehackt, so gieng es hier erst recht an, und
fiel er hierauf in einen Discurs von Herm Bachen, ob ich ihn kennte, er hatte vernommen,
daB ich ein Thiiringer und von Geburt ein Miihlhauser ware, und er, Herr Bach, ware ja in
Miihlhausen Organist gewesen. Ich versetzte, daB ich mich zwar noch wohl erinnerte,
ihn gesehen zu haben, aber doch nicht mehr kennte, weiln ich dazumal nur 12. Jahre alt
gewesen, auch in 30. Jahren nicht wieder dieses sey geschehen 1707 43
Since the Organist tells his Adjuvant that this encounter took place “vor etlichen Jahren”
- that is, a few years before the present (1742) - and that the last time he had encountered
Bach was 30 years earlier in 1707, it stands to reason that this encounter between the
organist and the charlatan is set in ca. 1736-37. The only keyboard music Bach had
41 The fact that Voigt, Leffloth and W. H. Pachelbel were all of the same generation, and
the fact that Leffloth was in Niirnberg suggests that the Pachelbel meant here is Wilhelm
Hieronymous, organist in Niirnberg, rather than his father Johann (1653-1706). The
work most likely referred to here is W. F. Pachelbel’s “Praeludium und Fuga”, published
by the composer in Niirnberg in 1725 - RISM P 38 (see Adlung 1758, 718 and Gohler
1902, III, Nr. 348).
42 Dok II, Nr. 514.
43 Dok II, Nr. 514.
236
published to this point were the Partitas (published 1726-1731) or to the Clavier-Ubung
part 2 (published 1735).44 Since the reference in the story to Clavier-Ubungen is plural, it
must refer either to both parts 1 and 2 of the Clavier-Ubung or to the Partitas alone, each
individual print of which bore the name Clavier-Ubung. The latter is more likely given
that the Partitas had been available for considerably longer, the music to which the
Organist refers in this context by Leffloth and Pachelbel was published in the 1720s or
earlier, and the charlatan’s reference to Clavier-Ubungen suggests a natural class of
similar works.
Whether or not Voigt’s story is entirely fictional, his discussion of Bach’s
Clavier-Ubungen is valuable because it gives us a vivid sense of this m usic’s phenomenal
reputation among professional musicians and students not long after its initial
publication. In the view of the charlatan in Voigt’s account Bach’s Partitas are on a par
with works by any of the most famous French and Italians composers; indeed, one need
not bother publishing music that fails to reach these standards, as the charlatan - in
seeking to explain his own failings at the keyboard - implied that Pachelbel and Leffloth
had done. The difficulty of Bach’s Partitas is once again highlighted here; this repertoire
is used to expose the charlatan, who chooses to blather away rather than risk certain
humiliation by attempting to address the challenges of this music.
44 The Clavier-Ubung part 3 is an unlikely candidate as it was published in 1739 and

