Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.

org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
 Table l Summary of the structure of the first movements of Q VI:I8 and B w V1031

Key Bars Length Comments

(bars)

Ritornello 1
QV2H8 El 1-11 11 Ritornello in cembalo or violin, motive a
BWV1031 El 1-8 8 Ritornello in cembalo, motive a
Solo 1
QV2:i8 El-Bl 11, last quaver - 21, bt. 1 9 + 1 beat Mottos in flute separated by motive a in
(+ quaver upbeat) cembalo or violin
BWV1031 El-Bl 9-26, bt 1 17 + 1 beat Mottos in flute separated by motive a in
cembalo; motto shortened and varied
second time, modulates to dominant
Ritornello 1
QV2:i8 Bl 21-6 (+ quaver upbeat) 6 Ritornello in cembalo or violin
BWV1031 Bl 26-31 6 Ritornello in cembalo

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015

Solo 2
Qvn8 El-c-tag to El 27-41 (+ quaver upbeat; 14 Mottos in flute separated by motive a in
end overlaps with cembalo or violin
beginning of Rit 3)
BWV1031 Bl-El-c-tag to El 32—53 b t 1 21 Mottos in flute separated by motive a in
cembalo, but with shift of tonal level
Ritornello 3 complex
QV2:i8 El 41 (+ 3 semiquavers 24 Begins cembalo or violin solo, opening
anacrusis) - 64 of initial ritornello; connects to variant of
first 'solo' beginning with opening motto:
bars 49—54 are variant of bars 12-16, plus
one added bar. Concludes with trio version
of end of first ritornello. Last 7 bars are a
modified echo.
BWV1031 El 53-71 Begins cembalo solo, opening of initial
ritornello; connects to variant of first 'solo'
beginning after motto: bars 56-68, b t 1 are
variant of bars 15-26, b t 1, plus one added
bar. Concludes with trio version of end of
first ritornello (original form).

Each movement has three ritomellos in the same
succession of keys, with modulatory 'solo' sections
connecting them. Ex.i shows the opening ritomellos
and the beginning of the first solo sections of each
movement" The ritomellos themselves share a mu-
sical motive (labelled a in the example), which is, in-
deed, the principal ritornello motive in BWV1031.
Note also the similarity of the motives over the dom-
inant pedal in bar 7 in QV2:i8 and bars 5-6 of
BWV1031. The beginning of each solo includes a
double statement of a motto separated by a snippet
of the ritorneHo. Both sonatas employ the same mo-
tive for this brief ritomello segment But BWV1031
departs from the model here. Instead of a literal rep-
etition as in QV2:i8, the motto is significantly altered,
effecting a move to the dominant. Each sonata con-
tinues with a restatement of the ritomello motive,
against which the flute plays simple counterpoint

EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995 33

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
 Ex.2 (a) BwviO3i/i, bars 25-6; (b) Qvn8/i, bars 20-21
The opening solo sections end with a cadential bar in
which the rhythms in the solo parts are identical, if
not particularly distinctive (ex-2).
The shift in tonal level at the repetition of the
motto poses a problem, since it represents the
strongest departure from the model in the first
movement of BWV1031 and since it created a compo-
sitional dilemma with which the composer dealt
rather awkwardly. It is likely that the composer
chose the shift of tonal level because of the length of
the motto—three bars, as opposed to one bar in
QV2ii8. The motto in BWV1031 is harmonically static,
The Viola da Gamba Society
of Great Britain
in association with the
York Early Music Festival
is hosting an international conference on
The Fantasia in England
from Alfonso Ferrabosco II
to Henry Purcell
Alcuin College, University of York
Friday 7th July - Sunday 9th July 1995
The aim of the conference ii to bring together scholars,
instrument makers and performers working in this
important field of English music live musical
performance will be provided by the resident consort, The
Rose Consort of Viol*. Delegates will be entitled to a
discount on other events sponsored by the York Early
Music Festival.
For application farm, or details of rnembership, contact:
The Administrator, VdGS, 56 Hunters Way,
Dringhouses, York T02 2jj, England
tel (0904) 706959
36 EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995
Ritomello 2
1 _nr~i -JZT™ ^"~~ i '• •fct*-
returning as it does to the tonic nearly every half bar.
A repetition of the motto at the same pitch level as
the initial iteration would have been harmonically
dull at best.
Because the motto is tonally stable, there are two
possibilities for its repetition, if a modulation is to
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
occur, either the motto itself must be considerably
altered, permitting modulation but weakening its
motto identity, or the fragment of ritomello which
separates the two statements of the motto must be
modified. In the latter case, the motto would simply
enter at the new pitch level. In the first solo the com-
poser chose the first option, also deciding to repeat
only the first half of the motto. This repetition re-
tains only the general shape of the first four-note
motive. It would be hard to recognize it as the reiter-
ation of the motto at all, were it not for the expecta-
tions set up by the allusion to the Devisenarie, and in
retrospect by the analogous passage at the beginning
of the second solo section, where the literal repeti-
tion of the motto also occurs at a different tonal level
than the motto itself. In the opening of the first solo,
the varied repetition of the motto begins in the tonic
and quickly modulates to the dominant, producing
some of the weakest melodic writing and counter-
point in the movement (in bars 12-13).13
Had the composer chosen the second solution (al-
lowing the keyboard interlude to modulate) the first
solo section would have certainly begun more grace-
fully, but would have caused a problem of redun-
dancy in the second solo section: the motto would
have been stated twice in the dominant—at the rep-
etition of the opening motto and at the beginning of
the second solo. It was probably for this reason that
the composer devised the makeshift modulation in
the repetition of the opening motto.
 Ex.3 (a) Bwvi03i/i, bars 48-53; (b) QvnfJ/i, bars 38-41
51
!• ffPf
^ -
^ ^
I have chosen to dwell upon this passage because
it shows a composer grappling with a problem possi-
bly engendered by attempting to follow a model
while at the same time expanding the musical mate-
rial. It is hard to imagine that a composer with the
skill of J. S. Bach would not have found a solution
more elegant than that presented in bars 12-13. And
it is equally difficult to imagine Bach writing the fee-
ble counterpoint evident in this passage. The much
less rigorous Quantz, on the other hand, could easily
have accepted such a solution.
Both second ritornellos are in the dominant, the
expected key. It is especially striking that the internal
ritornellos are six bars long in each case, although
the two opening ones are not of equal length. In both
RitorneDo 3
H^'-=
_ am-a I am
1 1 d J IJ 1
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
J
J .1 M
Ritornello 3
cases the second solo begins with a restatement of
the double motto. QV2:i8 returns immediately to the
tonic, while in BWV1031 a statement of the motto in
the dominant is followed by one in the tonic Each
then embarks on a passage dominated by Fortspin-
nung, ending with similar cadences in C minor.14
BWV1031 proves to be much more harmonically ad-
venturous in the modulating section, however. Each
is followed by a brief passage which leads to a return
of the tonic, with scale degree 3 in the flute part
(ex.3).
The third and final ritomello is, of course, in
the tonic However, neither movement ends with a
simple restatement of the ritornello; instead both
dose with a ritomello complex including a 'solo'
EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY I 9 9 5 37
 Ex-4 (a) BWV1031/1, bars 69-71; (b) QVM8/i, bars 62-4
(a)
interjection. As table 1 shows, the structural proce-
dure at work in the final sections is nearly identical,
despite the differences in surface detail. After three.
(BWV1031) or four (QV2:I8) bars, the flute enters with
an accompanimental figure over the ritomello
theme in the keyboard (or violin). Following three
bars of accompaniment, in both sonatas the flute be-
comes an equal partner with the keyboard. Quantz
presents a modified version of the first section of the
first 'solo' theme (motto, restatement and sequential
extension with one added bar), which he then con-
nects to a trio version of the end of the opening ritor-
nello. BWV1031 omits the opening motto from the
first solo, but then presents a clever variant of the
rest of the first solo section (bars 56-8 are a variant of
bars 15-17; bar 59 is an added bar, bars 60-68, first
beat, are a variant of bars 18-26, first beat), closing
with a brief passage in imitation and parallel 3rds,
which, as I shall later show, refers to the probable
original version of the end of the first ritornello.
Quantz's movement ends with a long written-out
echo. The final cadences are again quite similar
(ex.4).
The second movement in both works is a siciliano
in a minor mode—G minor in BWV1031 and C minor
in QV2:I8. The opening rhythmic gestures are quite
38 EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
similar, although this may be attributed to the use of
common opening motives within the siciliano
movement type. However, although the right-hand
part in BWV1031 progresses in a nearly unbroken ac-
companimental pattern in semiquavers over a sim-
ple bass, the siciliano in QV2:i8 features imitation be-
tween the violin and flute, with the occasional
participation of the basso continuo, and goes be-
yond BWV1031 in its modish allusions to the 'mixed
taste', as manifest, for example, in the copious titrces
couUes. The model relationship here seems to consist
at best in the choice of movement type and opening
motives. Certainly the siciliano is a ubiquitous
movement type in the trio and solo sonata of the
1730s, and seems to have been especially favoured in
sonatas in the concerted manner.
The similarities between the respective third
movements, like those between the first movements,
are too striking to be considered mere coincidence,
although there is little exact duplication of material.
Ex.5 shows the opening bars of both movements.
Each is a bipartite movement in 3/8. Each begins
with a bar of cembalo (or violin) solo before the flute
enters, and in each the flute plays in parallel 3rds
with the right hand of the cembalo in bar 2. Note,
too, that each cembalo (or violin) theme is made up
 Ex.5 (a) BWViO3i/iii, bars 1-5; (b) QV2:i8/iii, bars 1-5
(a) Allegro
ilii
(b)
Allegro
i=i
of two repeating two-bar units, although in QV2:i8
the first bar serves as an anacrusis to the two two-bar
units in bars 2-5.
Later in the first half Quantz introduces a motive
which resembles more strongly the opening motive
of BWV1031 (ex.6). Both movements include passages
in which steady semiquavers in the right hand are
accompanied by broken chords in quavers in the
flute (compare BwviO3iyiii, bars 23-8; QV2:i8/iii, bars
21-8). In general, the semiquaver passagework shows
a number of similarities (e.g. QV2:i8, bar 22, and
BWV1031, bars 33 and 35). The third movement
in BWV1031, like the first movement in the same
Ex.6 Qvn8/iii, bars 13-16
__
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
r 4
sonata, is, however, more extended and thematically
complex.
The return to the opening theme in the second
half of each movement is approached with a cadence
in G minor (ex.7). The basses in the cadential bars
are identical (compare QV2:i8, bar 57; BWV1031, bar
99). In keeping with the greater richness of BWV1031
is the doubling of this bass link in loths in the flute,
while the bass has the motive alone in QV2:i8. The
final sections of both movements feature a tonic
pedal point in the flute.
In summary, the outer movements of BWV1031
derive their structure and some melodic material
EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1 9 9 5 39
 Ex.7 ( a ) Bwvio3i/iii, bars 96-101; (b) QV2:i8/iii, bars 54-9
from the corresponding movements in QV2:I8. The
second movement of BWV1031, on the other hand,
borrows only the movement type and shape of the
opening motive from QV2:i8.
If we accept the model relationship for these two
pieces, the question remains whether the original
scoring of BWV1031 was the transmitted version for
flute and keyboard or whether it, like QV2:i8, began
as a trio sonata and was later transcribed into the
present scoring. Here some details in the ranges and
voice leading point to the probable priority of a ver-
sion for flute, violin, and basso continuo for
BWV1031.
The range of the right-hand part in BWV1031 is en-
tirely within the compass of the violin except for one
ban bar 8 of the first movement, where the part de-
scends to / in a flourish of demisemiquaver scales.
But let us consider the possibility that this idiomatic
display of keyboard bravura was only added when
the part was transcribed for keyboard. The bar is
harmonically quite superfluous and can be easily
omitted, but it is more probable that the original
violin ritomello also extended through bar 8. As it
appears in BWV1031, the music of the third and
40 EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
fourth beats of bar 8 is merely a repetition of the first
half of the bar, with the opening 10th altered to a 3rd
so that the scale can drop into the lower octave. It is
possible that the original version presented this fig-
ure once, instead of twice, and in semiquavers in-
stead of demisemiquavers.15 Such a diminution was a
typical method of embellishing such a passage." One
should probably extend this hypothesis backward to
the demisemiquaver scale on beat 2 of bar 7, which
may have originally comprised a simple downward
arpeggiation of the dominant seventh (exactly like
that in bar 7 of QV2:i8), which Bach filled in with
passing notes in the process of arranging the piece.
This posited version is presented in ex.8. This solu-
tion has the advantage of matching the figuration in
the right hand of the cembalo (or violin) at the con-
clusion of the movement (bars 69-70). The figura-
tion at the end of the movement would thus recall
the end of the ritomello, serving as a substitute for
the otherwise missing conclusion of the final ritor-
nello. Moreover, this relationship strengthens the
connection to the model sonata, QV2u8, since the
first movement of that sonata also closes with a trio
version of the end of the opening ritomello.
 Table 2 Sources of Quantz, Trio Sonata in Et major, QV2ri8*

Signature Copyist Scoring Format Provenance

London, BL, R-M.21.d7 Quantz flute, violin, b.c. parts Dresden

Dresden, Dlb, Mus. 2470-Q-21 flute, violin: A (Grundig?); flute, violin, b.c parts Dresden
b.c: D (Kremmler? or
Morgenstem?); additional
performance indications:
Pisendel
Berlin, DS, M.Th. 179 J. J. F. Lindner flute, cembalo parts Berlin
Breitkopf Catalogue, 1763, flute, cembalo unknown
Pt 4. P-13 (Leipzig?)
Solfeggi pour La Fl&tc Traversiire avec Student of Augustin Neuff? single-line excerpts Berlin
Veinseignement Par Monsr. Quantz from fL & vin. parts,
(DK: Kk, Mu. 6210.2528, Giedde Collection mvts. 1 & 3, in Et
& G major

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015

I.16); 'di Quanz. Divertimento a 5.'

* Hugo Ruf lists an additional surviving source for the piece, a version for flute and harpsichord in private possession in Lisbon,
PortugaL Ruf, 'Vorwort' to Johann Joachim Quantz: Triosonate Es-Dur, Hortus Musicus 235 (Kassel, 1987).