includes only organ works.
237
Johann Baptist Pauli
On February 13, 1750 Johann Baptist Pauli (1699/1700-1773) was Hofkapellmeister in
Fulda from the m id-1720 until his death in 177345 sent a letter to his colleague and friend,
the Franciscan organist and music theorist, Padre Giovanni Battista Martini (1706-1784)
in which he included a print of Bach’s Musikalisches Opfer (BWV 1079, published in
1747) and a manuscript he had prepared himself of four movements from the sixth Partita
- the Toccata, Allemanda, Corrente and Gigue.46 Pauli writes in his accompanying letter
that Bach is esteemed and regarded in Germany (in quest' Imperio) as the only organist in
the world (I’onico organista del Mondo) and notes that, although he himself had not had
occasion to meet Bach personally, he was able to recognize through his works that this
was a composer with unusual dexterity in his hands (portamento di mano).41
Certainly the works Pauli included with his letter were intended to illustrate
Bach's portamento di mano. Pauli had earlier requested of Martini that he send him a
sample of his own work, specifically asking for the difficile Sonata, by which he meant
the Sonate d ’intavolatura per Vorgano e 7 cembalo published in Amsterdam by Michel
Charles le Cene in 1742, not th&facile sonatas Martini had already given him on a recent
trip to Bologna (presumably the Sonate per Vorgano e il cembalo published in Bologna
45 Dok II, 546. Little is known of Pauli's biography other than that he is known to have
composed numerous sacred Schulcomodien which were performed by students of the
Jesuit school in Fulda between 1725 and 1744. See Henkel 1882, 16 and Rehm 1997, 11.
46 The inclusion of these works by Bach was clearly intended by Pauli as a means of
thanking Martini for sending him numerous musical works without demanding payment.
Martini seems to have ignored arrangements Pauli attempted to make for the works by
Bononcini and his own works. See Pauli’s letter of August 20, 1748 (I-Bc: H. 86-95).
47 Dok II, Nr. 597a and Nr. 597b.
238
by Lelio della Volpe in 1747).48 Thus his comments constitute yet another reference to
the difficulty of the Partitas.
Beyond technical difficulty, however, the Musikalisches Opfer and movements
from the sixth Partita were selected by Pauli to impress upon Martini his own fascination
with strict counterpoint. It is clear that an interest in the strict contrapuntal style is one of
the main interests which bound these two men. In a letter written on June 25, 1748,
immediately after his return from a visit to Bologna, Pauli fondly recalls conversations in
which he and Martini argued for the strict style against the more liberal views of Andrea
Basili (1705-1777). Pauli undoubtedly chose the Musikalisches Opfer and the sixth
Partita because of their grave, serious character and wealth of strict counterpoint. Within
the sixth Partita he selected the Toccata, Allemanda, Corrente and Gigue (tellingly
labeled fuga rather than Gigue in the letter). The Air, Sarabande and Tempo di Gavotta
were clearly of somewhat less interest, probably because they lacked the contrapuntal
gravitas integral to the image Pauli sought to project.
Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf
In 1760, Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf (1719-1794) attempted to sell a print of
Opus 1 as well as an individual print of Bach's second Partita:
48 The identification of these two collections is made possible by Pauli’s next letter, dated
August 20, 1748, in which he informs Martini that he need not send the Sonatas because
he can get them directly from Amsterdam. See I-Bc: H. 86-95.
239
Bach, (Joh. Lebr. Fiirstl. WeiBenf. Capellmeister und Direct. Chori Musici Lipsiensis)
Clavier-Uebung, bestehend in Praludien, Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden, Giquen,
Menuetten und andem Galanterien. Opus I. in 5 Partien. Leipz. 1731. fol. transv. Kupfst.
a 5 thl.
— Derselben 2te Partie besonders, (die leichteste unter alien) Leipz. fol. transv.
Kupferst. 1727. a 8 gl.49
Breitkopf s catalog entries would not merit mention in this section were it not for his
comment that the second Partita is " die leichteste unter alien." Clearly Breitkopf
expected that potential customers would be intimidated by what they had heard or seen of
Bach's Partitas. The 1760 catalog is Breitkopf’s earliest but he had been selling music for
years by this point and his attempt to assuage the fears of his customers was no doubt
informed by prior experience with these works. His comment serves as yet another
indication that this repertoire had a formidable reputation for difficulty among those who
were in the market to purchase printed keyboard music.
49
Dok III, Nr. 705.
240
Chapter 7
Musical Allusions to the Partitas before ca. 1775
Clear musical influences from the Partitas similarly reveal a composer's
relationship to these works and to Bach's music in general. The following survey of
musical influence from the Partitas prior to ca. 1775 is organized chronologically to the
extent possible.
Musical Allusions by Bach's Sons
Wilhelm Friedemann Bach
That W ilhelm Friedemann Bach (1710-1784), J. S. Bach’s eldest son, was familiar with
his father’s Partitas from their inception goes without saying. His only documented
connection to these works, however, is to be found in his Suite in G minor (Fk 24) which
Friedemann probably composed between roughly 1730-35 and which bears the
unmistakable influence of Opus 1. Peter Wollny has convincingly argued on the basis of
shared motivic and rhythmic characteristics that the Allemande of Friedemann’s Suite is
modeled directly on those of J. S. Bach’s third and sixth Partitas.1The Courante appears
to be modeled on that of his father’s third Partita and the fourth movement CPresto) is in
its hand-crossing very similar to J. S. Bach’s Tempo di Minuetto from Partita V, although
it is difficult to say whether Friedemann was directly inspired by this work since
1Wollny 1993, 81-82.
241
numerous such pieces were composed in Leipzig student circles of the late 1720s and
early 1730s as noted above. Friedemann composed a number of similar works around
this time including a Tempo di Minuetto (Fk 25/2) and a Bourlesca (Fk 26).
Thus Friedemann definitely knew the Partitas at the time he composed this Suite.
Interestingly his Allemande, despite undeniable surface similarities, is generally more
conservative in style than are those of the Partitas. It is composed strictly in three voices
from beginning to end while those of his father's published collection are typically
written in two voices with others entering as necessary to fill gaps in the harmony.
Friedemann also chose to employ voice imitation at the outset of the Allemande and to
invert the theme at the start of the second reprise - a technique common to the
Allemandes of J. S. Bach's earlier Suites (e. g. the English Suites IV and V) but absent
from the Partitas. In contrast to his father who, as discussed above, composed the
Allemandes of his Partitas largely in two and four-bar units, Friedemann chose to
compose his Allemande in more traditional, uneven phrases. Nor does Friedemann
deliberately highlight important structural boundaries through dramatic changes in
texture as did his father, although he does, as Wollny has noted, recapitulate the main
theme of the Allemande in the middle of the second reprise - a strikingly modem
gesture.2 Wollny has noted that Friedemann’s piece is far more virtuosic and diverse in
rhythmic content than are those of J. S. Bach’s Partitas.3 Friedemann follows his father’s
lead in ending both reprises with the same nine-measure closing theme, throwing the final
2 Wollny 1993, 82.
3 Wollny 1993, 82-83.
242
structural boundaries into high relief as J. S. Bach regularly did in the Partitas. Still,
traces of an older, less galant style abound: Friedemann’s phrasing here is much less
regular than that of his father and his use of imitative voice-exchange in a Corrente-type
piece such as this is rare in J. S. Bach’s surviving Correntes.4 The Sarabande is composed
from beginning to end in three independent voices, and thus bears little trace of influence
from the innovative, spare textured Sarabandes of the Partitas.
In summary, it is certain that Friedemann knew the Allemandes,
Courantes/Correntes and Sarabandes of the Partitas at the time he composed this Suite as
he had assimilated many of their distinctive characteristics. Yet in composing this work
he did not embrace many of their more striking innovations favoring instead a more
traditional style with stricter three-part voice leading, uneven phrase lengths, imitative
voice-exchange and invertible counterpoint. Whether this was an exercise, aberration, or
a general characteristic of Friedemann’s Suites in these years remains a matter of
speculation since only one Suite survives.
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach
When the first Partita was released in 1726 Emanuel Bach was a 12-year-old student at
the Thomasschule. In October of 1731, the year the collected Opus 1 edition was
published, Emanuel issued his first publication, a M enuetpour le Clavessin (Wq 111).
That this work was inspired by the publication of his father’s Partitas is suggested not
only by the timing but also by the fact that Emanuel engraved it himself with a great deal
4 See, for example, the Courante (actually Corrente) of the fifth French Suite.
of help from the family friend, Johann Gotthilf Ziegler, who had engraved his father’s
Partitas III, IV, V and VI.5 The music too bears a strong resemblance to the Tempo di
Minuetta of J. S. Bach’s fifth Partita with its dramatic hand-crossing, a technique
Emanuel would characterize many years later - with particular reference to this Menuet -
as “Eine natiirliche und damals sehr eingerissene Hexerey”.6 Emanuel himself composed
several additional Minuets with hand-crossing in these years including a Menuet (BR
CPEB JUV 7/8 and 7/9) and a Tempo di Minuetto (BR CPEB JUV 7/5).7
Curiously, Emanuel Bach’s Suites, Sonatas and Sonatinas from this period do not
seem to bear many further traces of influence from his father’s Partitas. The few
surviving Allemandes (Wq 62.4/2, 62.12/1) and Courantes (Wq 62.12/2) are much closer
to the French Suites in conception, texture and rhythmic profile than they are to those of
the Partitas. C. P. E. Bach’s surviving early Sarabandes (Wq 62.12/3, BR CPEB JUV 7/3
7/6 and JUV 8/2) are quite similar to those of Partitas I and IV in terms of their
sparseness of texture and the way in which the melody line fills out the harmony,
although C. P. E. Bach was unable at this age to achieve this spareness as skillfully as did
his father; the bass lines are often repetitive and uninteresting. These Sarabandes are,
however, quite modem in conception; that of C. P. E. Bach’s Suite in E minor (Wq
62.12/3) includes a recapitulation of the opening theme in the middle of the second
reprise (m. 21), much as does that of the fourth Partita, but in its basic conception (the
5 Butler 1986, 12-15.
6 See C. P. E. Bach's autobiography in Burney 1772/73, III, 203.
7 Wollny 2003, 142.
244
simple alternation of an arpeggio figure in melody and bass lines) the work is also quite
unlike those of the Partitas. The surviving Gigues (Wq 62.12/7 and BR CPEB JUV 7/14)
though sometimes imitative in texture, bear little resemblance to the strict, fugal Gigues
of J. S. Bach’s Partitas III, IV, V and VI.
As in the case of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach cited above, it is abundantly clear
that Emanuel Bach was familiar with the Partitas at the time he composed these works
and yet he does not seem to have been inspired to imitate them directly. In contrast to his
brother, who wrote more conservatively than his father in his only surviving Suite, the
style cultivated by Emanuel in these years is, in its sparer textures, free voice leading and
lack of strict counterpoint, rather less strict and more wildly adventurous than is that of
the Partitas.
J. C. Bach
After moving to London in 1762 to work as composer at the Italian opera, J. C. Bach
ingratiated himself with the public through the founding of a concert series with his
colleague, C. F. Abel (1723-1787), and was eventually appointed Music Master to Her
Majesty and the Royal Family. In 1773 he published his Opus 10, the Six Sonatas fo r the
Harpsichord or Piano Forte with an Accompagnament fo r a Violin. Humbly dedicated
To The reight Honble Lady Mellbourne, the first of which makes use of material culled
from the Praeludium of his father’s first Partita.8
81 would like to thank Dr. Ulrich Leisinger for making me aware of this borrowing.
245
Example 16: J. C. Bach Sonata (Allegro, m. 1-12)
f A lle g r o
C em balo
(|»i*«o)
j 4—
-T f-F o t - \-j - 3
Despite subtle changes in texture and rhythm the average listener familiar with J. S.
Bach’s first Partita would hardly have recognized this as a new work until the fourth or
fifth measure. It begins modestly, turning the Partita’s first four measures over and over
again, eventually breaking into a more diffuse, galant texture with a murki-style bass line
in octaves and ending heroically. J. C. Bach probably chose the first Partita because it
was well-known - to Lady Elizabeth Melbourne and others, who would easily have
recognized and appreciated the connection between father and son.
246
- Musical Allusions by Others
Anonymous Scribe o f D-Bds: Mus.ms.30382 (folia 45v and 35r)
Mus.ms.30382 in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin is a large and disorderly collection of
manuscripts, most of which are of unknown provenance. Folia 45v and 35r are of
interest for this study because they present the following work based on the Aria from
Bach’s fourth Partita, here also labeled Aria (illegible at the top):
Example 17: Anonymous "Aria" based on the Aria of Bach's fourth Partita
247
248
To call this work a manuscript copy of the Aria would be inaccurate; it is much
more a new composition inspired by Bach’s work. After introducing the A ria’s themes at
the beginning of the first reprise (bars 1-13 of the original) and the beginning of the
second reprise (bars 17-20 of the original) the copyist presents material which is entirely
new and simpler in texture, rhythm and harmony. Much of the writing is manifestly
incompetent. The music is aimless - a patchwork of standard compositional techniques
(pedal bass lines and circle-of-fifths passage writing).
The scribe's identity remains a mystery. Hans-Joachim Schulze was able to
identify one of the other scribes represented in the manuscript as Christian Gottlob
MeiBner (1707-1760).9 Meissner was a student at the Thomasschule from 1719 to 1729,
where he regularly assisted Bach with the copying of performance materials. He enrolled
in Leipzig University on July 1, 1729 but by mid-1730 was already working as music
director back in his birthplace of Geithain. From the handwriting Meissner seems to have
copied the works in this manuscript between October of 1726 and June of 1728.10At some
point the scribe of the piece based on Bach's Aria acquired these materials from
Meissner, suggesting that they were colleagues.11 That they were to some extent working
independently, however, is revealed by the fact that they both copied the same work by
an unknown (French?) composer entitled Le Tourneur. One suspects that our scribe was
9 Schulze 1984,101-110,esp. 107.
10 Rifkin (forthcoming), 29.
11 That our scribe acquired M eissner’s manuscripts rather than the other way around is
suggested not only by the greater prevalence of our scribe's work in Mus.ms.30382 but
also by the fact that he seems to have used pages left blank by Meissner for his own
copies. See, for example, folio 43r-v and folio 37r-v, which are the same piece of paper.
249
also a student, either at the Thomasschule or at Leipzig University at the time he set to
paper this work which was inspired by Bach's Aria from Partita IV. Indeed, the contents
of the manuscripts in our scribe's hand would also suggest youth. It is for the most part
very much the type of manuscript one would expect a student to own in the 1730s or 40s.
The works in our scribe's hand include numerous Minuets, instrumental Arias,
Polonaises, character pieces by Francois Couperin and an Aria (“Mich ergetzt
einheimlich Gliicke, und die Gotter frohe blute Strahlen mich mit Gnaden an”) from Carl
Heinrich Graun’s Scipio Africanus, which was premiered in Braunschweig in 1732.12
Whoever composed this work was obviously quite young and experienced at the
time. His having done so, however, reveals the attraction that this repertoire - in
particular the optional dances - held for young music enthusiasts in the early 18th century.
Writing a new work based on Bach's original was in a sense the ultimate compliment.
The young composer clearly wished to make this music his own in a dramatic way as one
might otherwise do by adding ornamentation.
Johann Peter Kellner
J. P. Kellner’s interest in Bach’s Partitas is manifest not only in his having copied them
soon after their appearance in print but also by the publication of his Certamen Musicum
bestehend aus Prdludien, Fugen, Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden, Giguen, wie auch
Menuetten, u. d. g. Denen Clavier-liebenden zur Zeit-kiirtzenden Belustigung verfertiget,
12 See D-Bds: Mus.ms.8205 (p. 103-106). This Aria en Menuet is sung by Lucejus and
subsequently by Ericlea (to a different text) and is scored for 2 Oboes d ’Amore, 2
violins, viola and BC. The version transmitted in Mus.ms.30382 differs from the score of
this opera in many particulars.
250
a series of Suites which were published and sold in Arnstadt in installments between
1739 and 1749. Notwithstanding Lorenz M izler’s 1739 remark that he had heard that the
contents of the first Suite were “die grosten Meisterstiicke nicht”13 these works were
reprinted individually (and perhaps also collectively) several times in the 1740s and once
again collectively in 1756, suggesting that they enjoyed a degree of commercial success.
Kellner’s publication is similar to Bach’s Opus 1 in several respects: the sale in
installments, the number of Suites/Partitas (6), the lack of a preface or dedication, and
inexpensive engraving which seems to have been carried out by several non
professionals. The musical content of the Certamen Musicum too resembles that of
Bach’s first publication in that Kellner clearly sought to dazzle his audience with his
contrapuntal skills. All six Suites begin with a Prceludium and Fuga, the latter typically
in four voices. Suites II and VI end with strict fugal movements as well (titled Allegro
and Allabreve, respectively). Imitative voice exchange at the outset of movements is
nearly as common here as it is in Bach’s collection. Many of the innovations of Opus 1
are here as well, including the relatively even phrasing and very prominent closing
themes to signal the ends of sections (in all six Allemandes and in the Courantes of Suites
I, III and VI). Kellner also included a number of Minuets featuring hand-crossing (e. g.
in Suites I, II, III and VI) similar in type to the Tempo di Minuetto from Bach’s fifth
Partita. Like Opus 1, Kellner’s collection is full of very challenging music. Although it
13 Mizler 1736-54, II/3 (1742), 175-176: “Joh. Pet. Kellners certamen musicum bestehend
aus Praludien, Fugen, Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden, Giquen wie auch Menueten,
u. d. gl. zwey Seiten fol. Arnstadt. Ich habe diese Sache noch nicht gesehen, und kan
also nicht davon urtheilen: Andere aber die solche durchgegangen haben, sagen es waren
die grosten Meisterstiicke nicht.”
251
is difficult to determine with absolute certainty that Kellner’s inspiration for the
Certamen Musicum was Bach's Opus 1given that Kellner never actually quotes the
Partitas, the circumstantial and stylistic similarities, his great interest in B ach’s keyboard
music and the fact that he copied at least two of the Partitas seem evidence enough to
suggest a connection between the two collections.
Given the similarities, one presumes that Kellner hoped his Suites would interest
those who had purchased Bach’s Partitas. The title of his collection, Certamen Musicum
(‘musical contest/struggle’) would suggest that these buyers were quite different from
those who sought the dozens of publications of Galanterien produced in these years
which were advertised as gantz leicht und practicable and furs Frauenzimmer. Kellner
was an organist famous for his virtuosity and it is clear that with his first publication, he
sought to play up this aspect of his reputation.
Johann Ludwig Krebs
In the preface to his second publication, the Andere Piece, bestehend in einer
leichten, und nach dem heutigen Gusto, Wohl-eingerichteten... Suite (Niirnberg: Schmid,
1741) dated January 3, 1741, Johann Ludwig Krebs writes:
Geneigte Music-Gonner, und Freunde!
Da ich vor nunmehro einem Jahr meine erste Piece in sechs leichten Prceambulis heraus
gehen lieB; so ist solche unter GOttes Seegen nach Wunsch abgegangen. Dahero ich
mich entschlossen, die andere Piece, welche in einer Svite bestehet, wieder heraus zu
geben. Es ist mir zwar nicht unbekandt, daB schon sehr viele Clavier-Sachen von grossen
Meistern, als Herrn Hof-Compositeur Bach, Herm D. Handel, und Herm Capell-Meister
Hurlebusch, vieler anderer rechtschaffener Manner zu geschweigen, welche sich durch
ihre ausserordentliche Virtu bey nahe unsterblich gemacht haben, heraus gegeben
worden...
252
There can be no question that Krebs was here referring to the Partitas, despite the fact
that by 1741 Bach had already published the second and third installments in the Clavier-
Ubung series. Krebs clearly meant to draw a parallel between the work this preface
introduced - a Suite - and the published Suites of his predecessors, especially Bach (the
Partitas), Handel (the two volumes of his Suite de Pieces pour le Clavecin of 1720 and
1733) and Hurlebusch (the Compositioni Musicali of ca. 1735), which Krebs asserts had
nearly immortalized these great masters. Interestingly, in the next section of the preface,
Krebs implies a distinction between these collections and his own:
Es haben mir zwar viele zu verargen geschienen, daB ich mit so leichten, und gantz
ungekunstelten Sachen die musicalische Welt beschweret hatte; allein, ich habe dieses
mit guter Uberlegung gethan: Denn, ob es mir wohl eben nicht unmoglich gewesen ware,
schwerere und Kunst-reichere Sachen der Welt vor Augen zu legen; so habe mich doch
lieber denen meisten Clavier-Liebhabem gefallig machen, und so leichte Piecen
aufsetzen wollen, damit solche so wohl von Frauenzimmem, als auch von Anfangem,
ohne grosse Mtihe tractiret werden konnen.
Krebs’ Suite in the Andere Piece is indeed of a lighter character than are those in
the published collections of Bach, Handel and Hurlebusch. Except in a brief three-voice
Fuga which follows the opening Prelude, one finds in these pieces virtually none of the
imitative counterpoint which characterize so many movements of Bach’s Partitas. The
Allemande bears no sign of the innovations Bach undertook in his Partitas but is much
more in the style of the Suite in A minor (BWV 818). The Courante seems to be
modeled on that of Bach’s second French Suite.14 The Sarabande too is in the standard,
melody over multivoiced accompaniment characteristic of Bach’s English Suites. For
14 The two works have in common the melody of the first two measures and the first
phrase ending on a half cadence (m. 4 in both cases) as well as the melody of the
following circle-of-fifths sequence (m. 5-12 in both cases).
253
Galanterien, Krebs offers pairs of Bourrees, Minuets, Gavottes, a Polonaise and an Aria
un poco vivace, which are for the most part composed in two voices divided clearly into
melody and accompaniment. After a Gigue which is likewise free of imitative
counterpoint in the style of the Gigue to Bach’s second English Suite (BWV 807), Krebs
ends with movements entitled Tempo di Menuet and Trio, the former of which recalls in
its hand-crossing and hemiola effects the Tempo di Menuetto from Bach’s fifth Partita.
With his next publication, the Dritte Piece, Bestehend in einer, nach dem
franzoischen Gout, Wohl-eingerichteten Ouverture, published the same year and sold on
commission by Bach himself,15 Krebs sought to offer somewhat more challenging music.
The preface, dated September 11, 1741, reads in part:
Hochgeneigter Leser!
Nachdem meine vor nicht allzu langer Zeit in saubern und annehmlichen Kupffer-Stichen
ans Licht gegebene zwey Piecen allbereit guten Abgang gewonnen, und ich daher
veranlasset worden, denen Liebhabem zum Besten, auch die dritte beyzufiigen: So sehe
mich genothiget, die Freunde solcher Clavier-Ubungen, bey deren nunmehro
bewerckstelligten Ausgabe, deBfals zu erinnern, daB, da ich die erste Piece etwas leicht,
die andere eben so leicht als cantabile gesetzt, die dritte aber, wiewohl nicht durchgangig,
(allermassen die iibrigen zur Ouverture gehorigen Stiicken, Z. E. Lentement, Vivement,
Paisan, Menuetts, Gavotte, Air, Passepieds, Rigadon, nur als Galanterien vor
Frauenzimmer anzusehen,) mit allem FleiB etwas schwerer abfassen wollen, um damit
auch hierdurch so wohl denenjenigen, welche das plus ultra lieben, als auch denen
offtmals allzu delicaten Ohren einige Abwechselung gegeben werden mochte. Wie ich
aber der Meynung im geringsten nicht bin, die kiinfftig zu erwartenden Piecen etwa
immer schwerer und schwerer auszufertigen, vielweniger hierdurch denen Anfangem den
Appetit und die Lust zu dergleichen Clavier-Ubungen zu benehmen: So habe vor gut
befunden, dieses Avertissement vorzusetzen...
Only the Ouverture itself was meant to offer a nod to those connoisseurs who sought the
plus ultra. Indeed, there is more detail for the player here in terms of grace notes and
15
Dok II, Nr. 492.
254
rolled chords and more of a challenge for the listener in the chromatic theme of the fugue
and surprising structural turns such as the recapitulation of the Ouverture material at the
end, which begins not on the expected tonic but rather on a dominant chord in third
inversion. The remaining movements, which Krebs pejoratively characterizes as nur
Galanterien for women (and in an advertisement as ‘easy and practicable Galanterie-
Sachelchen for women’) 16 are no more ambitious in style than are those of his Andere
Piece. Aside from certain superficial melodic parallels (e. g. between the opening
phrases of Krebs’ Ouverture and the Allemande from Bach’s sixth Partita), this work
appears to show no particular influence of Bach’s Opus 1. The seven Suites which
Krebs subsequently published in his Clavier-Ubung bestehet in einer nach den heutigen
Gout wohl eingerichteten Svite denen Liebhabern des Claviers zur besondern Gemuths-
Ergdtzung und angenehmen Zeit-Vertreib com poniret.. .Zweyter Theil (Niirnberg:
Haffner, ca. 1743) and his Exercice Sur Le Clavessin consistant en VL Svites... Oeuvre
IV (Niirnberg: Haffner, [1746]) are similar in style. Nowhere did Krebs indulge heavily
in contrapuntal imitation or include a closing movement which was fugal in character as
16 See Dok II, Nr. 492: “Denen Liebhabern der edlen Music wird hierdurch wissend
gemacht, daB Joh. Ludw. Krebs, Organist zu St. Marien in Zwickau die dritte Piece seiner
Clavier-iibungen in saubem Kupferstichen herausgegeben. Es bestehet solche in einer
Ouverture nach dem heutigen Gusto und sind darin unterschiedene Galanterie-
Sachelchen anzutreffen, welche auch vor das Frauenzimmer gantz leicht und practicable
sein, als: Paison, zwei Menuetts, Gavotte, Aria mit sechs Variationen, zwei Passepieds,
Rigadon. Das Exemplar a sechs Groschen. Es sind solche in Commission zu finden bey
dem Hm. Cantor Scheffeln in Friedrichstadt bey Dresden, bey Hm. Seb. Bachen Cantor
zu St. Thomas, und Hem. Schneidem Organist zu St. Niklas in Leipzig, bey Herm
Hartwig, Directorn Musices in Zittau, bey Herrn Ortel, Organist in Hamburg, bey Herrn
Schmidt, Organist in Niirnberg, bey Herm Scheuenstuhl, Organist in Hoff, bey dem
Herm Postmeister in Jena, bey Herm Friedrich, Orgel- und Instrumentenmacher in Gera
und endlich bey dem Auctorn in Zwickau.”
255
Bach frequently did in the Partitas, and even in the French and English Suites. Certain of
the Allemandes in Krebs’ Exercice Sur Le Clavessin are composed in two-measure units
(e. g. those of Suites II and III) as I have argued is the case in the Partitas but, as
discussed above, this feature is also found in Allemandes composed by Conrad
Hurlebusch and the pedigree of this principle is by no means clear. Krebs’ Courantes in
the French Style (e. g. in Suites II, V and VI of Exercice Sur Le Clavessin) are
rhythmically far simpler than are those in Partitas II and IV. The difference in level of
difficulty, contrapuntal content in the published Suites of Krebs and Bach is nowhere
clearer than in the Capriccio movements which end Krebs’ Suite IV and Bach’s Partita
II. The movements are similar insofar as they have the same key signature (2/4) and
tonic pitch (C). They also both evince strong tendencies to leap ‘capriciously’ around the
keyboard and to begin bass lines unexpectedly with an 8th or 16th rest on the downbeat.
Given the rarity of movements of this description and title ending Suites it seems
virtually certain that Krebs had Bach’s model in mind while composing this piece. And
yet his work is far less challenging for both players and listeners. Bach’s Capriccio is
among the most difficult movements in all of Opus 1 owing to its relentless succession of
large, quick leaps in both hands. It is pseudo-fugal in its degree of imitative counterpoint
and in this sense analogous to the fugal Gigues which typically end Bach’s Suites - a
parallel Bach highlighted by inverting the theme at the start of the second reprise. After
the initial thematic statements the phrasing is irregular und unpredictable, posing a
challenge not only to the player but also to the audience. Krebs’ Capriccio, by contrast,
is not particularly difficult to execute at the keyboard given that the characteristic leaps
alternate between the two hands. The texture is entirely free of imitative counterpoint
256
and the phrasing is a succession of clear two and four-bar units, making the work easy to
follow for inexperienced listeners.
Krebs, who studied at the Thomasschule with Bach over the entire period during
which he published the Partitas (1726-1734), obviously knew and valued this music
highly. His own published Suites, however, are influenced only superficially by the
music of Bach’s Opus 1. The comments Krebs makes in his prefaces reveal that he was
much concerned with public acceptance of his works and measured the success of these
works by their Abgang, as he mentions several times. For this reason the range of
technical demands in Krebs’ publication - even when he claims to be aiming to attract
those interested in the plus ultra - is on average much lower than that of Bach’s Partitas.
He seems not to have been aiming for ‘immortality,’ as he suggests Bach, Handel and
Hurlebusch had achieved with the publication of their Suites, but rather sought ‘mit guter
Uberlegung’ to please ‘the majority of keyboard enthusiasts.’
Tischer. Johann Nikolaus
Johann Nikolaus Tischer’s (1707-1774) Das vergniigte Ohr und der erquickte Geist in
Sechs Galanterie-Parthien zur Clavier-Ubung fu r das Frauenzimmer, in einer leichten
und applicablen Composition... Zweyter Theil (Niirnberg: Haffner, [1746]), dedicated to
four sisters of a von Frankenberg family, presents six Partitas which generally do not
include the standard sequence of dance movements inherited from the 17th century. The
sixth and final Partie in this collection (in E-flat major) ends with a Gigue marked Presto
assai which is unmistakably modeled on the Giga of J. S. Bach’s first Partita:
257
Example 18: Gigue by J. N. Tischer Modeled on Bach's Giga from Partita I
Gigue
Presto as&aj
£ I£
ggj
258
p f r t . r ^ ^ n
T * i— - f i * T ’T ~ k "“ — h f f - i
^ ------- / .
T T Jm JJ
1
-------------------------------- _ L _ < ---------- » ---------- 0

j. ., ^
„ X L ___ x —». --4 <...^ .........i . l .... -.....i.i____ , r J ------- d ------- JJ-------- 1
t — i— it— s---------------------------------------------------------
Er1-ef--p—£H-£J
-- f-»...... 0-—■ ------ r

.
— ar-^— a-.--- a ----- a-
* JL JL J)
.-£■>! t tj,- ..-«-£ «, p | «, - h — J ) — j s ..... ■..■■....^
Jje....p....... W...~..X~... 9 «jLu.— — ::— ~ ? 't ~ ~ ~ :...:
— < | .. tf*....i;: r l " ; ........................ m .. h-M---- sat .:......«*— j a * t - -# —a r i— -ji..hi..ar..——ar

—J ^ 1 .---J ^ -V — j-ar— •^
^ . . S ..x...... v .............. 1............................... „h kf>; h .

f ^ ^ t T " - •■'■• — 3 1 - -— - --------------- -- L--------------- #■-— -------—<
259
---------___ " a r — - i £ l ::« :.................................. =1 .................................R" " f ■-.......... v■— *
^ -----*5-i
1
V*
It J
f
w----- 1t M ..TIT - V - ♦ ^ ,V #- f* 1 ........P " .....p '
f
j — #------ 4
*t
" i
U ^ = d ™ ir~ l = £ F F = F j ^ :~ '# f ....
- • -i~z7Tjrl----------- .....
/...... »«..... '-"--a*----------- ’ .^1 p4---- ,z—

j-y--^ ---vr^r.^rw,~T^ . , ra*~
fm
..--a^
..... t-T
n —p1--<
, **■■ \ ,----
■ Tj ' -..^r"""5.. r "7"" _'#“■ -T ! rm
F jtilM Z.
V r
...•" ..: .: F = * ^ - = r ~
• •
. — __
......J...... . J J }j ■ -..* ,,„ * 4
* * * »
-#- r*+ -»....................................... g ..p -
■M
aH
r f = p = q t ? ^ = ± -^ 1 — r ^ r f - pT i # 'M
r—— '
S = $ E i
.......... * .... • - * _ _ J * -------------m ------------------------------- ...d»,,.......... it-------------*— _

= s N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--— ?---- *-- ---1---- 1----- 0---- 1*--- 1--— — .-.£ .___ ip.
Xir-i--- ■ £ ...
..n ^ g L u tf'^ ± ^ L L ^ J = g
o
ill t t r
-g-
260
The two works have in common constant movement in triplets and a functional time
signature of 12/8. The right hand plays a melody constructed from the first notes of each
triplet group while the left hand accompanies on the two triplet offbeats in a rolling
pattern. The title Gigue itself, which is used by Tischer in no other work in this or any
other volume of his vergniigte Ohr series, constitutes is a strong connection to Bach’s
Opus 1 given that the only Gigue to which it bears any resemblance is that of Partita I.
Certain of Tischer’s melodic tendencies are quite clearly borrowed from Bach’s Giga;
Tischer’s measures 1-6 are reminiscent of Bach’s measures 1-4 and Tischer’s rising
sequence in measures 7-10 is clearly a deliberate reference to Bach’s measures 9-12.
Tischer’s Gigue is considerably longer than Bach’s Giga (72 measures as opposed to 48)
and at times incorporates a texture of right hand passagework alien to the Giga (e. g. in
measures 21-29). Tischer’s work is not as carefully wrought as is the Giga, lacking
Bach’s economy of means and airtight motivic construction.
Tischer’s borrowing is one more indication that Bach’s Giga was well-known and
loved in amateur music-making circles during the composer’s lifetime. Tischer
belonged, according to E. L. Gerber, to the “gefalligsten und angenehmsten Komponisten
fur Liebhaber und Kenner seiner Zeit.”17 In the 1740s and 50s his works were published
regularly by Johann Wilhelm Windter, Balthasar Schmid and Johann Ulrich Haffner in
Nurnberg. Many of these were expressly aimed at Frauenzimmer or Anfdnger.
It is not certain whether or not Tischer expected players and listeners to recognize
the connection to Bach’s Giga in his own Gigue, but it seems likely. One has the sense
17 Gerber 1790/92, II, 631.
261
that his borrowing so much from Bach’s Giga was clearly not only an homage to Bach
but also an attempt to piggyback on its success of the Giga by composing a sequel. To
the best of his abilities Tischer offered more of what players and audiences liked about
what was almost certainly Bach’s most popular work for keyboard.
Christoph Willibald Gluck
The theme of one particularly turbulent aria (“Perche, se tanti siete”) in Act III of
Christoph Willibald Gluck’s (1714-1787) opera Antigono (Rome, 1756) is borrowed
from the first phrase of Bach’s Giga from Partita I. Gluck would later reuse the music of
this aria with different texts in Telemaco (Vienna, 1765) and Iphigenie en Tauride (Paris,
1779).181 reproduce here an excerpt from the Aria as it appears in Iphigenie en Tauride:
18 Buelow 1991.43-44.
262
Example 19. Gluck: "Je t'implore et je tremble" from Iphigenie en Tauride , m. 1-5.
Fiw*omont,un pou antimk
'M
>■
In contrast to Tischer, who probably expected many players of his vergnugte Ohr
to recognize the reference to Bach’s Giga, Gluck’s could not have anticipated that a large
portion of his audiences in Rome, Vienna or Paris would be able to identify the origins of
his theme. It was a connection to be savored by connoisseurs only, much like his use of
the theme B-A-C-H in a chorus (“Parla, I tuoi detti intende”) from Telemaco.19 Gluck
borrows Bach’s quarter note theme alone. The accompanimental triplets are removed
and with them the hand-crossing which was the basis for Bach’s Giga.
Bach and Gluck projected very different images in the 18th century. In 1791 an
anonymous writer compared portraits of the two composers in the collection of Johann
Friedrich Reichardt (1752-1814) noting the profound differences between them:
19Hortschansky 1973, 12.
263
Bach, der groBe Grammatiker und Contrapunktist, steht da mit voller Wange, runzlicher
Stirne, breiten Schultem in stattlicher Biirgerkleidung, und halt ein musikalisches
Kunststiick einen canon triplex a. 6. V. in der Hand, den er uns zum Auflosen vorhalt.
Gluck sitzt im Schlafrocke am Fliigel und spielt, den Kopf geniealisch fein gehoben, die
Stirne heiter, den Himmel im Auge, und holde Freundlichkeit auf den Lippen, im ganzen
Gesichte den schonsten warmsten KunstgenuB. - Ich kann es Dir nicht ausdriicken, wie
die so auBerst bedeutende Verschiedenheit in der Darstellung dieser beiden Manner mich
traf und durchdrang.20
Gluck was not in the habit of using themes written by other composers and Bach
typically wrote fugal Gigues. The Giga with its theatrical hand-crossing and air of light
entertainment effectively serves as a bridge between these two worlds. Gluck's having
embraced this work as appropriate for operatic use on three separate occasions reveals
that he recognized in it a dramatic potential which extended beyond the realm of
keyboard music. His borrowing, through apparently more personal than public in nature,
is a further testament to the enduring popularity of the Giga.
20
Dok III, Nr. 964.
264
Chapter 8
Generalizations as to the Early Reception of Bach's Partitas
Our survey of the audience for the Partitas has broadly confirmed Forkel's
assertion that these works were well known and very highly regarded during Bach's
lifetime. This is evident above all from the surviving commentary. Mattheson and
Mizler both assume not only a familiarity with this music on the part of their readership
but also an acceptance that these works represented pinnacles of their genre. J. L. Krebs
wrote in 1741 that the publication of Bach's Partitas had brought their composer near
immortality. It remains, however, to draw conclusions from our investigation of Bach's
audience. The following table presents a list of the individuals who can be connected
with Bach's Partitas before ca. 1775 along with the years in which the time the
documented contact took place and their ages at the time, whether or not they worked as
professional instrumentalists during their lifetimes (P = professional, A = amateur), the
nature of the sources to which they had access and the specific Partitas with which they
can be connected:
265
Table 18
Named Individuals who can be Connected with the Partitas before ca. 1775
Name A ge Yearfsl Pro vs. Amateur Source Connection to Partitats')...

Alert, D. C. 18-25? 1760 ? Print Complete
Bach, A. M. 24 1725 A Ms. III, VI
Bach, C. P. E. 16-17 1731 P Prt./Ms. Complete
Bach, J. C. 13 1748 P Print III
Bach, W. F. 20-25? 1730-35 P ? III, V (T. di Minuetta) and VI
Boineburg, C. E. A. A. v. 13-18 1765-70 A Ms. I (Corrente), VI (Gigue)
Emanuel Ludw. o f Cothen 0 1726 A Print I
Fischer, J. H. 29-59? 1740-70? A Print II (A), III (G), IV (G), VI (T, Air)
Forkel, J. N. 25 1774 P Print Complete
Friederika S. v. Epstein 23 1753 A Ms. I (Giga)
Gerber, H. N. 28-38? 1730-40? P Ms. Complete
Gluck, C. W. 42 1756 P ? I (Giga)
Gottsched, J. C. 32 1732 A Print? ?
Gottsched, L. (Kulmus) 19 1732 A Print? ?
Grabner, J. F. >35 1765-70 P Ms. I (Corrente), VI (Gigue)
Graff, F. H. 18 1731 A Print Complete
Graupner, C. jr. 15-21 1730-36 P Ms. III
Hering, J. F. 25-60? 1750-85? P Ms. I (Giga)
Kayser, B. C. 25-53 1730-58 P Ms. II, III, V, VI
Kellner, J. P. 21-31 1726-36 P Ms. I, III [VI]
Kimberger, J. P. 29-54? 1750-75? P Ms. I (Prasludium, Giga)
Krebs, J. L. 27 1741 P 9 ?
Krebs, J. T. sr. 40-50? 1730-40? P Ms. VI
Luise Charlotte v. Epstein 15 1742 A Ms. I (Giga)
Maria Josepha o f Saxony 33-37 1732-36 A Print Complete
Martini, G. B. 46 1750 P Ms. VI (Toccata, Al., Cor., Gig.)
Mattheson, J. 49 1730 P ? ?
Mempell, J. N. 17-25? 1730-37? P Ms. IV [VI]
Meng, J. G. 18-25? 1742 P? Ms. II (no Capriccio)
"Me." 7 1742 P Ms. I (Giga - early version)
Mey, W. N. 17-25? 1727-36 P? Ms. III
Mizler, L. 27 1738 P ? ?
Miithel, J. G. 22-25? 1750-53? P Ms. II, V
Oley, J. C. 19 1758 P Ms. II, III, V, VI
Pauli, J. B. 50 1750 P Ms. VI (Toccata, AL, Cor., Gig.)
Penzel, C. F. 18-23 1755-60 P Ms. II, III, IV, V
Preller, J. G. 12-20 1739-47 P Ms. II, V, VI (no Allemande)
Ringk, J. 13-23 1730-40 P Ms. I
Ritter, J. C. <25 <1740 P Ms. Complete
Roder, F. 23-29 1770-76 P Print II (A), III (G), IV (G), VI (, Air)
Scholz, L. 51 1771 P Ms. I (Prael.), II (Sinf., Capr.), Ill-V I
Sichart, L. 37-67 1731-61 P Ms. III, IV, V, VI
Stahl, G. 18 1731 A Print Complete
Tischer, J. N. 40 1746 P ? I (Giga)
Walther, J. G. 47 1731 P Print ?
Westphal, J. J. H. 12-22 1768-78 P Ms. I (Giga)
Vitzthum v. Eckstadt, L. 15 1731 A Print Complete
Voigt's Charlatan 20-30? -1 7 3 6 P ? ?
Voigt's Organist 35-40 -1 7 3 6 P ? ?
266
To these names we can add the following table of anonymous persons whose connection
with the Partitas allows for some deductions regarding their biographies:
Table 19
Anonymous Individuals who can be Connected with the Partitas before ca. 1775
Name A ge Yeartsl Pro vs. Amateur Source Connection to PartitafsY

Anon. Erbprinz Scribe 1 15-25? <1750? ? Ms. II, III, IV
Anon. Erbprinz Scribe 2 20-50? <1750? P? Ms. II, III, IV
Anon. G23 Owner 15-25? <1750 ? Print Complete
Anon. Hering Student 1 12-25? 1755-1767? A? Ms. I (Giga)
Anon. Hering Student 2 12-25? 1755-1767? A? Ms. I (Giga)
Anon. Kimberger Student 1 12-25? 1750-75? A? Ms. I (Giga)
Anon. Kirnberger Student 2 12-25? 1750-75? A? Ms. I (Giga)
Anon. Kirnberger Student 3? 12-25? 1750-75? A? Ms. I (Prxludium)
Anon. Ms. 10491 Scribe ? 1750-75? P Ms. I (Prxludium)
Anon. Ms. 10491 Recipient 12-25? 1750-75? A? Ms. I (Prxludium)
Anon. Ms. 30382 Aria Scribe 15-25? 1728-1735? P? Ms. IV (Aria)
Anon. 0 15-25? 1727-1758 P? Ms. II, III, V
Anon. Ox 15-25? 1727-1758 ? Ms. V (Tempo di Minuetta)
Anon. Ritter Recipient 1 ? 1740 A? Ms. Complete
Anon. Ritter Recipient 2 ? -17 5 5 ? A? Ms. Complete
Anon. W M eve Scribe ? <1775 P Ms. Complete
Anon. W M eve Recipient ? <1775 A? Ms. Complete
The individuals listed above are not a perfectly random cross section of those who
knew this music before 1775. First and foremost it must be stressed that we owe our
knowledge of the audience for this music to surviving documents. For this reason our
information is heavily slanted towards players rather than listeners. Thousands of people
heard this music performed before 1775 but their reactions have gone completely
unrecorded. Second, owners of prints are very poorly represented as it was not generally
the habit of 18th century Germans to write their names in the books they owned.
Manuscript owners are more easily identified owing to the valuable clue of the
handwriting. Third, the music libraries of professional musicians are generally much
267
better preserved than are those of amateur musicians because the former tended to come
into the possession of students or colleagues who valued the materials and prevented
them from destruction during the most vulnerable period of their histories - the 30 to 50
years after the death of the scribe (e. g. the cases of Mempell — > Preller and Kayser — >
Oley). Amateur musicians, by contrast, did not have music students and if the friends,
relatives and bureaucrats managing their estates were not musically inclined their
manuscript collections were sold for virtually nothing or more often destroyed.1In many
cases where amateur musicians can be connected with the Partitas we owe this
knowledge to unusual documents such as letters (L. Gottsched) and dedications (Emanuel
Ludwig Erbprinz of Cothen, F. H. Graff jr. and L. S. V. von Eckstadt).
Nonetheless, certain general trends in the audience data presented here suggest
that the list above is representative enough to draw at least some generalizations. I will
focus below on trends in distribution, youth of the audience members, repertoire
preferences as correlated to age of performer and the difficulty of these works. I will end
with a speculative discussion of performance contexts and the image Bach wished to
project with his first publication.
1A chest containing Maculatur und alte Musicalien - that is, rubbish (= manuscripts) and
old music prints - belonging to the Leipzig Chemie Practici, Wolfgang Georg Stolle, was
valued at only 2 Groschen upon his death in 1729. The businessman Johann Christoph
W olff left two geschriebene Notenbucher upon his death in 1735 which were similarly
appraised at a mere 2 Groschen. See Henkel 1991, 58-59.
268
Trends in Dissemination
As hinted at above, the ownership of prints of the Partitas, and particularly the commerce
associated with prints, is extremely problematic. Of the twelve named individuals who I
have argued owned prints before 1775, two were members of the Bach family (C. P. E.
and J. C. Bach) and five received their prints as gifts from the composer himself (Graff,
Vitzthum von Eckstadt, Stahl, Maria Josepha and Emanuel Ludwig). O f the remaining
five (Alert, Roder, J. H. Fischer, Forkel and Walther) only Walther seems to have
purchased his print directly from Bach and even here there are reasons to believe it may
be been a gift, as noted above. We still know precious little about the identities of those
who purchased prints of the Partitas directly from Bach in the Thomasschule, Boetius'
shop in Leipzig or one of Bach's many agents in other cities in the years Forkel asserts
that grofies Aufsehen attended these works.
On the basis of information the available information we may, however, be
permitted to speculate as to the identity of Bach's early clientele. They were no doubt a
diverse group. The trade fairs in Leipzig were a tremendous draw for visitors from all
over Germany. Bach is documented as having performed at the keyboard during these
two-week celebrations of consumption2 and one can easily imagine impressed visitors
purchasing prints of Bach's Partitas as souvenirs. These works might have served
admirably in this capacity, providing an opportunity to recount one's visit to the 'Athens
2 Martin Fuhrmann reported in 1729 that he had recently returned from the Oster-Messe
in Leipzig where he had "das Gluck... den weltberiihmten Herm Bachen zu horen" and
proceeded to argue for Bach's strengths as a keyboard virtuoso over those of famous
Italians. See Dok II, Nr. 268.
on the Pleisse' and experience of a performance by the world-famous Bach. Some
customers may have been well equiped to assess the merits of this music at sight. A
greater number probably relied on the promise of Galanterien on the title page and
Bach's fame as a guide, purchasing the prints as gifts for keyboard playing sons,
daughters, nephews and nieces at home. One imagines that aristocratic visitors who
maintained kapellas of any size would have purchased prints so that the musicians in their
employ might come to terms with this repertoire.
There are several indications that Bach's clientele was largely composed of
university students. The composer's having given prints of the Partitas to Graff,
Vitzthum von Eckstadt and Stahl suggests that this was an item he believed these
University students would enjoy. D. C. Alert, a University student in Halle, is known to
have acquired a print of Opus 1 in 1760. Finally, the anonymous owners of sources G23,
G24, G25 and G26 apparently studied with Bach, suggesting that they were students at
either the Thomasschule or, more likely, Leipzig University at the time. University
students were by no means invariably poor and many could have easily afforded to part
with 3 Taler for a print of Bach's Opus 1. Indeed, university students were often depicted
in 18th century literature as wealthy and carefree wastrels whose indulgence knew no
bounds. J. C. Gottsched wrote in 1725 of one "reichen Kauffmanns zartlich erzogener
Sohn" that "Seine Wechsel kommen so starck von seinem Vater als er selbst wtinschet,
und seine Mutter weiB ihm noch iiber das hundert oder mehr Thaler extra Geld zu
zuschicken."3 The poet Christian Friedrich Hunold, a. k. a. Menantes (1681-1721) was
Gottsched 1725-27, 75.
270
described as having received regular rations of 100 Taler while a university student in
Jena, eventually depleting his 4000 Taler inheritance down to a mere 80.4 The academic
pressure on students was not great since attendance at the university even for a short
period constituted an impressive qualification. Most did not stay long enough to
complete their degrees but left as soon as they felt they had learned enough to find
employment. According to the diary of Johann Christian Muller (1720-1772) who
studied theology at Leipzig University in 1743-44, he and his colleagues spent their time
for the most part engaged in various types of entertainment whether it was patronizing the
dance floors and prostitutes in Connewitz, hiring coaches for half-day trips outside the
city, making music or playing billiards in one of Leipzig's many coffee houses.5 With
some 700 students living in Leipzig in the late 1720s and early 1730s6 and Bach's close
contacts to university life it seems likely that students constituted the major buyers of the
Partitas.
Professional musicians must certainly also be counted among the buyers of Bach's
printed Partitas. Jacob Adlung wrote in 1758 that he purchased prints in which most of
the contents were interesting and made manuscript copies of the interesting works from
less consistent collections.7 Other professional musicians are known to have amassed
4 Wedel 1731,2-7.
5 Scheel 1908, Parts II-VI.
6 Erler reports that in 1729 there were 726 students enrolled in Leipzig University. See
Erler 1909, xiv.
7 Adlung 1758,726.
271
substantial libraries of both printed and manuscript music.8J. G. Walther took it upon
himself to acquire a print of at least one individual Partita and very likely the entire
series. However, negative evidence is provided by the high number of surviving
manuscripts owned by professional musicians. One presumes that H. N. Gerber, J. F.
Grabner, B. C. Kayser, J. P. Kellner, J. T. Krebs sr., L. Scholz and L. Sichart and
probably also Anonymous Erbprinz Scribe 2, at least at the time they made or acquired
their manuscripts, did not own prints of the Partitas. The same can be said of their
students and younger colleagues: J. N. Mempell, W. N. Mey, J. C. Oley, J. G. Preller,
Anonymous O, Anonymous Ox, and probably also J. G. Meng and Anonymous Erbprinz
scribe 1. Professional and pre-professional (apprentice) musicians seem for the most part
not to have had access to printed sources. The majority of those who made manuscript
copies for their own purposes used other manuscripts as their models, not prints as can be
seen on the following chart:9
8 Kahl 1948, 174-177. '
9 J. C. Ritter rendered his two manuscripts of the Partitas from a manuscript source which
was in his possession. It cannot be determined, however, whether this source manuscript
was copied from a print or a manuscript Vorlage. Similarly it cannot be determined
whether Kirnberger and Hering owned prints or manuscripts of the Partitas on the basis
of the available information. J. F. Grabner's manuscripts of music from the Partitas
reveal that the source in his possession was definitely copied from a manuscript.
Although C. F. Penzel definitely copied his personal manuscript of Partitas II-V from a
manuscript source he is left out of this chart because the manuscript was of special
interest (it was probably J. S. Bach's personal manuscript) and thus might have been
sought out deliberately by Penzel and preferred over a printed Vorlage.
272
Table 20
Sources of Manuscript Copies of the Partitas
Scribe___________________________ Vorlage for Personal Manuscript