Several contemporary examples of trios that sur-
vive both in settings for a conventional trio and for
solo plus obbligato keyboard attest that in tran-
scribing the second solo line for the keyboard the
figuration was sometimes altered to make it more
idiomatic. Telemann's Six concerts et six suites
(Hamburg, 1734) may be taken as a case in point The
first six pieces in the set, sonatas similarly in the con-
certed manner, are scored alternatively forflute,vio-
lin and basso continuo, or flute and obbligato cem-
balo. The right hand part of the cembalo in the
obbligato version, however, is not identical with the
violin part, but rather represents a transformation of
the basic musical materials of the violin part into an
idiomatic cembalo part The demisemiquaver flour-
ish in bars 7-8 may be seen as another attempt to
make the right-hand part more idiomatic for the
cembalo.17
T hat there is a dose relationship between BWV1031
and QV2:i8 is incontrovertible. Let us now turn
to a closer examination of the sources and attribu-
tions for these works. While an exact date for QV2:i8
cannot be established, the sources indicate that it
was copied around 1730-35. Table 2 summarizes the
sources for QV2:i8. Quantz's original composing
score for this work, like most of his composing
scores from the Dresden period, does not survive.
An autograph set of parts is, however, preserved in a
set of four Dresden trios by Quantz in the Royal

Ex.8 BWV1031A, hypothetical bars 7-9

[Allegro moderato]

EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1 9 9 5 41

Music Collection of the British Library (R.M.
2i.d.7).lS As might be expected, this copy is clean and
calligraphic and is almost devoid of corrections.
More important for the purposes of dating is an ad-
ditional copy in the hands of Dresden copyists A
(flute and violin parts) and D (basso continuo) in
the Sachsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden (Mus.
2470-Q-21). Ortrun Landmann has identified Copy-
ist A as the Hofnotist Johann Gottfried Grundig, who
may have been active as early as c.1725 at the Dresden
court, and who was certainly employed there by
1733." The handwriting in the flute and violin parts
corresponds to the 'early' stage of his script, suggest-
ing that the work was copied around 1730. The iden-
tity of Copyist D is still uncertain. He may be Johann
George Kremmler, as Landmann has suggested, who
seems to have begun copying around the same time
as Copyist A.10 Manfred Fechner, on the other hand,
has suggested that Copyist D is not Kremmler, and
has tentatively identified him as Johann Gottlieb
Morgenstern, violist at the Dresden court from 1722
until at least the late 1750s.u In any case, the bass part
likewise represents an early stage in the evolution of
the copyist's hand, that is, c.1730-35. All parts bear
additional markings by the Konzertmeister Johann
Georg Pisendel.
But when could Quantz have composed the piece?
Quantz was in Italy from 1724 to 1726 and in London
and Paris in 1726-7, and the possibility that he com-
posed the work during his travels cannot be ex-
cluded. Of Quantz's approximately 45 trio sonatas,
all of which date from his employment at the Dres-
den court, three works, including the Sonata in EV,
have their first fast movements in the form of an Ital-
ian concerto. While of course this itself does not
point to an Italian origin,11 it does suggest that
Quantz's interest in the subgenres of Sonate aufCon-
certenart or concerto <3 tre (the works could certainly
be classified as either) was rather limited, and the
sources bear this out One of the other two pieces, a
trio sonata in G minor (0^2:35), is frequently trans-
mitted with the EV sonata. It too survives in a set of
parts copied by Dresden Copyists A (flute and vio-
lin) and D (basso continuo) with additions by
Pisendel.13 The stage of the handwriting is identical
with that in the Et sonata, and each scribe copied on
the same paper types (no watermark for Copyist A,
42 EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995
eagle watermark for Copyist D) as in the Et sonata.
These are the only Quantz trios whose copying was
divided between these two scribes. Further, the two
pieces appear together as a set in Breitkopf s cata-
logue of 1763, scored for flute and obbligato cem-
balo,14 and for the same scoring in a set of Quantz
trios in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, to be dis-
cussed below. The third piece is the Trio Sonata in D
major, QV2:9, which survives in an autograph com-
posing score, complete with copious formative cor-
rections,15 and in a set of parts copied by copyist A in
the same stage in the evolution of his hand as in his
copies of the sonatas in EV major and G minor.1* It is
probable from the dating of the copying hands that
the three sonatas in concerto form were composed
within a relatively short span of time.17
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
A further source for QV2ii8, scored for flute and
obbligato cembalo, was prepared later in Berlin,
most likely under Quantz's supervision. The manu-
script Berlin, DS, M.Th.i79, is part of a set of five
Quantz trios rescored for flute and obbligato cem-
balo in the Thulemeier Collection; the set, as I have
already mentioned, also includes the G minor sonata
QVT.H.2* The copyist of all the manuscripts in the set
was probably Johann Joseph Friedrich Lindner,
Pisendel's nephew and a student of Quantz in
Berlin.19 While these manuscripts suggest that
Quantz's trios were likely to have been played as ob-
bligato sonatas in Berlin, or at least that this scoring
probably had Quantz's blessing there, this does not
mean that the obbligato scoring was eschewed in
Dresden.30 Indeed, the autograph score to the E
minor sonata QV2:2i, also composed in Dresden,31
indicates that the work could be performed either as
a trio sonata for flute, violin and bass or as a sonata
for flute and obbligato cembalo.31
The dating of BWV1031 is even less certain. Cer-
tainly the style of the piece does not suggest a dating
before the 1730s. Table 3 lists the principal sources
for the work. The earliest extant source cannot date
from any earlier than the late 1740s. If the piece is by
Quantz, then Bach's copy probably dated from the
1730s, when Quantz was still in residence in Dresden,
but it is also plausible that it was copied in the 1740s.
If Quantz is indeed the composer, then his departure
for Berlin in 1741 must serve as a terminus ante quern
for its composition, since he does not seem to have
 Table 3 Principal sources of BWV1031
Signature Copyist(s) Date
SPK, Mus. ms. Hauptkopist H; tempo 1748-9
Bach, P 649 indication to first mvt:
J. C. Bach(?); wrapper
C. P. E. Bach
SPK, Mus. ms. C. F. Penzel (title page & probably
Bach, P 1056 mvts. 2 & 3); Anonymous c.1755
(1st mvt)
composed trio sonatas after that date. If Bach is the
composer, then the work could date from either the
1730s or 40s.
At this point a reconsideration of the attributions
of BWV1031 is in order. One of Marshall's chief
arguments for his support of the authenticity of
BWV1031 is the apparent independence of the two
principal sources.33 But neither the attributions nor
the readings in the two sources, as Durr points out
in his critical edition, are truly independent, but
rather probably go back to the same parent manu-
script34
Let us first consider C. P. E. Bach's attribution.
The principal copyist of the manuscript Berlin,
Staatsbibliothek Preufiischer Kulturbesitz, Mus. ms.
Bach P 649, the earliest known source for the work,
is known in the Bach literature variously as Anon. 4
or Hauptkopist H.35 He is responsible for the copy-
ing of the sonata, the attribution 'di J. S. B.' at the top
of the first page,3* and all the instrument and tempo
indications except for the marking 'Allegro moder-
ato' on the first movement, which was added in an-
other hand, probably that of Johann Christian
Bach.37 C. P. E. Bach added the wrapper, with its in-
scription 'Es dur / Trio / furs obligato clavier und
die fl5te/von J. S. Bach.' As Joshua Rifkin has
shown, C. P. E. Bach seems to have based his attribu-
tion on that of Hauptkopist H, rather than attribut-
ing the work himself to his father.3*
As Rifkin has further pointed out, the copying ac-
tivities of Hauptkopist H, who once was considered
to have worked for C. P. E. Bach in Berlin as well as
for both J. S. Bach and C. P. E. Bach in Leipzig, can-
not be traced to Berlin. With the exception of some
ripieno parts of Leipzig provenance for C. P. E.
Attribution Comments
J. S. B. (Hauptkopist H) Attribution on wrapper taken
J. S. Bach (C. P. E Bach) from manuscript Wrapper
probably added in Hamburg,
hence 1768 or later.
J. S. Bach (anon.) 1755 if parent manuscript
I. S. Bach (Penzel) supplied by W. F. Bach.
Bach's Magnificat, he copied solely for the senior
Bach.39 Thus, P 649 must have originated in Leipzig.
Emanuel Bach added the wrapper in Berlin or, more
likely, Hamburg, expanding Hauptkopist H's attri-
bution logically to 'J. S. Bach'.40 If it was indeed J. C.
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
Bach who added the tempo marking to the first
movement, then he must have done so either in
Leipzig, shortly before his father's death, or between
his arrival in Berlin in 1750 and his departure to Italy
in 1755.41
Christian Friedrich Penzel copied the second and
third movements and the title-page for the second
principal source, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preufiis-
cher Kulturbesitz, Mus. ms. Bach P1056 (Sonata / a /
Flauto travers. / ed / Cembalo obligato / di / 1 . / S.
Bach / Poss. Penzel). The first movement is in the
hand of an unidentified copyist.41 This copyist also
indicated an attribution to 'J- S. Bach' at the top of
the first movement, presumably under Penzel's di-
rection. The Penzel copy is clearly the later of the two
principal sources. The year in which Penzel became
a student at the Thomasschule in Leipzig had until
recently been accepted as 1750 or 1751, with the year
of his leaving the school firmly established as 1756.
Most recently, Karen Lehmann has challenged the
date of his matriculation, providing evidence that
Penzel entered the Thomasschule in 1749, a t the age
of 12.43 While the copy cannot date from as early as
1749, the earlier date gives slightly more credence to
Penzel's ascription, since he would have been a stu-
dent in Leipzig while Bach was still alive.44 The
unidentified second copyist may have also been a
fellow student at the Thomasschule. In 1755 Penzel
had contact with Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, then
in Halle. If the exemplar from which he copied
EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995 43
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
respective ritornellos are also strikingly similar: points of intersection between it and the three
both feature an alternation of semiquavers and sonatas under consideration, Qvn8, QV2:35 and
ornamental demisemiquavers over quavers in the BWV1031. First, the choice of key for the middle
bass (see Bwvio3iyi, bar 4; Bwviosz/i, bars 3-4). The movement of BWV1020—El major instead of the
syncopated motive in the opening solo (bars 9-10, more common Bt major, D minor, or C minor—
13-14) is also dearly related to the pedal motive may derive from the use of the same key for the mid-
(given in ex.i) in both BWV1031 and Qvn8. The dle movement of QV2:35. BWV1020 is structured with
opening statement of the ritornello without the the same succession of movement types as BWV1031
'solo' instrument is common to all three of and QV2:I8.53 And BWVIO2O, of course, also employs
Quantz's sonatas in the concerted manner. The Quantz's usual opening strategy of having the open-
similarities extend to the third movements as well. ing ritornello played without the 'solo' instrument.
For example, the motive presented in two-part imi- The ritornello structure of the first movement is
tation in bars 78ff. in Bwvio3i/iii bears a strong identical with that in the two Et sonatas, and
resemblance to a passage treating a similar motive BWV1020 also employs a double motto. The treat-
in three-part imitation in Bwvi032/iii at bars 52ff. ment of the motto seems to take both Et sonatas as
and in subsequent passages. If BWV1031 is by its point of departure: the motto in the opening solo
Quantz, then it probably served as a model for is repeated at the same pitch level as in QV2:i8, and its