Anonymous Erbprinz Scribe 1 Ms.
Anonymous Erbprinz Scribe 2 Ms.
Anon. 0 Ms.
Anon. Ox Ms.
Gerber, H. N. Ms.
Grabner, J. F. Ms.
Graupner, C. jr. Print?
Hering, J. F. ?
Kayser, B. C. Ms.?
Kellner, J. P. Partita I: Print? Partita III: ?
Kirnberger, J. P. ?
Krebs, J. T. Ms.
Mempell, J. N. Ms.
Meng, J. G. Ms.
Pauli, J. B. Print?
Preller, J. G. Ms.
Ritter, J. C. ?
Scholz, L. Ms.
Sichart, L. Ms.
Westphal, J. J. H. Ms.
That professional and apprentice musicians did not typically enjoy access to prints of the
Partitas is particularly well supported by the evidence from Thuringia. The manuscripts
of Partita VI by H. N. Gerber in Sondershausen, J. T. Krebs in Buttstadt and J. G. Preller
in Apolda are can be traced to a common ancestor, perhaps a manuscript belonging to J.
P. Kellner, as argued above. The manuscripts of Partita II in the hands of J. G. Preller in
Apolda and J. G. Meng, who probably lived near Eisenach, are similarly descended from
a single manuscript source. That descendents of the same, independently transmitted
manuscript sources were copied in disparate locations and are often only distantly related
reveals that many other, related manuscript sources for these works once existed. If more
professional musicians in the vast musical landscape of Thuringia had owned prints we
273
would certainly expect to find evidence of more printed Vorlagen or at least a wider
variety of manuscript Vorlagen in the small sample of independently preserved
manuscripts which survives. Distribution problems may have played some part in this;
Bach is not known to have had official sales agents in Thuringia. However, with so many
members of the Bach clan spread throughout the area one imagines that distribution could
not have been too problematic. Furthermore, professional musicians in cities near
Leipzig (e. g. B. C. Kayser and Anonymous O and Ox in Cothen) and in cities in which
Bach is known to have sold the Partitas through agents (e. g. L. Sichart and L. Scholz in
Niirnberg) also copied manuscripts from manuscript rather than printed Vorlagen.
All of this evidence suggests that professional and apprentice musicians were not
the primary buyers of Bach's prints. The reasons were certainly in part economic.
Musicians were paid poorly in the 18th century. Many of those who made manuscript
copies of the Partitas are known to have led lives of significant financial hardship. J. C.
Oley earned what he described as a “sehr geringe und wenige Gehalte” of 80 Taler for
teaching 20 hours per week in Aschersleben and an additional 10 Taler for playing the
organ but even as a single man he could not afford the prices of grain and other
necessities and in 1773 was forced into “armseligen Umstanden.”10 The burial fee of
Lorenz Sichart was waived in 1771 "wegen Armut" - that is, the funds in his estate were
insufficient to pay for his funeral. J. T. Krebs wrote in 1760 that the church in Buttstadt
which he had served since 1721 would have trouble finding a replacement "wegen der
10 Brandt 2000, 11-12.
274
geringen Besoldung."11 B. C. Kayser's salary as a court musician in Cothen was 104 Taler
per year until 1754 and just 50 Taler thereafter.12For those who made manuscript copies
of music from Bach's first publication for their own purposes (as opposed to on
commission for others) it was nonetheless more attractive than spending 12 Groschen for
an individual print or 3 Taler for Opus 1.
Copying music was a labor intensive, time consuming and rarely entertaining
activity and it was avoided wherever possible. Purchasing music prints was one rather
expensive way of accomplishing this. Another way was paying someone else to do it.
This typically involved pushing the work down the economic ladder. J. P. Kellner asked
W. N. Mey, his student and apprentice, to complete his copy of Partita III - presumably
in exchange for lessons, access to Kellner's library or perhaps money. Where teachers
copied on behalf of students we can assume that the students were in an economically
superior position to their teachers and did not anticipate careers as professional
musicians. "Me." and C. F. Grabner, for example, copied music from the Partitas on
behalf of Luise Charlotte Grafin von Epstein and C. E. A. A. von Boineburg. J. P.
Kirnberger and J. F. Hering both apparently copied movements of Partita I on behalf of
students. Although nothing solid is known of their students' identities one presumes they
too were in an economically superior position. This would suggest in turn that they did
11 Loffler 1940-48, 142. In a recommendation of January 21, 1760 for his student
Oschatz to succeed him in Biittstadt Krebs wrote: "Im Clavier ist er freylich kein Vogler
von Weimar, dergleichen auch so wenig, als ein anderer solcher Virtuos sich zur
Annahme der Organistenstelle zu Buttstadt, wegen der geringen Besoldung, jemals
entschlieBen diirfte."
12 Bunge 1905, 36.
275
not anticipate professional careers as musicians. The hiring of professional copyists
seems also to have been the province of those who had no professional ambitions.
Numerous anonymous persons hired professional copyists such as J. C. Ritter, the
Anonymous WMeve scribe and the scribe of Ms. 10491 to produce manuscripts of music
from the Partitas. The costs for such services varied significantly. Lorenz Mizler
advertised in the October 1738 edition of his Musicalische Bibliothek that one could
purchase “allerhand inn- und auslandische geschriebene Musikalien” from his shop for 3
Groschen per Bogen (usually 4 pages).13 In the preface of his Andere Piece, Bestehend In
einer leichten, und nach dem heutigen Gusto, Wohl-eingerichteten Svite of 1741 Johann
Ludwig Krebs wrote that he had decided to sell the print of this work for 6 Groschen
rather than 8 because he had heard “von unterschiedenen Orten” that his previous
publication, which had sold for 8 Groschen, was being copied regularly by “Gewinn-
stichtigen Copisten,” who sold their copies of the same work for 4 or even 5 Groschen.
By reducing the price of the print by 2 Groschen Krebs hoped to attract more buyers
since he believed that “jeglicher Liebhaber lieber das Original, als eine vielmal vit ids
abgeschriebene Copie in Handen haben will.”14 The comments of Mizler and Krebs
13 Mizler 1738 Musikal. Bibl. Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 158 (Oct, 1738).
14 “Hierbey habe nicht unberiihrt lassen konnen, was mich bewogen, diese andere Piece,
welche mich doch eben so hoch, und bey nahe noch hoher, als die erste, zu stehen
kommt, um 6. Gr. und als um 2. Gr. wohlfeiler, zu geben; weil ich von unterschiedenen
Orten Nachricht erhalten, daB die erste Piece, hin und wieder abgeschrieben, und um 4.
auch wohl 5. Gr. verkaufft worden. Damit nun denen Gewinn-siichtigen Copisten nicht
femer moge Gelegenheit gegeben werden, damit zu marchandiren; zumal, da ich gewiB
versichert bin, daB doch jeglicher Liebhaber lieber das Original, als eine vielmal vitids
abgeschriebene Copie in Handen haben will; so habe aus angefiihrten Ursachen diese
andere Piece um so viel wohlfeiler geben wollen.”
276
reveal that manuscripts prepared by professional copyists in the 1730s and 40s typically
cost between l/3 rd and 2/3rds the price of the original prints themselves. It seems most
likely that the persons who hired J. C. Ritter, the WMeve scribe and the scribe of
Ms. 10491 to produce manuscripts of music from the Partitas were recreational musicians.
Professional or apprentice musicians are more likely to have borrowed to Vorlagen and
made the copies themselves as they did in so many documented instances.
Music with Youth Appeal
There are good reasons to believe that the audience for Bach's Partitas before ca. 1775
was overwhelmingly youthful. The vast majority of named and anonymous individuals
who are believed to have played the Partitas before 1775 are estimated to have been
under 25 at the time. Many of those who were manifestly older than 25 when they
acquired music of the Partitas may well have come to know this music earlier in their
lives. This is almost certainly true of Kellner, Kayser, Gerber, Kirnberger and Mizler
who were students of Bach in Leipzig well before turning 25. Grabner, Tischer, Hering,
Scholz, Martini and J. H. Fischer may also have first come to know this music in their
youth. The only musicians who were definitely over 25 at the time of their first exposure
to Bach's Partitas are Maria Josepha, Mattheson, J. B. Pauli, L. Sichart and J. G. Walther.
Furthermore there are many examples of individuals who were over 25 offering
this music to younger friends, colleagues or students. J. P. Kellner gave his carefully
rendered manuscript of Partita I to his student Johann Ringk. J. C. Gottsched sent his 19-
year old girlfriend Luise a sample of Bach's keyboard music, most probably from the
277
Partitas. "Me.," Grabner, Hering and Kirnberger all copied this music on behalf of
students. Bach himself seems to have directed these works at younger players. With the
exception of the Kurfiirstin Maria Josepha all of Bach's documented gifts of the Partitas
went to recipients who were between 13 and 24 years of age: Ludwig Siegfried Vitzthum
von Eckstadt, Friedrich Heinrich Graff jr, Georg Stahl jr, Anna Magdalena Bach and
Johann Christian Bach. This is illustrated with particular strength in the case of the
Erbprinz of Cothen, who was no more than a few months old at the time Bach presented
him with a print of the first Partita. This gesture was of course symbolic but the fact that
it occured to Bach to present the Erbprinz with a print of this music - with a dedicatory
poem which draws parallels between the youth of the newborn Erbprinz and that of the
newly created Partita - reveals in dramatic fashion that the composer considered it a
work which would be particularly appreciated by youth.
In cases where substantial portions of the music libraries of these young scribes
are preserved one notes that works in the Suite genre such as Bach's Partitas tend to be
copied relatively early. This trend is evident, for example, in the manuscripts of J. G.
Preller, whose copies of Suites are preserved only in his earliest handwriting phase.
Thereafter he turns to copying organ preludes, fugues, toccatas and chorale variations.15 J.
N. Mempell too seems to have ceased to copied his surviving Suite manuscripts relatively
early. The same is true of J. G. Meng, whose manuscripts of Suites by Handel, Graupner
Synofzik 2001, 48-49.
278
and Bach substantially precede his copies of Telemann's chorale preludes. Finally, C. F.
Penzel's copies of Suites precede his many surviving manuscripts of chorale variations.16
The view that the audience for Bach's Partitas was primarily young is also
supported by contemporary commentary. Both Johann Mattheson's and Lorenz Mizler's
references to the Partitas are made within discussions of the musical education of young
keyboardists. J. C. Voigt's reference to the Partitas occurs when a young charlatan fresh
from university studies expresses admiration for these pieces and the organist places them
on the music stand before his young adversary. J. N. Forkel wrote specifically that a
junger Kiinstler might gain recognition by performing these works.
Movement Preferences According to Age
The purchase of a print of Bach's Partitas tells us little about the use to which it was
subsequently put by its owner. Which pieces D. C. Alert, for example, most favored in
the collection remains completely unknown. Indeed we cannot even know for certain
that he himself ever played this music. These uncertainties are multiplied in cases in
which prints were offered as gifts since the recipient displayed no documented volition in
making the acquisition. The situation is somewhat improved in the case of manuscripts
since a scribe's having excerpted certain movements from the Partitas can signal
repertoire preferences. If the manuscripts were prepared on behalf of students these
preferences must naturally be viewed as those of the teacher rather than the student but
16 D-Bds: Mus.ms.Bach.P 1109 and P 1119. See Kobayashi 1973, 179.
279
we assume that the teacher selected repertoire which was generally consistent with the
student's tastes and needs.
In considering repertoire preferences as reflected in the sources one notes a clear
divide along age lines. The older musicians seem to have preferred the more challenging,
contrapuntal repertoire. In copying Partita V Lorenz Sichart deliberately omitted the
Passepied and the Tempo di Minuetta. Although Lorenz Sichart filled these in later he
too shows an antipathy for the lighter repertoire. W hoever edited the print of Opus 1
which eventually came into the possession of J. H. Fischer and then Fructuosus Roder
was almost certainly an older musician given his conservative tastes. One might interpret
B. C. Kayser's having combined the Prelude and Fugue in E minor (BWV 548) with the
sixth Partita into a "Sonata" as evidence for his interest in strict counterpoint. It also
seems that he had already taken the trouble to acquire a copy of the contrapuntal Gigue of
Partita VI when he set to work copying the rest of the Partita. J. B. Pauli clearly selected
the Toccata, Allemande, Corrente and Gigue of Bach's sixth Partita as the most
impressively contrapuntal movements in the collection to send his friend G. B. Martini in
Bologna as a representative sample of Germany's greatest organist and specialist in the
strict contrapuntal style.
The younger players show an unmistakable preference for the lighter Galanterien.
The Praeludium of Partita I was used in teaching by Kirnberger and was copied by the
scribe of Ms. 10491, presumably on behalf of a wealthy student. The Minuets of Partita I
were excerpted for inclusion in a small Clavierbiichlein prepared in the mid to late 1740s
within the Bach household. The Aria of Partita IV was the inspiration for a new work by
the young scribe of Ms. 30382. The pieces with hand-crossing were particular favorites
280
with young players as well. Both W. F. and C. P. E. Bach composed dozens of Minuets
with hand crossing in the late 1720s and early 1730s which are very similar in style to the
Tempo di Minuetta of Partita V.
No piece in Opus 1 was more popular with young players than the Giga of Partita
I. This work regularly found its way into the lesson plans for students of Kirnberger and
Hering in Berlin. A copy was prepared by "Me." on behalf of the 15-year old Luise
Charlotte Grafin von Epstein in Darmstadt. The future Schwerin organist J. J. H.
Westphal also included the Giga of in a book of keyboard pieces he copied in his teens.
Gluck's borrowing of the Giga's theme for use in an opera aria further reflects, in a very
general way, the fame of this work. The Giga's enduring popularity with amateur
musicians is also reflected most powerfully in Tischer's having used it as a model for his
own Gigue in a printed collection directed explicitly at young women. A separate edition
of the Giga alone was produced in Berlin in the 1820s, suggesting that its popularity
extended into the 19th century. While certain elements within Bach's Allemandes,
Courantes and Sarabandes found echoes in the music of W. F. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, J. C.
Bach and J. L. Krebs, none seem to have been directly modeled on those of J. S. Bach's
Partitas, as noted above. Even the Tempo di Minuetta of Partita V, which it is tempting
to identify as the inspiration for comparable works by W. F. Bach, C. P. E. Bach, H. N.
Gerber, J. L. Krebs and J. P. Kellner, seems to be in a different category from the Giga.
The Tempo di Minuetta is in no documented case transmitted independently and there is
no reliable evidence to suggest that it was more than a popular type of piece at which
Bach tried his hand. As discussed above, the Giga seems to have enjoyed a degree of
popularity as an independent virtuoso piece not only after its publication in 1726 but even
281
in the years before it was incorporated into (indeed, used as the basis of) the first Partita.
The breadth of interest in the Giga displayed in these documents suggest that it was the
most beloved piece in the Clavier-IJbung part 1 and very likely Bach's best-known
keyboard work during his lifetime.
Performance Contexts
Performance contexts for the Partitas are difficult to assess given the lack of documentary
information. Much amateur performance of solo keyboard music took place at semi
public gatherings in homes, as is suggested by the rhetoric on title pages, most especially
the words Kurtz-Weil, Vergniigung und Exercitio, Zeit-kiirtzenden Belustigung, vergdnten
Stunden aufdem beliebten Clavier, and Les heures agreables et innocentes. Galant
behavior manuals offer some clues as to comportment on behalf of both performers and
audience members in such situations. In 1708 Johann Christian Hunold (a. k. a.
Menantes) published his German translation of a French treatise on proper deportment
published in the 1670s by Antoine Courtin in which the musically inclined reader is
advised to wait until others solicit a performance, to avoid bragging of one's skills or
protesting one's known talent too vigorously, to avoid calling attention to certain passages
in the music while playing, to keep the performance short and for the audience to remain
silent throughout.17 Johann Christian Wachtler suggested in his treatise on galant
17 Menantes 1708, 223-225: " Capitel. XV: Ob man singen oder auf Instrumenten spielen
darff: So man eine gute Stimme hat / oder auff Instrumenten zu spielen weiB / oder auch
die besondere Gabe von Natur besitzet / Verse zu machen / solches darff man sich durch
nichts nicht mercken lassen: Allein so es entdecket und bekandt / und man von einer
282
behavior of 1703 that the amateur performer not wait until he/she had been solicited but
rather that one "vors erste selbst damit in der Einsamkeit oder sonst vergniige, und vors
andere, daB man freywillig andere Leute damit contentixs, und deren Affection dadurch
gewinnen moge" - a situation all the more advantageous given that "ein blosser Zuhorer
von feme mehr von der Music eingenommen wird / als wenn er zugleich ein Zuschauer
ist."18