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015

BWV1032 and can therefore be dated to before 1736. repetition at the beginning of the second solo in-
If, on the other hand, BWV1031 is an authentic work cludes the shift in key as it does in the analogous
of Bach, then its chronological priority with respect place in BWV1031 as a way of returning to the tonic 54
to BWV1032 remains uncertain. The ultimate stylis- The early return to the tonic, which in this case has
tic model for both pieces, in either case, would the effect of making the final ritornello sound par-
remain QV2u8. ticularly redundant, may have been based on the
The second work, the Sonata for violin and cem- similar early returns in BWV1031 and QV2:i8, and pos-
55
balo in G minor, BWV1020, is more problematic, sibly QV2:35 as well.
since the question of its authorship has never been There are, however, no 18th-century attributions
settled, although it bears two 18th-century attribu- of BWV1020 either to J. S. Bach specifically or to
tions to C. P. E. Bach. Diirr rightly points to the Quantz. The Breitkopf catalogue of 1763 attributes it
marked stylistic affinities between BWV1020 and to C. P. E. Bach on the page preceding the listing of
BWV1031, echoing opinions dating as early as Spitta QV2:i8 and QV2:35. Clearly, Breitkopf had all three
and Wilhelm Rust that the two pieces must be the works in his possession at the same time.5* The earli-
work of a single composer.52 Let us begin by consid- est known manuscript of BWV1020, at one time
ering the likelihood that BWV1020, too, is indebted to owned by the Thomascantor Johann Gottfried
Quantz for a number of its stylistic and formal de- Schicht (1753-1823), attributes it merely to 'Sig*
tails. Here we must also take into account the com- Bach',57 while the second important source, in the
panion piece to QV2:i8, the Trio Sonata in G minor, hand of C. P. E. Bach's Hamburg copyist Michel,
QV2:35. Since both QV2:i8 and QV2:35 seem to have also attributes it to 'Sig. C. P. E Bach.'58 According to
been transmitted consistently as a pair in the 18th Yoshitake Kobayashi, Schkht's manuscript may
century, it is likely that J. S. Bach knew both works. If have come from Breitkopf.59 One can only speculate
J. S. Bach is the composer of both BWV1031 and as to whether Breitkopf had acquired his source for
BWV1020, then he may have composed them as a pair BWV1020 together with his copies of Qvn8 and
in imitation of the two sonatas by Quantz. Neither QV2:35. If this were the case, then Breitkopf s copies
can Quantz be ruled out on stylistic grounds as the of the two Quantz sonatas may have been local
composer of BWV1020, since it fits his style just as copies originating in Leipzig and could well have
well as BWV1031. once belonged to J. S. Bach.60 While the authority of
While space does not permit a full discussion of Michel's attribution is certainly strong, it is possible
BWV1020 here, I would like to suggest a few common that it was based on that in the Breitkopf catalogue.

EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995 45

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
BWVIO2O could be a work by C. P. E. Bach composed concerted manner. Nor does it show his customary
in imitation not only of BWV1031, but also of QV2:i8 brilliance of invention or his usual playing with the
and QV2:35. genre expectations of the Vivaldian concerto within
the context of the sonata. The piece lacks the obses-
e are now in a position to speculate on the sive contrapuntal and thematic working-out of the
W circumstances of the composition of BWV1031. two securely attributed sonatas for flute and obbli-
While the evidence at hand does not permit a firm gato cembalo, the Sonata in B minor, BWVIO3O, and
conclusion regarding the actual composer, several the Sonata in A major, BWV1032.65 Bach may have
possible interpretations suggest themselves. wanted to show that he too could compose in the
First, Quantz himself may be the author of up-to-date style of the Dresden court Extending
BWV1031. The style of the work closely matches his this hypothesis, it is possible that Bach composed
other Dresden trios. Perhaps a desire to try his hand this piece expressly to flatter the Dresden court
at writing a more extensive piece in the same vein musicians. Hauptkopist H and Penzel then took
as Qvn8, which, judging from the number and their attribution directly from Bach's autograph or
chronological breadth of the sources, seems to have another copy made from it While the technique in
been a successful piece, led him to model the new BWVIO3I is at times uncharacteristically weak, the
work upon it, in the process enlarging it and greatly two principal sources stem from Bach's circle in

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015

enriching its thematic material while maintaining its Leipzig, while there are no sources for the work of
formal outlines, style, melodic contour and, espe- Dresden or Berlin provenance.
cially in the first movement, small-scale structure. If BWV1031 is an authentic work of Bach, then
J. S. Bach, hearing or examining the piece in Dres- its dating remains a problem. The years 1748-9,
den, possibly during his stay in 1733, may have the probable period during which Hauptkopist H
copied it out, perhaps intending it for use with copied the work, are, after all, its only real terminus
the Leipzig collegium. He could, of course, have tran- ante quern.66 For this reason we cannot exclude the
scribed the piece immediately as an obbligato sonata possibility that Bach composed it in conjunction
at the same time that he copied it out. Hauptkopist with his visit to the Berlin court in 1747, during
H and Penzel, seeing a sonata in Bach's hand, then which he must have met or renewed his acquain-
mistakenly attributed it to him. Bach could also have tance with Quantz and could have heard or seen
had someone else copy the piece, or someone else QV2:i8.67
may have copied it from his autograph, mistakenly If the work is, indeed, by Bach, then only the
attributing it to him. The last possibility could ex- model theory comes close to explaining its anom-
plain how the lost exemplar could have come to at- alous style. The following of the model is unusually
tribute the piece to Bach. slavish; Bach would have had to suppress his
A second possibility is that J. S. Bach may have contrapuntal instincts to a degree not present in
heard QV2:i8 in Dresden and, perhaps out of admi- his other obbligato or trio sonatas of the 1730s and
ration for the progressive style of the piece, decided 40s, despite their frequent surface obeisance to cur-
to compose a piece closely modelled upon it. The rent musical fashion. Although there is no doubt
scoring of the piece was most likely the same as that BWV1031 is musically more sophisticated than
Quantz's: flute, violin, and basso continuo. Bach QVM8 it is probably not beyond the scope of
then arranged the piece for flute and obbligato cem- Quantz's technique and invention, nor beyond the
balo, making some changes in the first movement technique of other German composers who wrote
to render the right-hand part more idiomatic The pieces with a similar structure. It is certainly too
piece, according to this scenario, would still remain early to dismiss BWV1031 as an authentic work, but
stylistically anomalous. It has none of the formal equally too early to accept it unconditionally. At
complexity, especially involving the blurring of the present we know far too little of the works of Bach's
distinction between ritornello and 'solo' material, contemporaries to render a final judgement on
that marks Bach's secure examples of sonatas in the BWV1031.

EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995 47


EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
BAROQUE ORCHESTRA
ORCHESTRAL
COURSES
ABBAYE DES PREMONTRES
PONT-A-MOUSSON
FRANCE
29 April - 2 May
& 2 - 5 May 1995
Applications are invited
A shorter version of this paper was pre-
sented at the National Meeting of the
American Musicological Society in
Chicago on 9 November 1991. / would
like to thank the Deutscher Akademis-
cher Austauschdienst (DAAD) and the
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
for generous research grants for the sum-
mer of 1990 which enabled me to exam-
ine sources for these works, and Joshua
Rifkin, Alfred Durr, David Rosen,
Thomas Christensen, David Schulen-
berg, Lawrence Earp, Ardal PoweU, and
David Crook for reading drafts of the
article and for their many helpful com-
ments. Since the completion of this art-
icle in February 1991 Siegbert Rampe has
reached some of the same conclusions
concerning the relationship ofBWvio$i
and Quantz's Trio Sonata in £1 major,
QV2:i8. See S. Rampe, 'Bach, Quantz
und das Musicalische Opfer', Concerto,
(cross-fingered chromatic pitches
being softeT than non-cross-fingered
pitches). For this reason, pieces with
three or more flats, with the exception
of C minor, are extremely uncommon
for the transverse flute. Telemann, for
example, included no sonatas in Et in
any of his collections intended for
transverse flute. Even the Fantasias for
unaccompanied flute of 1733, a collec-
tion arranged in order of ascending
tonic, indude no pieces with more
than two flats in the key signature.
Quantz, on the other hand, seems to
have been adept at playing in remoter
flat keys: his Dresden trios include one
further work in El (QVM7) and even
one in F minor (QV2:25). He suggests
that 'Pieces set in very difficult keys
must be played only before listeners
who understand the instrument, and
are able to grasp the difficulty of these

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015

from talented young wv (1993), pp.15-13.
EU players of baroque
instruments (strings,
oboes, bassoon and 1 The work will be included in a forth-
continuo) who wish to be coming volume devoted to sonatas
considered for selection of doubtful authenticity (Serie VI,
for the 1995 ECBO. Band 4).
Courses offer the unique 2 See R. Marshall, 'J. S. Bach's compo-
opportunity to work with: sitions for solo flute', Journal of the
American Musicological Society, xnrii
Roy Goodman
(1979), pp.471-2 (reprinted in Marshall,
director/violin
The music ofjohann Sebastian Bach: the
Monica Huggett sources, the style, the significance (New
Andrew Manze York, 1989), pp.201-25); and 'Bach the
Jan Schlapp progressive: observations on his later
violin/viola works', Musical quarterly, brii (1976),
PP-313-57-
Jaap ter Linden
Love Persson 3 Marshall, 'J. S. Bach's compositions
cello/double bass for solo flute', p.473.
Anthony Robson 4 C.WolffetaL, The new Grove Bach
family (New York and London, 1983),
oboe
p.212. In the earlier version of the
Marc Vallon work-list presented in 'Bach, Johann
bassoon Sebastian', New Grove, the work had
Lars Ulrik Mortensen been listed among the chambeT works
of doubtful authenticity. Christoph
keyboard continuo
Wolff describes it in the text of the
Grove article as 'doubtful' {New Grove,
Information: ECBO
i, p.816), but includes it in the list of
Hordley, Wootton
authentic works in his 'Bach's Leipzig
Woodstock, 0X20 1EP, UK
Ttel (01993) 812111 chamber music', Early music, xiii
Fax (01993) 812911 (1985), p.169.
(International 444 1993)
5 Since the basic key of the transverse
ECBO is sponsored by
flute is D major, the further a tonality
Panasonic Europe Ltd is from that key the more difficult it is
to play in tune, and the softer it sounds
keys on it; they must not be played
before everyone. You cannot produce
brilliant and pleasing things with good
intonation in every key, as most ama-
teurs demand-' Quantz, Versuch einer
Anweisung, die FlSte traversiere zu Spie-
len (Berlin, 1752), p.170; trans. E. Reilly
as On playing the flute (New York,
3/1985), p.200. None of Bach's secure
chamber works with flute, with the
exception of the C minor trio sonata
from the Musical offering, includes flats
in the key signature.
6 Quantz studied the transverse flute
with Buffardin for four months in 1719.
His transition to the flute as his prin-
cipal instrument was gradual, but
seems to have been complete by the
end of his travels to Italy, France and
England in 1724—7. He was appointed
flautist to the Dresden court Kapelle in
March 1728. See Quantz, 'Lebenslauf,
in F. W. Marpurg, Historisch-Kritische
Beytr&ge zurAufnahme der Musik
(Berlin, 1754-60; R/Hildesheim, 1970),
i, pp.208-45-
7 H. Augsbach, Johann Joachim
Quantz Thematisches Verzeichnis der
musikalischen Werke, Werkgruppen QV2
und QV3 (Dresden, 1984), p.11.
8 Although it seems unlikely, one can-
not, of course, exclude completely the
possibility that QV2:i8 may be a simpli-
fication of BWV1031, given the trend
towards simplification at the time.
9 H. T. David and A. Mendel, The