Person / die man vor andem mit grossen Unterscheid tractiren muB / ersuchet wird / sich
darinen sehen oder horen zu lassen / so stehet es wohl und tugendhaft / sich deswegen zu
entschuldigen. Sofern sie aber mit blossen Entschuldigungen nicht zu frieden / so soil
einer / der zu leben weiB / nicht langer zaudern / zu singen / auff Instrumenten zu spielen
/ oder etwas weniges von seiner Arbeit und M anier herzusagen. Dieser geschwinde und
auffrichtige Gehorsam befreyet einen von aller Beschimpffung; an statt daB eine
Wegerung mit vielen Ceremonien noch einem Meister / und zwar nach einem schlimmen
Meister im Singen riecht / welcher sich dadurch ein Ansehen wil machen; und
veruhrsachet, daB man hernach scharffe Censores findet welche sagen / nichts mehr als
dieses? Es belohet sich wohl der Miihe / sich so lange bitten zu lassen. Vor alien darff
man nicht sehr husten und auswerffen / noch allzulange seine Guitarre oder Laute
stimmen. Man hiite sich auch wohl / sich selber durch gewissen ausstudirte Geberden zu
loben / die unsere Gefalligkeit bezeichnen sollen / und wenn man spielet zum Ex. zu
sagen; Das ist eine schone Passage', Hier komt noch eine schonere; Geben sie Achtung /
wie es hier so artig fallet / und dergleichen ; Solches bezeichnet entweder einen
hochmiihtigen oder schlechten Menschen. Man bemiihe sich auch / geschwinde ein Ende
zu machen / damit die Compagnie nicht verdrieBlich / und bey guten appetit gelassen
wird. Ja man muB es umb desto eher endigen/ damit, die Person nicht zu uns saget / es ist
genug. Weil solches zu sagen eine Unhofflichkeit / wenn die Person / so singet / von
Condition ist: Wie es imgleichen nicht wohl stehet / zu reden und ihn dadurch zu stohren
/ wenn er singet."
18W achtler 1703, 12-13: "§. 24. Verstehet man etwas von der Music, es sey in der
Instrumentalsn oder Vocalsn / so sey man beflissen Zeit und Ort zu suchen / sich horen
zu lassen / und die Gemiither derer Zuhorenden damit zu afficixsn / denn man doch
dergleichen nicht darum gelemet haben soil / daB man bloB auff eines andem GeheiB und
Befehl / als ihm darmit auffzuwarten / sich horen lassen wolle / sondern daB man sich
vors erste selbst damit in der Einsamkeit oder sonst vergniige / und vors andere / daB man
freywillig andere Leute damit contentixs / und deren Affection dadurch gewinnen moge.
§.25. Insonderheit aber observixs man/ ob einen andere in der Music horen konnen /
wenn sie gleich nicht zugegen seynd / und man gantz alleine ist. Alsdenn gebrauche man
sich seiner Kunst /so viel man gelernet und prcestixsn kan; Denn ein blosser Zuhorer von
283
Women of courtly society who devoted themselves to keyboard playing probably
did not lack opportunities to perform. Although no performances by Luise Charlotte,
Grafin von Epstein of the Giga or any other music are documented, she and her sister
Friederika Sophie are known to have danced skillfully and unter allgemeinem Beifall at a
public gathering in the home of the court Stallmeister.19 One suspects that they undertook
to perform at the keyboard in similar surroundings.
Court musicians might well have performed the Partitas at assemblies. E. L.
Gerber wrote of his father Heinrich Nikolaus that at Prince Gunther's court in
Sondershausen he "hatte nemlich, auBer den Wochen- und Sonntagskirchen, noch
wdchentlich in zwey Hofassembleen den Fliigel zu spielen."20 Similar performance
opportunities were no doubt available to musicians at other courts including C. Graupner
jr. in Darmstadt, J. G. Miithel in Schwerin and Riga, B. C. Kayser in Cothen and J. B.
Pauli in Fulda.
The Partitas were almost certainly performed in church as well. As discussed
above, Leonhard Scholz's manuscripts of Partita excerpts seem to suggest performance at
the organ in the context of a church services at Niirnberg's St. Egedien and St. Sebald.
feme mehr von der Music eingenommen wird / als wenn er zugleich ein Zuschauer ist. §.
26. Kommt man an fremde Oerter / wo Instrumenta angetroffen werden / so bediene man
sich derselben ebner massen / wenn es durch gebetene ErlaubniB zugelassen werden kan;
Jedoch musicixe man ja auff einmahl nicht zu lange / sondem mache es kurtz und gut /
damit nicht ein Eckel endlich bey andern dadurch erwecket werde."
19 D-DSsa: D4 379/6. Letter of November 12, 1746 to Landgraf Ludwig. In the same
letter their mother requested permission of Ludwig to hold a private ball for the girls and
other young aristocrats in her private rooms.
20 Gerber 1790/92,1, 493.
284
The same is true of the print which eventually belonged to J. H. Fischer and Fructuosus
Roder. Whether Roder himself performed these works on the organ in Fulda's
Domkirche cannot be determined but whoever bowdlerized his print (probably in the
1730s or 40s) seems to have done so in order to excise all repertoire unfit for a sacred
context. Although the performance of Suites and other such galant repertoire in church
was widely condemned, there can be no doubt that it took place with some regularity.
The Adjuvant character in Voigt's Gesprdch von der Musik reports that he had heard
Minuets and Polonaises "vielmahls auf der Orgel spielen horen, und es hat so lustig
geklungen, daB man lieber darnach tanzen mogen... sowohl von Organisten, als auch von
solchen gehoret, die etwan ihre Geschicklichkeit einmahl an den Tag legen wollen."21
Valentin Rathgeber wrote in the preface of his Musicalischer Zeit-Vertreib aufdem
Clavier (Augsburg, 1743) that the work contained 55 "gantz leicht- und kurtze Schlag-
Arien, sonst auch Galanterie-Stuck genannt" - by which he meant "Menuet, Giquen &
c." - and that he hoped they would serve players "sowohl privat, als auch in denen
Kirchen unter dem GOttesdienst." Many of the movements in Bach's Partitas seem well-
suited to performance in church even if he did not conceive them with this environment
in mind.
Although documentary evidence is lacking it seems virtually certain that Collegia
Musica constituted the primary locale for performance of the Partitas. Bach's own
Collegium Musicum in Leipzig, which he directed from 1729 until the 1740s and which
performed on Friday evenings at Zimmermann's coffee house (Tuesdays and Fridays
21
Voigt 1742, 11.
285
during the weeks of the trade fairs) consisted of a shifting array of "den allhier Herrn
Studirenden" - that is, university students. Mizler noted in 1736 that there were "immer
gute Musici unter ihnen, so daB offters, wie bekandt, nach der Zeit beriihmte Virtuosen
aus ihnen erwachsen."22 The performance repertoire definitely included solo as well as
ensemble performances. The future art historian Jacob von Stahlin (1709-1785) wrote in
his memoires that he had occasionally played "ein Solo oder ein Concert" in Bach's
Collegium Musicum while studying at Leipzig University between 1732 and 1735.23 The
coffee house setting in which such Collegia Musica took place was relatively informal.
Crell wrote in 1725 that Leipzig's eight coffee houses were intended for "Belustigung so
wohl derer Einheimischen als Frembden Hohen und Niedem Standes, Mann- und
Weiblichen Geschlechts," providing an opportunity to read historical books, play
billiards, cards and other games for purposes of Divertissement,24 A t a Collegium
Musicum in Delitzsch run by the former Bach student Christoph Gottlieb Frober (1704-
1759) card games and other "dem Collegio zur HinderniB gereichenden Plaisirs" were
forbidden during musical performances but the price of admission in Delitzsch (2
Groschen) included beverages and tobacco.25 Despite the relaxed surroundings the
musical competition in Bach's and other Collegia Musica was no doubt fierce. J. C.
Voigt alluded to the virtuosity of the typical repertoire in 1742:
22 Dok II, Nr. 387.
23 Dok III, Nr. 902. See also Fedorowskaja 1990, 27.
24 Crell 1725, 87.
25 Hoffmann 1982, 72-73.
286
In der Kirchen werden nicht allemahl solche schwere Sachen, wie bey einem Collegio
Musiko aufgefiihret, welches die Pursche... gar wohl wissen. Dann in einem Collegio
Musico (in Fall sich einer horen lassen will) nimmt man gemeiniglich die schwersten
Stiicke...26
The Collegia Musica offered young players the chance to demonstrate their talents for a
paying public which was well-informed and had high expectations. As Lorenz Mizler
wrote in 1736, in Bach's Collegium Musicum "[e]s ist jedem Musico vergonnet, sich in
diesen Musikalischen Concerten offentlich horen zu lassen, und sind auch mehrentheils
solche Zuhorer vorhanden, die den Werth eines geschickten Musici zu beurtheilen
wissen."27 Although the concrete evidence for the Partitas being performed in Collegia
Musica is lacking they seem virtually designed for this context.
The Difficulty of the Partitas
One aspect which comes through in virtually every surviving comment on the Partitas is
their extreme technical difficulty. Mizler calls attention to the unusually difficult
fingerings of these works. Mattheson cites them as examples of repertoire which
demanded not only a high level of technique but also experience and taste. Pauli noted in
his letter to Martini that, although he had never met Bach or heard him play, he could tell
from his works - presumably including the excerpts from the sixth Partita enclosed in his
letter - that this was an extraordinarily accomplished keyboardist. Luise Gottsched, an
26 Voigt 1742, 110.
27 Dok II, Nr. 387.
287
extraordinarily talented musician from all reports, wrote that these works were "eben so
schwer wie sie schon sind" and that after playing them ten times she still felt like a
beginner. J. G. I. Breitkopf hoped to sell a print of Partita II by advertising it as "die
leichteste unter alien." Most tellingly of all, J. L. Krebs wrote that Bach's Partitas had
earned their composer near immortality but that he himself, in contrast to Bach, wished to
serve the needs of "[die] meisten Clavier-Liebhaber" by setting "leichte Piecen... damit
solche so wohl von Frauenzimmem, als auch von Anfangem, ohne grosse Miihe tracthti
werden konnen." These comments, and particularly the last, refute Siegbert Rampe's
claims that the Partitas closely matched the abilities of amateur musicians at the time of
their publication.28
The uncompromising difficulty of these works itself seems to have earned Bach a
degree of respect. Commentators often made reference to the Partitas to expose the
falsity of those who would seek to dazzle with little effort. This is explicit in the
comments of Mattheson who wrote that one who tries to play these works without
practicing and hopes with his juggler's tricks (Gauckel-Streiche) to delude listeners into
thinking he was the Ertzcymbalist himself would ultimately be exposed by this music.
28 See Rampe 1999a, 764-766. In an attempt to explain away the extreme difficulty of
these works Rampe has claimed that amateur musicians in the first half of the 18th century
were more skilled than their counterparts in the second half (see Rampe 2000, 73). While
there were undoubtedly more amateur keyboardists in the second half of the century than
in the first half, there is no evidence to suggest that they were generally less ambitious or
less talented. Speer's guide to teaching women of 1687 and the ClavierbUchlein copied
between 1700 and 1725 cited in chapter 1 do not contain music which is markedly more
challenging than the printed repertoire which was explicitly directed at amateur
musicians published after 1750. The many references to the difficulty of Bach's Partitas
before 1750 (and especially Krebs' comment of 1741) suggest that this music did not
closely correspond closely to the needs of most amateur musicians at any time.
288
Mizler too used Bach's Partitas to reveal the false pretensions of a keyboard treatise that
promised its readers extensive progress with little time or effort. J. C. Voigt's organist
exposed the deceptions of a charlatan by placing Bach's Partitas before him on the music
stand. The charlatan, fearful of embarassing himself, immediately launches into a
discourse about Bach's career in order to distract the organist and in this way avoids the
challenges of performing the music.
Bach's having published Galanterien for the entertainment o f Liebhaber which
nonetheless demand an extraordinary commitment in time and energy from the player
suggests that his mindset was somewhat different from that of his contemporaries.
Others of his generation including his colleagues Telemann and Graupner and of his
students' generation such as Johann Ludwig Krebs approached the business of publishing
from a very different perspective. Telemann was clearly concerned with matching the
technical requirements of the music he published to the abilities of his anticipated
audience. His forward to the Kleine Cammer-Music, bestehend aus VI Partien, welche
vor die Violine, Flute traverse, wie auch vor Clavier, besonders aber vor die Hautbois,
nach einer Leichten und singenden Art... (Frankfurt am Main, 1716) offers a typical
example. Regarding the oboe part he writes:
[Ich] habe den Ambitum so enge/ als moglich gewesen/ eingeschlossen/ zu weit entfernte
Spriinge/ wie auch bedeckte und unbequeme Tone vermieden/ hingegen die brillirenden/
und welche von der Natur an unterschiedenen Orten in dieses delicate Instrument geleget
sind/ offt anzubringen gesuchet. Hiernachst habe mich in denen Arzen der Kiirtze
beflissen/ theils um die Kraffte des Spielers zu menagiren/ theils auch/ um die Ohren der
Zuhorer durch die Lange nicht zu ermiiden. Von der Harmonie mu6 zwar gestehen/ dab
sie wenig oder nichts chromatisches/ sondern nur natiirliche und ordinaire Gange hat/
dieses aber ist denen/ und also den meisten/ zu gefallen geschehen/ welche in der
musicalischen Wissenschafft nicht gar zu weit kommen sind.
289
For Graupner too publication demanded a reduction in the technical challenges for the
player. As noted above, his first collection, the Partien a u f das Clavier (Darmstadt,
1718) was explicitly not directed at great virtuosi but rather at intermediate players
looking for a change in repertoire. His second collection the Monatliche Clavir-Friichte
(Darmstadt, 1722) was explicitly advertised as "meistentheils fur Anfanger." In the
preface to his third collection of Suites, the Vier Partien au f das Clavier unter der
Benennung der vier Jahreszeiten (Darmstadt, 1733) Graupner includes a preface in which
he rails against those who publish music which is too difficult for the average player,
including "viele iibereinander, wie auch 3 und mehrgeschwantzte Noten" where a
"simplen Sarabande oder Menuette und dergl." is fully adequate. Quoting Johann Joseph
Fux's (1660-1741) Gradus ad Parnassum (Vienna, 1715) he writes:
Es ist femer gesagt worden, daB der Componist... muB... sich nicht durch die Begierde
zum neuen dahin verfuhren lassen, daB er Gedancken aufschreibet, die die Natur und
Ordnung der Dinge iiberchreiten, und Dinge vorbringt, die sehr schwer zum Singen und
Spielen sind, wodurch hernach weder denen, die es abspielen, noch denen, die zuhoren,
eine Gniige geschicht: und zwar denen, so es abspielen, weil es ihnen wegen Schwere der
Composition sehr sauer wird, solche zu treffen: den Zuhorern aber, weil dergleichen
Compositionen die natiirliche Ordnung iibersteigen, und zwar in das Gehor, niemahls
aber in das Hertz eindringen.29
Graupner's comments, published just two years after the release of Bach's Opus 1, might
well have been directed particularly at the Partitas, which he certainly knew as his son
Christoph jr. was copying the third Partita around the same time. The prefaces of
published collections by Bach's student Johann Ludwig Krebs also reveal that he sought
29 Graupner's quote is from the Latin version of Fux's treatise. See Fux 1715, 241. The
German translation here is that of Lorenz Mizler. See Fux 1742, 250-51.
290
to tailor the technical demands in these works to the abilities of the majority of players,
rather than a small elite. All of these musicians sought to present themselves to the
public as accomplished virtuosi who sought to serve the needs of the public rather than to
seek fame among professional musicians. The published Suites of Krebs and Graupner
are considerably less technically challenging than are those which they decided to leave
unpublished.30
Bach did not attempt to adjust the hallmark technical challenges of his style
downward for publication. His published Partitas are, by contrast, as challenging as are
his unpublished Suites. Indeed, they are considerably more challenging than are his
French Suites, which were composed immediately prior to the Partitas and which he
might well have decided to publish instead. Unlike Telemann, Graupner, Krebs and
many other contemporaries who published their keyboard music in the 1730s, 40s and
50s through the professional publishing of Balthasar Schmid, Johann Ulrich Haffner and
Johann Jakob Lotter, Bach did not seek to present himself as a famous Kapellmeister
willing to lower himself for the benefit of the average Liebhaber. And yet there can be
no doubt that he expected the Partitas to be played by recreational musicians. Even if one
attributes his having offered prints to Graff, Vitzthum von Eckstadt, Stahl and Maria
Josepha as attempts to solicit patronage one must confront his having laboriously copied
two of the Partitas on behalf of his wife, an amateur keyboardist. It seems to me an
aspect of his personality that Bach would chose to offer Anna Magdalena - and, by
extension, other amateur musicians - a challenge rather than an indulgence.
30 Compare, for example, the Suites in Graupner's three published collections with those
in D-DS: Mus.ms.1231. Compare the Suites in Krebs' published collections with that in
D-Bds: Mus.ms.autogr.J. L. Krebs 4.
291
Literature Cited
Adlung, Jacob. 1758. Anleitung zu der musikalischen Gelahrtheit. Erfurt: J. D. Jungnicol.
Adlung, Jacob. 1768. Musica mechanica organoedi, das ist: Grundlicher Unterricht von
der Struktur, Gebrauch und Erhaltung, etc. der Orgeln, Clavicymbel,
Clavichordien und anderer Instrumente, in so fern einem Organisten von solchen
Sachen etwas zu wissen nothig ist. 2 vols. Berlin: Birnstiel.
Ahrens, Christian. 1986. "Johann Sebastian Bach und der 'neue Gusto' in der Musik um
1740." B J 12, 69-80.
Bach-Dokumente. Bach-Archiv Leipzig, ed.