48 EARLY M U S I C FEBRUARY 1 9 9 5
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
 21 See M. Fechner, 'Notwendige
Bemerkungen zu einigen Dresdner
In Trondheim, Norway Telemann-Quellen und deren
July 19-July 27,1995 Schreibern', Georg Philipp Telemann:
THE RINGVE MUSEUM Werkuberlieferung, Editions- und Inter-
ACADEMY pretationsfragen, Bericht llbeT die Inter-
nationale Wissenschaftliche Konferenz
THE XVIII anlafilich der 9. Telemann-Festtage der
INTERNATIONAL DDR, Magdeburg, 12. bis 14. Marz, 1987
(Cologne, 1991), i, pp.87-92. Fechner
SUMMER COURSE dates the 'early stage' of Copyist D's
hand to c.1735.
22 Similar works by other composers
associated with the Dresden court sur-
vive, and are discussed in J. Swack, 'On
the origins of the Sonate auf Concerten-
Early Music art', Journal of the American Musicolog-
Performance Practice ical Society, xlvi (1993), pp.369-414.
Master Classes
and Ensemble Playing 23 Dresden, Sachsische Landesbiblio-
thek, Mus. 2470-Q-33.
24 See The Breitkopf thematic cata-
Faculty: logue: the six parts and sixteen supple-
ments, 1762-1787, ed. B. S. Brook (New
York, 1966), p.127.
Ian Partridge
25 Dresden, Sachsische Landesbiblio-
voice thek, Mus. 2470-Q-14. The D major
trio is stylistically and structurally close
Mary Collins to Qvn8 and 2:35, consisting of an
renaissance/baroque dance opening fast movement with a ritor-
nello structure, a siciliano, and a con-
Marion Verbruggen cluding movement in binary form. As
recorder in the other two sonatas, the flute is
silent during the opening ritornello,
and there is an immediate return to the
Ku Ebbinge tonic after the second ritornello.
baroque oboe
26 Dresden, Sachsische Landesbiblio-
thek, Mus. 2470-Q-15.
Catherine Mackintosh 27 Judging from the surviving Dresden
baroque violin sources, Quantz generally gave his
composing scores to Grundig or
Rolf Lislevand Kremmler (Morgenstern?), who then
produced parts. Pisendel would then
lute/baroque guitar
check them, adding further dynamic
and articulation markings. Quantz
Laurence Dreyfus himself copied few parts for his own
viola da gamba/baroque cello works.
Ketil Haugsand 28 There were originally six pieces in
the set; howeveT, the sixth, a transcrip-
harpsichord
tion of the Trio in E minor, QV2^O
(M.Th.183), was destroyed during
For further details: World War II.
THE ST.OLAV FESTIVAL
P.B. 2045, 29 See H. Augsbach, preface to the
N-7001 Trondheim, Norway facsimile edition of Johann Joachim
Tel. (47) 73 50 97 97 Quantz Sonate E-moUftir FlOte und
Fax. (47) 73 50 38 66 obligates Cembalo (Leipzig, 1982), p.7.
I am grateful to Manfred Fechner for
50 EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY 1995
corroborating the identification of this
copyist J. J. F. Lindner is not to be
confused with Johann Jacob Lindner, a
copyist at the Dresden court
30 One further source provides evid-
ence that the work was also arranged as
a divertimento for a larger scoring in
Berlin. Excerpts from the outer move-
ments appear both in the original key
and transposed to G major in Solfeggi
pour La Flute Traversiere avec I'ein-
seignement. ParMonsr. Quantz (DK;
Kk, Mu- 6210.2528, Giedde Collection
I.16), where they bear the heading 'di
Quanz. Divertimento a 5.' Excerpts
from the companion sonata in G
minor, QV2:35 also appear (as 'Trio di
Quanz') in the Solfeggi. Winfried
Michel and Hermien Teske, the editors
of the modern edition of the Solfeggi,
suggest that the volume comprises
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
exercises that Quantz wrote out for
Frederick the Great, probably over a
period of more than a dozen years, and
that the notebook was begun c.1729,
when Quantz first began instructing
Frederick on the flute, and finished
around 1742, when Quantz was regu-
larly present in Berlin. See Solfeggi Pour
La Flute Traversiere avec Venseignement,
Par Mons.' Quantz, ed. W. Michel and
H. Teske (Winterthur, 1978), pp.ii-iii.
The sonata excerpts appear on pp.74-5
in their edition. Horst Augsbach, on
the other hand, provides convincing
evidence that the Solfeggi manuscript
dates from between 1775 and 1782 in
Berlin, originating probably with a stu-
dent of Quantz's pupil Augustin Neuff.
Quantz's hand, according to Augsbach,
does not appear in the manuscript See
Augsbach, Johann Joachim Quantz:
Thematisches Verzeichnis, pp.v-vi. Per-
haps Quantz made an arrangement of
the piece with added (filler?) parts, or
the copyist of the Solfeggi had made his
own arrangement of the piece.
31 Dresden, Sachsische Landesbiblio-
thek, Mus. 2470-Q-28.
32 Compare the facsimile edition cited
above. The score in question is a calli-
graphic copying score.
33 Marshall, 'J. S. Bach's compositions
for solo flute', p.472.
34 A. Dun-, Sonate C-dwfur Fldte
und Basso continuo BWV1033, Sonaten
Es-dur, g-mollfur Fldte und obligates
Cembalo Bwviop, 1020, Uberliefert als
Werke Johann Sebastian Backs, Baren-
reiter 4418 (1975), 'Kritischer Bericht',
p.39; and Marshall, 'J. S. Bach's
compositions for solo flute', p.472:
'Now the El Sonata is ascribed to J. S.
Bach not only by Emanuel but also by
Penzel, whose connections with the
Bach sources seem to derive primarily
from Wilhelm Friedemann, not
Emanuel Bach. In any case, Penzel's
copy is demonstrably independent of
Emanuel's. Therefore, it seems likely
that the two attributions to Sebastian
are likewise independent. This, in fact,
is the crux of the external argument for
BWV1031; for both Penzel and C P . E
Bach have attributed to J. S. Bach else-
where compositions whose authentic-
ity is highly questionable, if not alto-
gether without credibility: in Penzel's
case the Christmas cantata Uns ist ein
Kind geboren, BWV142; in the case of
Emanuel the Suite in A major for
violin and harpsichord obbligato,
BWV1025.' In his reply to my paper at
the 1991 National Meeting of the Amer-
ican Musicological Society Marshall
asserted that he merely wanted to show
that one of the principal sources was
not copied from the other.
35 See A. Durr, Zur Chronologic der