Volume I: Schriftstucke von der Hand Johann Sebastian Bachs. W erner Neumann
and Hans-Joachim Schulze, eds. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1963.
Volume II: Fremdschriftliche und gedruckte Dokumente zur Lebensgeschichte
Johann Sebastian Bachs 1685-1750. Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim
Schulze, eds. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1969.
Volume III: Dokumente zum Nachwirken Johann Sebastian Bachs 1750-1800.
Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, eds. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1972.
Baron, Ernst Gottlieb. 1727. Historisch-Theoretisch und Practische Untersuchung des

Instruments der Lauten. Niimberg: Johann Friedrich Rudiger.
Baron, Ernst Gottlieb. 1756. Abrifi einer Abhandlung von der Melodie - eine Materie der
Zeit. Berlin: Haude und Spener.
Beckmann, Klaus and Hans-Joachim Schulze, eds. 1987. Johann Gottfried Walther:
Briefe. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag fur Musik.
Beer, Johann. 1719. Musikalische Diskurse. Niimberg: Peter Conrad Monath.
Beyer, Johann Samuel. 1703. Anweisung zur Singe-Kunst [...]. Freyberg: Elias Nicolaus
Ruhfus.
Beyer, Peter. 1999. "Leipzigs Auseinandersetzung mit Frankfurt am Main (1706-1726):

Symptom des Aufstiegs zur fiihrenden deutschen Messestadt." In Hartmut Zwahr,
Thomas Topfstedt, Gunter Bentele, eds. Leipzigs Messen 1497-1914. 193-204.
Cologne: Bohlau.
Bill, Oswald, 1987. "Dokumente zum Leben und Wirken Christoph Graupners in
Darmstadt." In Oswald Bill, ed. Christoph Graupner. Hofkapellmeister in
Darmstadt, 1709-1760. 73-212. Mainz: Schott.
Bischoff, Hans. [1881]. Joh. Seb. Bach’s Clavierwerke. vol 2. Leipzig: Steingraber.
292
Brandt, Thomas. 2000. Johann Christoph Oley. Erschliefiung biographischer Dokumente
aus dem Archiv der Reformierten Gemeinde in Aschersleben. Schriftliche
Diplomarbeit zur B-Priifung fur Kirchenmusik. Evangelische Hochschule fur
Kirchenmusik Halle/Saale. Unpublished.
Brauchli, Bernard. 1998. The Clavichord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buchmann, Lutz. 1987. Friedrich Wilhelm Rust (1739-1796 - Untersuchungen zu seinem

Liedschaffen und seinem Beitrag zur Uberlieferung der Werke Johann Sebastian
Bachs. 2 vols. Ph.D. Diss. Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg.
Bticken, Ernst. 1924. "Der galante Stil. Eine Skizze seiner Entwicklung." Zeitschrift fu r
Musikwissenschaft 6: 418-430.
Buelow, George. 1991. "A Bach Borrowing by Gluck: Another Frontier." BACH 22/1:
43-61.
Bunge, Rudolf. 1905. "Johann Sebastian Bachs Kapelle zu Cothen." B J 2: 14-47.
Burney, Charles. 1772/73. Carl Burney's... Tagebuch seiner Musikalischen Reisen.

German transl. of The Present State o f Music in Germany, the Netherlands, and
the United Provinces, Christoph Daniel Ebeling, transl. 3 vols. Hamburg: Bode.
Butler, Gregory. 1986. "The Engraving of J. S. Bach’s Six Partitas." Journal o f

Musicological Research 7.1: 3-27.
Buttstedt, Johann. [1716]. Ut Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, Fa, tota musica et harmonia aeterna : Oder
Neu-eroffnetes, altes, wahres, eintziges und ewiges fundamentum musices,
entgegengesetzet Dem neu erofneten Orchestre. Leiptzig: J. H. Kloss.
Cole, Warwick. 2000. "Improvisation as a Stimulus to Composition in Bach’s Partita II."

BACH 31/1: 96-112.
Corvinus, Gottfried Siegmund. 1715. Nutzbares, galantes, und curioses Frauenzimmer-

Lexicon... Leipzig: Johann Friedrich Gleditsch und Sohn.
Crell, Johann Christian. 1725. Das in gantz Europa beriihmte, galante und sehens-
wttrdige konigliche Leipzig in Sachsen, Oder J C C Anders Kurtze und accurate
Beschreibung, Derer vornehmsten In dieser Welt-bekannten Kauff- und Handels-
Stadt beriihmtesten Gebaude und Merckwiirdigkeiten, so wohl der Universitat als
E. E. Raths, und was deme anhangig, nebst accuraten Registern, Cum Censura
Superiorum. Leipzig: August Martini.
Dadelsen, Georg von. 1958. Beitrage zur Chronologie der Werke Johann Sebastian
Bachs. Ttibinger Bach Studien, 4/5. Trossingen.
293
Dahnert, Ulrich. 1961. Der Orgel- und Instrumentenbauer Zacharias Hildebrandt. Sein
Verhaltnis zu Gottfried Silbermann und Johann Sebastian Bach. Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Hartel.
Dannreuther, Eduard. 1909. "Die Verzierungen in den Werken von J. S. Bach” BJ 6: 41-
101.
Denzel, Markus A. 1994. Wahrungen der W eltX: Geld- und Wechselkurse der deutschen
Messeplatze Leipzig und Braunschweig. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Denzel, Markus A. 1999. "Zahlungsverkehr auf den Leipziger Messen vom 17. bis zum
19. Jahrhundert." In Harmut Zwahr, Thomas Topfstedt, und Gunter Bentele, eds.,
Leipzigs Messen 1497-1997. 149-166. Koln: Bohlau.
Doring, Detlef. 2000. Johann Christoph Gottsched in Leipzig. Leipzig and Stuttgart:
Hirzel.
Durr, Alfred. 1978. "Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber als Schuler Bachs." BJ 64: 7-18.
Durr, Alfred. 1981. Die sechs englischen Suiten. NBA/KB V/7.
Durr, Alfred. 1982. Die sechs franzosischen Suiten. Zwei Suiten a-Moll und Es-Dur.
NBA/KB V/8.
Durr, Alfred. 1986. "Ein Dokument aus dem Unterricht Bachs?" Musiktheorie 2: 163-
170.
Durr, Alfred. 1989. Das Wohltemperierte Klavier, T eill. NBA/KB V/6.1.
Dupont, Wilhelm. 1971. Werkausgaben Niirnberger Komponisten in Vergangenheit und

Gegenwart. Niimberg: Stadtbibliothek Niimberg.
Ehrhardt, Paul. [1935]. “Gisela Agnes und ihre Sohne.” Unpublished monograph.
Emery, Walter. 1952. “Bach’s Keyboard Partitas: A Set of Composer’s Corrections?”

The Musical Times 93: 495-497.
Emery, Walter and Christoph Wolff. 1977. Zweiter Teil der Klavieriibung, Vierter Teil
der Klavieriibung, Vierzehn Kanons. NBA/KB V/2.
Engelhardt, Ruth, 1974. Untersuchungen iiber Einfliisse Johann Sebastian Bachs a u f das
theoretische und praktische Wirken seines Schulers Johann Philipp Kirnberger.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Universitat Erlangen.
Erler, Georg. 1909. Die iiingere Matrikel der Universitat Leipzig, 1559-1809. Leipzig:
Giesecke und Devrient.
294
Faulstich, Bettina. 1997. Die Musikaliensammlung der Familie von Vofi. Kassel:
Barenreiter.
Fedorowskaja, Ludmilla. 1990. "Bachiana in russischen Bibliotheken und Sammlungen:

Autographe, Abschriften, Friihdrucke, Bearbeitungen." BJ 76: 27-36.
Florin, Franz Philipp. 1702. Oeconomus Prudens Et Legalis. Oder allgemeiner Klug- und
Rechts-verstandiger Haus-Vatter bestehend in Neun Biichern ... mit Rechtlichen
Anmerckungen aufallerhand vorfallende Begebenheiten. Niimberg: Riegel.
Forkel, Johann Nicolaus. 1802. Uber Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst und
Kunstwerke. Leipzig: Hoffmeister und Kiihnel.
Forkel, Johann Nicolaus. 1819. Verzeichnifi der von dem verstorbenen Doctor und
Musikdirector Forkel in Gottingen nachgelassenen Bucher und Musikalien.
Gottingen.
Friedlander, Ernst, ed. 1888. Aeltere Universitats-Matrikeln: Universitat Frankfurt an

der Oder. vol. 2 (1649-1811). Osnabriick: Zeller.
Fritz, Balthasar. 1757. Anweisung, wie man Claviere, Clavecins, und Orgeln, nach einer
mechanischen Art, in alien zwolfTonen gleich rein stimmen konne, dafi aus
solchen alien sowohl dur als moll wohlklingend zu spielen sey. Leipzig: Johann
Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf.
Furstenau, Moritz. 1862. Zur Geschichte der Musik und des Theaters am Hofe zu
Dresden. 2 vols. Dresden: Rudolf Kuntze. (repr. Leipzig: Peters, 1971).
Fuhrmann, Martin. 1706. Musicalischer-Trichter, dadurch ein geschickter Informator

seinen Informandis die edle Singe-Kunst nach heutiger Manier bald und leicht
einbringen kan, darinn Vitiosa ausgemustert; Obscura erlautert, Deficienta aber
erstattet. M it einer Vorrede von der heutigen Music Vollkommenheit [...]
Herausgegeben durch ein Mitglied der Singenden und Klingenden Gesellschaft
[...]. Frankfurt an der Spree: [Self-published].
Fux, Johann Joseph. 1715. Gradus ad Parnassum, sive manuductio ad compositionem

musicae regularem, methodo nova, ac certa, nondum ante tarn exacto ordine in
lucem edita... Vienna: van Ghelen.
Fux, Johann Joseph. 1742. Gradus ad Parnassum, oder Anfiihrung zur regelmafiigen
musikalischen Composition. Mizler, Lorenz, transl. Leipzig: Mizler.
Geiringer, Karl. 1950. "Artistic Interrelations of the Bachs." The Musical Quarterly 36:
363-374.
295
Gerber, Christian. 1717. Die unerkannten Wohlthaten Gottes, In dem Chur-Fiirstenthum
Sachsen, und desselben vornehmsten Stadten, darinnen zugleich der Schul- und
Kirchen-Staat enthalten [...] 2 vols. Dresden: Winckler.
Gerber, Ernst Ludwig. 1790/92. Historisch-Biographisches Lexicon der Tonkiinstler. 2

vols. Leipzig: Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf.
Gerber, Ernst Ludwig. 1812/14. Neues historisch-Biographisches Lexicon der

Tonkiinstler. 4 vols. Leipzig: Kiihnel.
Glockner, Andreas. 1990. Die Musikpflege an der Leipziger Neukirche zur Zeit Johann
Sebastian Bachs. Beitrage zur Bach-Forschung 8. Leipzig: Nationale Forschungs-
und Gedenkstatten Johann Sebastian Bach.
Gohler, Albert. 1902. Verzeichnis der in den Frankfurter und Leipziger Messkatalogen
der Jahre 1564 bis 1759 angezeigten Musikalien. Leipzig: C. F. Kahnt.
Gottsched, Johann Christoph, ed. 1727. Die Verniinftigen Tadlerinnen[...]. Leipzig:

Braun.
Gottsched, Johann Christoph. 1763. "Leben der weil. hochedelgebohrnen, nunmehr sel.
Frau, Luise Adelgunde Victoria Gottschedinn, geb. Kulmus, aus Danzig." In
Luise Adelgunde Viktorie Gottsched. Sammtliche Kleinere Gedichte, nebst dem,
von vielen vornehmen Standespersonen, Gonnern und Freunden beyderley
Geschlechtes, Ihr gestifteten Ehrenmaale, und Ihrem Leben, herausgegeben von
Ihrem hinterbliebenen Ehegatten. unpaginated. Leipzig: Breitkopf.
Grabner, Christian. 1711. Unmafigebliche Gedancken von Erziehung eines Honetten

Menschen Mannlichen und Weiblichen Geschlechtsf Was bey solchen vom Anfang
seiner Geburt Bifi ins mannliche Alter in acht zu nehmen nothigl Nebst einem
Anhang/ Worinnen von der MUSIC und Tantzen Unvorgreifflich sentiret wird.
Leipzig: Immanuel Tietz.
Grafe, Johann Friedrich, ed. 1741. Samlung verschiedener und auserlesener Oden, zu
welchen von den beriihmtesten Meistern in der Music eigene Melodeyen
verfertiget worden. Halle.
Gressel, Johann Georg. 1713. Die Poetische Vergniigung/ bestehend aus Vermischten
Gedichten/ Allen Der Poesie liebenden Gemiithern zur Ergotzligkeit ans Licht
gestellet von Philomuso... Zweyter Theil. Dresden: Gottfried Lesch.
Heller, Karl. 1997. Bearbeitungen frem der Werke. NBA/KB V /ll.
Henkel, Heinrich. 1882. Mittheilungen aus der musikalischen Vergangenheit Fuldas.

Fulda: Aloys Maier.
296
Henkel, Hubert. 1985. "Die Orgeln der Kothener Kirchen zur Zeit Johann Sebastian
Bachs und ihre Geschichte (Teil 1)." Cothener Bach-Hefte 3: 5-28.
Henkel, Hubert. 1991. "Musikinstrumente im Nachlass Leipziger Burger." In Reinhard

Szeskus, ed. Johann Sebastian Bachs historischer Ort. Bach-Studien 10: 56-67.
Wiesbaden and Leipzig.
Herz, Gerhard. 1984. Bach Sources in America. Kassel: Barenreiter.
Heussner, Horst. 1963. "Der Musikdrucker Balthasar Schmid in Niimberg." Die

Musikforschung 16: 348-362.
Heussner, Horst. 1968. "Niirnberger Musikverlag und Musikalienhandel im 18.

Jahrhundert." In Richard Baum and Wolfgang Rehm, eds. Musik und Verlag. Karl
Votterle zum 65. Geburtstag. 319-341. Kassel: Barenreiter.
von Hohberg, W olf Helmhard. 1682. Georgica Curiosa Aucta Das ist: Umstandlicher
Bericht und klarer Unterricht von dem Adelichen Land- und Feld-Leben. 2 vols.
Niimberg: Michael und Johann Friedrich Endter.
Hoffmann, Winfried. 1982. "Leipzigs Wirkungen auf den Delitzscher Kantor Christoph
Gottlieb Frober." Beitrage zur Bachforschung 1: 54-73.
Hoffmann-Erbrecht, Lothar. 1954. "Der Niirnberger Musikverleger Johann Ulrich

Haffner." Acta Musicologica 26: 114-126.
Hoffmann-Erbrecht, Lothar. 1955. "Der Niirnberger Musikverleger Johann Ulrich

Haffner. Nachtrage." Acta Musicologica 27: 141-142.
Hoffmann-Erbrecht, Lothar. 1987. "Alte und neue Erkenntnisse zum Klavierschaffen

Graupners." In Oswald Bill, ed. Christoph Graupner Hofkapellmeister in
Darmstadt 1709-1760. 303-330. Mainz: Schott.
Holtkotter, Michael. 1986. "Die Ausstattung des Leipziger Biirgerhauses in der ersten
Halfte des 18. Jahrhunderts." In Leipzig. Aus Vergangenheit und Gegenwart.
Beitrage zur Stadtgeschichte 4: 95-113. Leipzig: Fachbuchverlag.
Hortschansky, Klaus. 1973. Parodie und Entlehnung im Schajfen Christoph Willibald

Glucks. Cologne: Amo Volk.
Hiibner, Maria. 2002. "Zur finanziellen Situation der Witwe Anna Magdalena Bach und
ihrer Tochter." B J 88: 245-256.
Hunold, Johann Christian [1720?]. Lob-Gedichte des so genannten Bauer-Hundes oder

fiirstlichen Leib-Hundes zu Weissenfels, M it allerhand Sitten, Lehern und
angenehmen Galanterien Moralisch vorgestellet von einem Tugend-Freund und
297
Laster-Feind. [Hamburg]. [This book is also attributed to Johann Beer, Erdmann
Neumeister and Wolfgang Kaspar Printz between ca. 1700 and 1722.]
l'lndifferent. 1715. Die Liebe ohne Masque. Leipzig and Rostock: G. L. Fritzsch.
Jacob, Andreas. 1997. Studien zu Kompositionsart und Kompositionsbegriff in Bachs

Klavierubungen. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Jacobi, Erwin. 1965. "Johann Christoph Ritter (1715 bis 1767), ein unbekannter Schuler
J. S. Bachs und seine Abschrift (etwa 1740) der 'Clavier-Ubung' I/II." B J 51, 43-
62.
Jaeneke, Joachim. 1973. Die Musikbibliothek des Ludwig Freiherrn von Pretlack 1716-
1781. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf und Hartel.
Jones, Richard Douglas. 1978. Erster Teil der Klavieriibung. NBA/KB V /l.
Jones, Richard Douglas. 1988. The History and Text o f Bach’s Clavieriibung I. Ph.D.
diss. Oxford University.
Jones, Richard Douglas. 1997. Nachtrag zum kritischen Bericht to NBA V /l.
Joseph, Charles. 1978. "Some Revisional Aspects of Bach’s Keyboard Partitas, BWV
827 and 830." BACH 9.2: 2-27.
Kahl, Willi. 1948. Selbstbiographien deutscher Musiker des 18. Jahrhunderts. Cologne:
Staufen. (repr. Amsterdam: Frits Knuf, 1972).
Kast, Paul. 1958. Die Bach-Handschriften der Berliner Staatsbibliothek. Tiibinger Bach-
Studien, vol. 2/3. Trossingen: Hohner.
Keller, Hermann. 1950. Die Klavierwerke Bachs: ein Beitrag zu ihrer Geschichte, Form,
Deutung und Wiedergabe. Leipzig: Peters.
Kemmler, Erwin. 1970. Johann Gottfried Miithel (1728-1788) und das norostdeutsche
Musikleben seiner Zeit. Marburg: Lann.
Kilian, Dietrich. 1978a. Praludien, Toccaten, Fantasien und Fugen. NBA/KB IV/5+6.
Kilian, Dietrich. 1978b. "Uber einige neue Aspekte zur Quelleniiberlieferung von
Klavier- und Orgelwerken Johann Sebastian Bachs." BJ 64: 61-72.
Kinsky, Georg. 1924. Musiksammlung aus dem Nachlasse Dr. Erich Prieger-Bonn nebst
einigen Beitragen aus anderem Besitz. 111. Teil. Musikerbriefe Hanschriften
Musikalien [...]. Beschreibendes Verzeichnis von Georg Kinsky Konservator des
298
Heyer-Museums in Koln. Versteigerung: Dienstag, den 15. Juli 1924 [...] durch
M. Lempertz' Buchhandlung und Antiquariat [...] Cologne.
Kinsky, Georg. 1937. Die Originaldrucke der Werke Johann Sebastian Bachs - Ein
Beitrag zur Musikbibliographie. W ien-Leipzig-Zurich.
Kirnberger, Johann Philipp. [1777], Recueil d'Airs de Danse Caracteristiques, Pour

Servir de modele aux jeunes Compositeurs, et D'Exercice a ceux qui touchent du
Clavecin... partie I. Consistant en XXVI. Pieces. Berlin: Johann Julius Hummel.
Klotz, Hans. 1957. Die Orgelchorale der Leipziger Originalhandschrift. NBA/KB IV/2.
Knod, Gustav. 1897-1902. Die alten Matrikeln der Universitat Strassburg 1621 bis 1793.
3 vols. Triibner: Strassburg.
Kobayashi, Yoshitake. 1973. Franz Hauser und seine Bach-Handschriften-Sammlung,

Ph.D. diss., Universitat Gottingen.
Konig, Johann Ulrich. 1713. Theatralische, geistliche, vermischte und galante Gedichte,
alien Kennern und Liebhabern der edlen Poesie, zur Belustigung, ans Licht
gestellet von Johann Ulrich von Konig. Hamburg und Leipzig: Johann von
Wiering.
Kording, Inka, ed. 1999. Luise Gottsched - "mit der Feder in der H and”: Briefe aus den
Jahren 1730-1762. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Krause, Peter. 1964. Handschriften der Werke Johann Sebastian Bachs in der
Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig. Leipzig: Bibliographische
Veroffentlichenungen der Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig.
Krautwurst, Franz. 1986. "Anmerkungen zu den Augsburger Bach-Dokumenten." In

Mitarbeiter des Instituts fur Musikwissenschaft der Universitat Erlangen-
Niirnberg, eds. Festschrift Martin Ruhnke zum 65. Geburtstag, 176-184.
Neuhausen and Stuttgart: Hanssler.
Kretzschmar, Hermann. 1909. "Das Notenbuch der Zeumerin." Jahrbuch der

Musikbibliothek Peters 16: 57-72.
Krummacher, Friedhelm. 1965. Die Uberlieferung der Choralbearbeitungen in der

friihen evangelischen Kantate : Untersuchungen zum Handschriftenrepertoire
evangelischer Figuralmusik im spaten 17. u. beginnenden 18. Jh. Berlin:
Merseburger.
Kiinast, Hans-Jorg. 1997. "Dokumentation. Augsburger Buchdrucker und Verleger." In

Helmut Gier and Johannes Janota, eds. Augsburger Buchdruck und Verlagswesen
- von den Anfangen bis zur Gegenwart. 1205-1340. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
299
Kiister, Konrad. 1991. “Bach als Bitarbeiter am ‘Walther-Lexikon’?” BJ 77: 187-192.
Landmann, Ortrun and Wolfgang Reich. 1983. Fiihrer durch die Musikabteilung der
Sachsischen Landesbibliothek zu Dresden. Dresden: Eigenverlag der Sachsischen
Landesbibliothek.
Lauts, Jan. 1980. Karoline Luise von Baden: Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit der Aufklarung.
Karlsruhe: C. F. Muller.
Lee, Douglas and Gregory Butler. 2001. "Balthasar Schmid." In Stanley Sadie and John
Tyrrell, eds. The New Grove Dictionary o f Music and Musicians, vol. 22. 529-
230. Macmillan: London.
Lehmann, Karen. 1988. “Neues zur Vorgeschichte der Bach-Sammlung Franz Hausers.”
In: Beitrage zur Bachforschung 6: 65-81.
Lehmstedt, Mark. 1989. "Der Verlagsbuchhandel im Zeitalter der Aufklarung. In Dieter

Gleisberg, ed. Merkur und die Musen - Schatze der Weltkultur aus Leipzig■91-94.
Vienna: Kiinstlerhaus.
Leisinger, Ulrich. 1993. Die Bach-Quellen der Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek Gotha.
Gotha: Forschungs- und Landsbibliothek Gotha.
Leisinger, Ulrich and Peter Wollny. 1997. Die Bach-Quellen der Bibliotheken in Brussel
- Katalog. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
Lescat, Philippe. 1991. "Histoire de l'Edition." In Johann-Sebastian Bach Clavier Ubung

F e Partie (Partitas) 1731 et Chorals Schiibler 1746. 9-10. Courlay (France):
Jean-Marc Fuzeau. [Annotated facsimile edition of the corrected print of the
Partitas in GB-LB1: Hirsch III. 37]
Lesure, Francois. 1969. Bibliographie des Editions Musicales Publiees par Estienne
Roger et Michel-Charles le Cene (Amsterdam, 1696-1743). Paris: Societe
Fran§aise de Musicologie.
Loffler, Hans. 1953. "Die Schuler Joh. Seb. Bachs." B J 40: 5-28.
Lohlein, Heinz-Harald. 1987. Orgelbiichlein, Sechs Chorale von verschiedener Art

(Schiibler-Chorale), Choralpartiten. NBA/KB IV/1.
Maier, Johann Friedrich Bernhard Caspar. 1741. Neu-eroffneter theoretisch- und

pracktischer Music-Saal, das ist: Kurze doch vollstandige Methode, so wohl die
Vocal- als Instrumental-Music griindlich zu erlemen, auch die [...] blasend-
schlagend- und streichende Instrumenten [...] durch die deutlichste Exempla, in
besondem Tabellen, mit leichter Muhe zu begreiffen. Nebst einem [...]
300
Appendice und Erklarung derer anjezo gebrauchlichsten griechisch-lateinisch-
italianisch- und franzosisch- musicalischen Kunst-Worter. Zweyte und viel-
vermehrte Auflage. Niimberg: Johann Jacob Cremer.
Mancel, Josef. 2002. "Zu Musik und Aspekten des Musikmarkts des 18. Jahrhunderts im
Spiegel des Augsburger Intelligenz-Zettels." In Sabine Doering-Manteuffel, Josef
Mancel and Wolfgang Wiist, eds. Pressewesen der Aufklarung. Periodische
Schriften im Alten Reich. 391-432. Berlin: Akademischer Verlag.
Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1754-1778. Historisch-kritische Betrage zur Anfnahme der

Musik. Berlin: Schiitz.
Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1762. Clavierstiicke m it einem practischen Unterricht fu r

Anfanger und Geiibtere [...]. Berlin: Haude und Spener.
Mattheson, Johann. 1713. Das neu-erojfnete Orchestre, Oder Universelle und griindliche
Anleitung, Wie ein Galant Homme einen vollkommenen Be griff von der Hoheit
und Wiirde der edlen Music erlangen, seinen Gout darnach formiren, die
Terminos technicos verstehen und geschicklich von dieser vortrefflichen
Wissenschaft raisonniren moge [...]. Hamburg; [Self-published].
Mattheson, Johann. 1717. Das beschuetzte Orchestre, oder desselben zweyte Eroffnung,
worinn nicht nur einem wiircklichen galant-homme, der eben kein Professions-
Verwandter, sondern auch manchem Musico selbst die alleraufrichtigste und
deutlichste Vorstellung musicalischer Wissenschafften, wie sich dieselbe vom
Schulstaub tichtig gesaubert, eigentlich und wahrhafftig verhalter ertheilet; aller
wiedrigen Auslegung und gedungenen Aufbiirdung aber volliger...Bescheid
gegeben; so dann endlich des lange verbannet gewesenen ut re mi fa sol la todte
(nicht tota) Musica, unter ansehnlicher Begleitung der zw olff geriechischen
Modorum [...]. Hamburg; [Self-published].
Mattheson, Johann. 1721. Das forschende Orchestre, oder desselben dritte Eroffnung.
Darinn Sensus vindicice et quartce blanditice, d. i. der beschirmte Sinnen-Rang und
der schmeichelnde Quarten-Klang alien unpartheyischen Syntechnitis zum Nutzen
und Nachdencken, keinem Menschen aber zum Nachtheil sana ratione et
autoritate untersuchet und vermuthlich in ihr rechtes Licht gestellet werden von
Joanne Mattheson [...]. Hamburg: Benjamin Schillers Wittwe & Johann
Christoph Kissner.
Mattheson, Johann. 1722. Critica Musica. d. i. Grundrichtige Untersuch- und

Beurtheilung/ Vieler/ theils vorgefafiten/ theils einfaltigen Meinungen/
Argumenten und Einwiirffe/ so in alten und neuen/ gedruckten und ungedruckten/
Musicalischen Schrifften zufinden. Zur miiglichsten Ausrautung aller groben
Irrthiimer/ und zur Befdrderung eines bessern Wachsthums der reinen
harmonischen WissenschafftI in verschiedene Theile abgefasset/ und Stiick-weise
heraus gegeben von Mattheson. Hamburg; [Self-published].
301
Mattheson, Johann. 1731. Grofie General-Bafi Schule. Oder: Der exemplarischen
Organisten-Probe Zweite, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Hamburg; [Self
published].
Mattheson, Johann. 1739. Der vollkommene Capellmeister. Das ist griindliche Anzeige
aller derjenigen Sachen, die einer wissen, konnen, und vollkommen inne haben
mufi, der einer Capelle mit Ehren und Nutzen vorstehen will. Hamburg: Christian
Herold.
Maul, Michael. 2001. “'Dein Ruhm wird wie ein Demantstein, ja wie ein fester Stahl
bestandig sein;' Neues iiber die Beziehungen zwischen den Familien Stahl und
Bach.” B J 87: 7-22.
Mizler, Lorenz. 1736-54. Musikalische Bibliothek oder Griindliche Nachricht nebst

unpartheyischem Urtheil von alten und neuen musikalischen Schrijften und
Biichern, worinn alles, was aus der Mathematik, Philosophie und den schonen
Wissenschafften zur Erlauterung und Verbesserung sowol der theoretischen als
practischen Musik gehoret, nach und nach beygebracht wird. 4 vols. Leipzig:
Mizler.
Nagel, Wilibald. 1908-09. "Das Leben Christoph Graupner’s." Sammelbande der

internationalen Musikgesellschaft 10: 568-610.
Neubacher, Jurgen. 2001. "Eine bislang unbeachtete Quelle zur Biographie und zum
Todesdatum des Hessen-Darmstadtischen Hofkapellmeisters Christoph
Graupner." Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir mittelrheinische
Musikgeschichte 72: 3-7.
Neukirch, Benjamin, ed. 1704. Herrn von Hoffmannswaldau und andrer Deutschen
auserlesener und bifiher noch nie zusammen-gedruckter Gedichte... vierdter
Theil. Gltickstadt: Gotthilff Lehmann.
Neumann, Werner. 1969. "Einige neue Quellen zu J. S. Bachs Herausgabe eigener und
zum Mitvertrieb fremder Werke." In Musa-Mens-Musici. Gedenkschriftfiir
Walter Vetter, 165-168. Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag fiir Musik.
Noack, Elisabeth. 1967. Musikgeschichte Darmstadts vom Mittelalter bis zur Goethezeit.
Mainz: Schott.
Pasque, Ernst. 1854. "Geschichte der Musik und des Theaters am Hofe zu Darmstadt.
VII. Zeiit Ernst Ludwigs (1688-1739). Zweite Abteilung. Christoph Graupner." In
Die Muse - Blatter fiir ernste und heitere Unterhaltung: 6-9, 20-26.
Payne, Ian. 1999. "Telemann’s Musical Style C.1709-C.1730 and J. S. Bach: The
Evidence of Borrowing." BACH 31/1: 42-63.
302
Pirro, Andre. 1907. L'Esthetique de Jean-Sebastian Bach. Paris: Librairie Fischbacher.
Plesse, Kurt. 1960. "Johann Christoph Bach (1782-1846), ein Vertreter des musikalischen
Fortschritts auf dem Lande." Beitrage zur Musikwissenschaft 2: 35-39.
Rampe, Siegbert. 1995a. "Zur Sozialgeschichte des Claviers und Clavierspiels in Mozarts
Zeit I." Concerto 104: 24-27.
Rampe, Siegbert. 1995b. "Zur Sozialgeschichte des Claviers und Clavierspiels in Mozarts
Zeit II." Concerto 105: 28-30.
Rampe, Siegbert. 1999a. "‘Jetzt spielt, schlagt, trommelt und dudelt A lles’ oder: W er
kaufte Bachs gedruckte Musikalien?" In Bach-Handbuch, ed. Konrad Kiister,
764-766. Kassel: Barenreiter.
Rampe, Siegbert. 1999b. "Klavier-Ubung I: Partiten. Entstehung, Kompositionsanlass

und Publikation." In Bach-Handbuch, ed. Konrad Kiister, 766-773. Kassel:
Barenreiter.
Rampe, Siegbert. 2000. "Zur Sozialgeschichte der Saitenclaviere im deutschen

Sprachraum zwischen 1600 und 1750." In Das deutsche Cembalo, ed. Christian
Ahrens and Gregor Klinke, 68-93.
Rehm, Gottfried. 1970. Die Orgeln der Stadt Fulda. Wolfenbiittel: [self-published].
Richter, Bernhard Friedrich. 1906. “Uber die Schicksale der Thomasschule zu Leipzig
angehorenden Kantaten Joh. Seb. Bachs.” B J 3: 43-73.
Rifkin, Joshua, (forthcoming). "The 'B minor Flute Suite' Deconstructed: New Light on
Bach's OuvertureBW V 1067."
Sarcander. 1710. Amor a u f Universitaten. Cologne.
Scharffenberg, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1713. Die Kunst complaisant und galant zu

conversiren, oder in kurtzen sich zu einen Menschen von guter Conduite zu
machen... Chemnitz: Conrad Stossel.
Scheel, Lina. 1908. "Die Stadt Leipzig und Leipziger Studenten um das Jahr 1743. Nach
einer Handschrift zum erstenmal veroffentlicht und mit Anmerkungen versehen
von Lina Scheel. Teile I-VII." Leipziger Tageblatt und Handelszeitung. Amtsblatt
des Rates und des Polizeiamtes der Stadt Leipzig. Nr. 2-8 (January 2-9, 1908).
Scheibe, Johann Adolph. 1745. Critischer Musicus. Neue, vermehrte und verbesserte
Auflage. Leipzig: Breitkopf.
303
Scheibel, Gottfried Ephraim. 1721. Zufdllige Gedancken von der Kirchen-Music, wie sie
heutiges Tages beschaffen ist. Allen rechtschaffnen Liebhabern der Music zur
Nachlese und zum Ergotzen wohlmeinende ans Licht gestellet von Gottfried
Ephraim Scheibel. Frankfurt and Leipzig.
Schirmer, Uwe. 2000. "Die wirtschaftlichen Wechsellagen im mitteldeutschen Raum

(1480-1806)." In Hartmut Zwahr, Uwe Schirmer and Henning Steinfiihrer, eds.
Leipzig, Mitteldeutschland und Europa. Festgabefiir Manfred Straube und
Manfred Unger zum 70. Geburtstag. 293-330. Beucha: Sax.
Schulze, Hans-Joachim. 1959. "Bemerkungen zu einigen Kantatentexten Johann

Sebastian Bachs." BJ 46: 168-170.
Schulze, Hans-Joachim. 1963/64. "Friihe Schriftzeugnisse der beiden jiingsten Bach-

Sohne." 5 /5 0 : 61-69.
Schulze, Hans-Joachim. 1966. "Wer intavolierte Johann Sebastian Bachs

Lautenkompositionen?" Die Musikforschung 19: 32-39.
Schulze, Hans-Joachim. 1977. Katalog der Sammlung Manfred Gorke. Bachiana und
andere Handschriften und Drucke des 18. undfriihen 19. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig:
Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig.
Schulze, Hans-Joachim, ed. 1979a. Kalendarium zur Lebensgeschichte Johann Sebastian

Bachs. 2nd edition. Leipzig: Bach-Archiv.
Schulze, Hans-Joachim. 1979b. "Ein 'Dresdner Menuett' im zweiten Klavierbiichlein der

Anna Magdalena Bach. Nebst Hinweisen zur Uberlieferung einiger
Kammermusikwerke Bachs." BJ 65: 45-64.
Schulze, Hans-Joachim. 1984. Studien zur Bach-Uberlieferung im 18. Jahrhundert.

Leipzig and Dresden: Peters.
Sheldon, David. 1975. "The Galant Style Revisited and Re-evaluated." Acta
Musicologica 47: 240-270
Sheldon, David. 1989. "The Concept Galant in the 18th Century." Journal o f
Musicological Research 9: 89-108.
Simons, Olaf. 2001. Marteaus Europa oder Der Roman, bevor er Literatur wurde. Eine
Untersuchung des deutschen und englischen Buchangebots der Jahre 1710 bis
1720. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
Smend, Friedrich. 1956. Missa, Symbolum Nicenum, Sanctus, Osanna, Benedictus, Agnus
Dei et Dona nobis pacem (spater genannt: Messe in h-Moll). NBA/KB II/1.
304
Spitta, Philipp. 1873/80. Johann Sebastian Bach. 2 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel.
Stauffer, George. 1983. "Johann Mattheson and J. S. Bach: the Hamburg Connection." In
George Buelow and Hans Joachim Marx, eds. New Mattheson Studies. 353-370.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stiller, Gunter. 1976. "Johann Sebastian Bach und Johann Christoph Gottsched - eine
beachtliche Gemeinsamkeit." Musik und Kirche 46: 166-172.
Stinson, Russell. 1989. The Bach Manuscripts o f Johann Peter Kellner and his Circle: A
Case Study in Reception History. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Synofzik, Thomas. 2001. "Johann Gottlieb Preller und seine Abschriften Bachscher
Clavierwerke - Kopistenpraxis als Schliissel zur Auffiihrungspraxis." In Rainer
Kaiser, ed. Bach und seine Mitteldeutschen Zeitgenossen. 43-64. Eisenach: Karl
Dieter Wagner.
Talle, Andrew. 2000. “Ein unbekanntes Buch zur Erziehung der Kinder von 1711.” In:
Wilhelm Seidel, ed. Standige Konferenz Mitteldeutsche Barockmusik, Jahrbuch
2000. 143-157. Eisenach: Wagner.
Tessmer, Manfred. 1974. Dritter Teil der Clavierubung. NBA/KB IV/4.
Thomasius, Christian. 1701. "Welcher Gestalt man denen Frantzosen in gemeinem Leben
und Wandel nachahmen solle?" In Christian Thomasius, ed. 1-70. Allerhand
bifiher publicirte kleine teutsche Schrifften. Halle: Salfeld.
Tilgner, Gottfried, ed. 1717. Herrn Erdmann Neumeisters Funfffache Kirchen-Andachten

bestehend In theils eintzeln, theils niemahls gedruckten Arien, Cantaten und Oden
A ufalle Sonn- und Fest-Tage des gantzen Jahres. Leipzig: Gross.
Uffenbach, Zacharias Conrad von. 1753. Herrn Zacharias Conrad von Uffenbach
Merkwiirdige Reisen durch Niedersachsen, Holland und Engelland...Zweyter
Theil. Ulm: Johann Friedrich Gaum.
Vitzthum von Eckstadt, Rudolf. 1935. Beitrage zu einer Vitzthumschen

Familiengeschichte. Leipzig: Zentralstelle fur Deutsche Personen- und
Familiengeschichte.
Voigt, Johann Christian. 1742. Gesprach von der Musik, zwischen einem Organisten und
Adjuvanten. Erfurt: Johann David Jungnicol.
Vollhardt, Reinhard. 1899. Geschichte der Cantoren und Organisten von den Stadten in
Konigreich Sachsen. Berlin: Wilhelm Issleib. (repr. Leipzig: Peters, 1978).
305
Wachtler, Johann Christian. 1703. Commodes Manual, oder Hand-Buch / darinnen zu
finden 1) eine compendieuse Methode zu einer galanten Conduite... 2) ein
vollkommliches Dictionaire... 3) Die vornehmsten Heydnischen Nomina Propria,
so in Romanen / Operen / Poesie, Mahlereyen / und sonst gebrauchet werden ...
4) Le Secretaire d'Amour, oder: Ein Fascicul etlicher bey einer familieren
Correspondence gewechselten und aus einem vertraulichen Liebes Cabinet
genommenen Briejfe... 5) Allerhand mundliche Complimenten in Teutsch und
Frantzosischer Sprache [...]. Leipzig: Lanckisches Erben.
Walther, Johann Gottfried. 1732. Musikalisches Lexicon oder musikalische Bibliothek.

Leipzig: Wolfgang Deer.
Wedel, Benjamin. 1731. Geheime Nachrichten und Briefe von Herrn Menantes Leben
und Schrifften. Cologne: Johann Christian Oelschner.
Weiss, Wisso and Yoshitake Kobayashi. 1985. Katalog der Wasserzeichen in Bachs
Originalhandschriften, Text- und Abbildungsband. NBA IX /1.
Weitz, Anton. 1728. Verbessertes Leipzig, oder die vornehmsten Dinge, so von Anno
1698. an bifi hieher bey der Stadt Leipzig verbessert worden, mit Inscriptionibus
erleutert. Leipzig: Lanckisch.
Werner, Arno. 1906. "Mitteilungen." B J 3: 130-132.
Wiedemann, Conrad, ed. 1969. Der galante Stil, 1680-1730. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Wolf, Uwe. 2000. Sechs kleine Praludien. Einzeln uberlieferte Klavierwerke I. NBA/KB
V/9.2.
Wolff, Christoph. 1974. Kanons, Musikalisches Opfer. NBA/KB V III/1.
Wolff, Christoph. 1976. "Bach’s Handexemplar of the Goldberg Variations: A New

Source." Journal o f the American Musicological Society 29/2: 224-241.
Wolff, Christoph. 1977. "Bachs Handexemplar der Schubler-Chorale." BJ 63: 120-129.
Wolff, Christoph. 1979. "Textkritische Bemerkungen zum Originaldruck der Bachschen

Partiten." BJ 65: 65-74.
Wolff, Christoph. 1986. "Johann Valentin Eckelts Tabulaturbuch von 1692." In Klaus-
Jiirgen Sachs, ed. Festschrift Martin Ruhnke zum 65. Geburtstag. 374-386.
Stuttgart: Neuhausen.
Wolff, Christoph. 2000. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician. New York and
London: Norton.
306
Wollny, Peter. 1993. "Studies in the Music of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach: Sources and
Style." Harvard University. PhD Dissertation.
Wollny, Peter. 1995. "Ein 'musikalischer Verteran Berlins' - Der Schreiber Anonymous
300 und seine Bedeutung fiir die Berliner Bach-Uberlieferung." Jahrbuch des
Staatlichen Instituts fiir Musikforschung Preufiischer Kulturbesitz 1995. 80-113.
Stuttgart & Weimar: J. B. Metzler.
Wollny, Peter. 1999. Toccaten. NBA/KB V/9.1.
Wollny, Peter. 2003. "On Miscellaneous American Bach Sources." In Stephen Christ, ed.
Bach in America. Bach Perspectives 5: 131-150. Urbana and Chicago: University
of Illinois Press.
Zedler, Johann Heinrich, ed. 1732-1754. Grosses vollstandiges Universal-Lexicon Aller

Wissenschafften und Kiinste... Leipzig: Zedler.
Zehnder, Jean-Claude. 1988. “Georg Bohm und Johann Sebastian Bach. Zur Chronologie
der Bachschen Stilentwicklung.” BJ 74: 73-110.
Zohn, Steven, (forthcoming). "Telemann in the Marketplace."
307

Tesis Partitas PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tesis Partitas PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Graduate School o f Arts and Sciences

THESIS ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE

The undersigned, appointed by the

have examined a thesis entitled

presented by A N D R E W JAMES TALLE

candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and hereby

Typed name .Th.Q.W.a.s...Kelly,

Typed name R o b e r t ... L e v in .

Typed name .......................................

Date ...Qff. 1.ft)?..?.L... .1.,.....2.9..0..3.

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

All rights reserved.

Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

J. S. Bach's Keyboard Partitas and Their Early Audience

Advisor: Professor Christoph Wolff

distribution of Bach’s Partitas. In chapter three I offer an account of the composition of

This is followed by a discussion of Bach’s adaptation of his style for publication,

Suites and the Well-Tempered Clavier part 1.

Kenneth and Margaret Talle

Library Sigla vii

1. The Galant Era and the Publication of Suites 9

2. Publication and Distribution of Bach's Partitas 32

3. Composition and Style of the Partitas 54

- Genesis of the Partitas 54

- The Partitas in Comparison with Bach's Earlier Keyboard Suites 78

4. Printed Copies of the Partitas: Owners before 1775 94

- Exemplars Owned by Members of the Bach Family 94

- Presentation Exemplars 101

- Ordinary Exemplars 116

5. Manuscript Copies of the Partitas: Owners before 1775 126

- Manuscripts Owned by Members of the Bach Family 127

- Manuscripts Owned by Others 130

- Musical Allusions by Bach's Sons 238

- Musical Allusions by Others 244

8. Generalizations as to the Early Reception of Bach's Partitas 265

- Trends in Dissemination 269

- Music with Youth Appeal 277

- Movement Preferences According to Age 279

- Performance Contexts 282

- The Difficulty of the Partitas 287

Literature Cited 292

Pilz of the Hessische Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt, Barbara Ventura of

Dr. Christine Blanken of the Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut in Gottingen for their

assistance with materials from the Sammlung Scholz.

Jurgen Konig of the Landeskirchliches Archiv in Niirnberg, Monica Knof of the

Chen of Vienna and Marco Facchin of Bolzano, Italy.

my questions and to offer advice in Cambridge, Leipzig and elsewhere.

and Rolf Hirche in Berlin.

BWV Wolfgang Schmieder. Thematisch-systematisch.es Verzeichnis der

BJ Bach-Jahrbuch. Leipzig and Berlin, Editors: Arnold Schering (1904-

Dok I-III Bach-Dokumente, ed. Bach-Archiv Leipzig.

Fk Martin Falck. "Thematisches Verzeichnis der Kompositionen W ilhelm

GWV Oswald Bill and Christoph GroBpietsch. Thematisches Verzeichnis der

HWV Handel-Handbuch: Thematisch-systematisches Verzeichnis.

NBA/KB Neue Bach-Ausgabe: Kritischer Bericht.

TWV Werner Menke. Thematisches Verzeichnis der Vokalwerke von Georg

Wq Alfred Wotquenne. Thematisches Verzeichnis der Werke von Carl Philipp

A-Wn Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek

A-GO Gottweig, Benediktinerstift Gottweig, Musikarchiv