LdpzigerVokalwerke J. S. Backs(Kassel,
2/1976), P-149; G. von Dadelsen,
Beitr&ge zur Chronologic der Werke
Johann Sebastian Backs, TUbinger
Bach-Studien, iv-v (Trossingen, 1958),
p.112; P. Kast, Die Back-Handsckriften
der Berliner Staatsbibliothek, Tubinger
Bach-Studien, ii-iii (Trossingen, 1958),
p.138. For a discussion of the dating of
several sources copied by this scribe,
Including parts to the Magnificat,
H772/wq2i5 of C. P. E Bach, see J.
Rifkin,'... Wobey aber die Singstim-
men hinlanglich besetzt seyn mussen
...: Zum Credo der h-Moll Messe in
der Auffuhrung Carl Philipp Emanuel
Bachs', Basler Jakrbuch fUr historische
Musikpraxis, ix (1985), pp.158-60. The
most recent discussion of the dating of
the sources copied by Hauptkopist H is
in Y. Kobayashi, 'Zur Chronologic der
SpStwerke J. S. Bachs', Bach-Jahrbuck,
liriv (1988), p.33. Kobayashi suggests
that Hauptkopist H's copy of BWV1031
dates at the earliest from around the
same time as his copy for Bach of the
score to Handel's Brockes-Passion,
therefore August 1748. On p.69 he
dates the copying of BWV1031 to
between August 1748 and OctobeT 1749.
36 The attribution 'di J. S. B.' is in a
lighter ink than the rest of the manu-
script and it is not altogether certain
that it is in the hand of Hauptkopist H.
It may indeed be in his hand, but
added later, or he may have simply
had less ink on the quill.
37 I am thankful to Joshua Rifkin for
this provisional identification.
38 Rifkin,'...Wobey aber die Sing-
stimmen hinlanglich besetzt seyn
mussen ...', pp.160-61, n.12.
39 Rifkin,"... Wobey aber die Sing-
stimmen hinlanglich besetzt seyn
mussen ...', p.158, n.8. As Rifkin has
suggested to me, the Leipzig perfor-
mance of the Magnificat may have
been under J. S. Bach's direction.
40 The title-page is ascribed to C P. E.
Bach's 'late' script in Dadelsen,
Bemerkungen zur Handsckrift Johann
Sebastian Bachs, seiner Familie und
seines Kreises (Trossingen, 1957), p.26.
41 As Rifkin shows ('... Wobey aber
die Singstimmen hinlanglich besetzt
seyn mussen ...', p.159), Hauptkopist
H and a second copyist, probably J. C.
Bach, collaborated on the copying of
a ripieno tenor part to C. P. E. Bach's
Magnificat Rifkin dates this part to
1750. Hans-Joachim Schulze has shown
that J. C. Bach probably did not depart
from Berlin until early 1755, not 1754 as
had been previously thought. See H.-J.
Schulze, 'Wann begann die "italien-
ische Reise" der jungsten Bach-Sohne?'
Back-Jakrbuck, box (1983), pp.119-22.
42 Thefirstmovement in Penzel's
copy, like that of Hauptkopist H, bears
no tempo marking. One must assume
that Sebastian Bach's examplar likewise
had no tempo marking over the first
movement and that J. C. Bach merely
added what he thought was a reason-
able tempo indication.
43 See K. Lehmann, 'Neues zur
Vorgeschichte der Bach-Sammlung
Franz Hausers: Dokumente zum
Oberlieferungskreis C. F. Penzel—
J. G. Schuster aus dem Zeitraum
1801-1833', Beitr&ge zur Backforschung,
vi (1988), pp.69-70. As Lehmann
points out (p.70), it is uncertain
EARLY MUSIC
Cambridge
Early Music
Summer Schools
Expert tuition, professional concerts,
excellent cuisine, congenial company,
in the tranquil and atmospheric setting
of an historic Cambridge college.
29 July - 5 August 1995
SIRINU
Jon Banks, Matthew Spring,
Henry Stobart, Sara Stowe
Ensembles of voices and Renaissance
instruments, working towards a dramatic
feast of music from Renaissance Europe
aad rural Sooth America.
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
Renaissance Music from
Europe & the New World
6-13 August 1995
THEHILLIARD
ENSEMBLE
David James, Rogers Covey-Crump,
John Potter, Gordon Jones
with Linda Him, Richard Wistreich,
compojcT-in-reffldence Piers
HellaweU and other guests.
Intensive coaching on old and new music
for professional, aspiring professional or
advanced «i"«»»«ir vocal ensembles
(individual singers may also apply).
Hilliard Summer Festival
13-19 August 1995
THE PARLEY OF
INSTRUMENTS
Poer Helms (ccmirao), Jidy TnSng (iHolm),
AJboa Cam (riok). Brace tfarnei (woodwind)
Baroque string ensembles (viol, violin,
viola, cello, bass) with wind soloists
(Baroque recorder, Oute, oboe, bassoon),
tate/meorbo and harpsichord. Focus on
English music Including Boyce & PurceU.
Baroque Orchestra &
Chamber Music
i im4lcd firoQ UKBTidml plkjnu tod
fin j i», (Oil TOCtl IDd l"*tlul"Hflll ^n^TTiKLf of
Selene Mills • CEMSS • Trinity Hall
Cambridge • CB2 1TJ • UK
Telephone /fax +44 1223 354096
FEBRUARY I995 51
 whether Penzel became a student of
University of Edinburgh Bach's direcdy upon his entry into
the Thomasschule. Penzel remained
in Leipzig as a theology student until
RUSSELL 1761. See R. Jones, 'Penzel, Christian
COLLECTION Friedrich', New Grove.
44 Penzel's earliest dated copies of
WORKSHOP PLANS Bach's works date from 1753. See
PHOTOGRAPHS Lehmann, 'Neues zur Vorgeschichte
der Bach-Sammlung Franz Hausers',
POSTCARDS
p.71.
RECORDINGS
45 Penzel's copy ofBwvio3i is ascribed
Of the date 1755 in Y. Kobayashi, Franz
EARLY KEYBOARD Hauser und seine Bach-Handschriften-
INSTRUMENTS sammlung (diss., U. of Gottingen,
1973), p.389. On Penzel's role in the
also available preservation of Bach's works see
Schulze, Studien zur Bach-Uberliefer-
ung im 18. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1984),
CATALOGUE
pp.22,93-4; and Kobayashi, Franz
BRIEF GUIDE
ship. U. Leisinger and P. Wollny,
' "Altes Zeug von mir": Carl Philipp
Emanuel Bachs kompositorisches
Schaffen vor 1740', Bach-Jahrbuch,
hoax (1993), pp.192-6, argues against
Emanuel Bach's authorship on both
source-critical and stylistic grounds.
53 QV2T35 also includes the same
movement types for the first and third
movements, but has a cantabile in 3/4
instead of a sidliano as its second
movement
54 The second ritomello is in R
major, and the solo motto and cem-
balo interlude (bars 58-63, first beat)
are in that key. The cembalo interlude,
unlike that in BWV1031, does not
modulate, but the repetition of the
motto simply drops a 3rd to the tonic
G minor and is followed, as in both

Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015

FREE LISTS FROM
Publications Officer
St. Cecilia's Hall
Cowgate
Edinburgh EHI ILJ
IL BEL DANZARE
Dances of Europe circa 1500
HENGRAVE HALL
BURY ST EDMUNDS
SUFFOLK
21-28 JULY 1994
For details send s.a.e. to
28th D.H.D.S. Summer School
Redmire, Ardley End, Hatfield
Heath, Bishop's Stortford, Herts
CM22 7AL
Reg. Charity No. 270896
Hauser, pp.106-12.
46 See Kobayashi, Franz Hauser,
pp.174-9.
47 See Marshall, 'J. S. Bach's composi-
tions for solo flute', p.472.
48 For example, both sources share a
striking dissonance on the first beat of
bar 53 of the third movement that is
wholly inconsistent with the way the
passage appears anywhere else in the
movement
49 Durr, "Kritischer Bericht', p.39,
arrives at the same conclusion.
50 See H.-J. Schulze, Foreword to
Johann Sebastian Bach: Konzert c-Moll
fiXr zwei Cembali und Strekhorchester
BWV1062, Sonate A-Dur fiir Flbtc und
Cembalo BWV1032, Faksimile der auto-
graphen Partitur (Leipzig, 1979),
p.17—18; and Marshall, 'J. S. Bach's
compositions for solo flute', p.487.
51 I am thankful to Joshua Rifkin for
suggesting the relationship between the
openings of BWV1031 and BWV1032.
52 Dflrr, Foreword, p.ii. See also
U. Siegele, Kompositionsweise und
Bearbeitungstechnik in der Instru-
mentalmusik Johann Sebastian Bachs
(Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1975), p.45. Two
further discussions of BWV1020 have
appeared since the acceptance of this
article. L E Miller, 'C. P. E. Bach's
sonatas for solo flute', Journal ofmusi-
cology, xi (1993), pp.231-4, also reviews
the sources for the piece and comes to
no conclusion concerning its author-
BWV1031 and QVI:I8, by the head
motive of the ritomello.
55 Qvr35/i returns to the tonic at the
second ritomello, although the context
is different from diat in QVXI8 and
BWV1031. The return to the tonic at
or immediately following the second
ritomello seems to have been 'standard
operating procedure' in Quantz's
sonata movements in concerto form,
since it occurs in all three surviving
works. A second similarity concerns
a brief passage in the siciliano move-
ments of BWV1020 and Qvri8. Both
movements include a passage in which
a stepwise descent in the flute compris-
ing a chain of suspensions hovers over
quaver morion in the right hand of the
keyboard (or violin). Both of these pas-
sages occur at the same point in their
respective movements, following the
arrival at the dominant and the restate-
ment of the opening material in the
new key. While this material is not
unique, its presence in analogous pas-
sages in two sonatas whose first move-
ments are related is probably not co-
incidental.
56 BWV1020 is listed on p.i2ofpart4
of the catalogue of 1763, while the two
Quantz pieces are listed on p.13. See
Breitkopf thematic catalogue, pp.126-7.
57 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preufiischer
Kulturbesitz, Mus. ms. Bach P1059
(DQrr's Source A), in the hand of an
unknown copyist of the second half
of the 18th century. Schicht's name

52 EARLY M U S I C FEBRUARY 1 9 9 5
appears on the manuscript as the
owner. See Diirr, 'Kritischer Bericht',
P.40.
58 Vienna, Gesellschaft der Musik-
freunde, XI 36271.
59 Y. Kobayashi, 'Neuerkenntnisse
zu einigen Bach-Quellen an Hand
xhriftlicher Untersuchung', Bach-
Jahrbuch, lxiv (1978), pp.52-3.
60 The six initial parts of the Cata-
logue contain numerous works of both
Quantz and C. P. E. Bach, including
trios. Still, the close juxtaposition of
three works which are related to one
another is striking. For a further dis-
cussion of the Leipzig origin of some
of Breitkopf s sources see A. Glockner,
'Handschriftliche Musikalien aus den
Nachlassen von Carl Gotthelf Gerlach
und Gottlob Harrer in den Verfags-
angeboten des Hauses Breitkopf
1761-i769', Bach-Jahrbuch, lxx (1984),
pp.107-16.
61 According to Eugene Helm, Michel
probably produced additional copies
after C. P. E. Bach's death in order
to oblige requests to C. P. E. Bach's
I
Historical Wind
, lnstmments
After
Museum Originals
Please request my catalogue
- --
Pierre ETCHEGOYEN
La Croix-Rouge
19150 Lagarde-Enval
France
Tel. (01.033)55.27.17.82
widow for copies of her late husband's
works. See E. Helm, Thematic catalogue
of the works of Carl Philipp Emanuel
Bach (New Haven, CT,1989), p.xxiii.
62 Kobayashi, 'Neuerkenntnisse zu
einigen Bach-Quelled, p.53.
63 C. P. E. Bach employs a ritornello
structure in the first movement of the
Sonata in B minor for violin and cem-
balo, ~5121wq76. The work, however,
dates from 1763 and is composed in a
much later style than swvlozo.
64 See The catalog of Carl Philipp
Emanuel Bach's estate: a facsimile of the
edition by Schniebes, Hamburg, 1790,
ed. R. Wade (New York, 1981).
65 For a similar conclusion see
Eppstein, Studien, p.180.
66 There are no grounds to accept
Marshall's thesis ('1. S. Bach's composi-
tions for solo flute', p.473) that the
work must have been composed before
C. P. E. Bach's departure from Leipzig
in 1734 a date that is carried over in the
work-list in The new Grwe Bach family,
p.212.
BRESCIA
EARLYORGAN
AND HARPSICHORD
COURSES
July 18-22
BRETT L E I G H T O N
German music
July 20-26
DESMOND HUNTER
English music
July 24-28
CHRISTOPHER STEMBRIDGE
Italian & Spanish music
Scuola Diocesans di Musica
S. Cecilia
Via Bollani, 20
25123 BRESCIA - Italy
Fax ( + 39) 30 371 2227
EARLY MUSIC
67 While swvio31 bears little stylistic
resemblance to the trio sonata from the
Musical offering, BWvl079, a work asso-
ciated with the 1747 visit, or the Sonata
for flute and continuo in E major,
swvlojs, which may have been associ-
ated with that visit, one cannot over-
look the similarity between the open-
ing flute 'solo' theme of the first
movement in ~v2:18and the beginning
of the fugal theme of the second move-
ment of the Musical offering trio. This
is especially evident when the 'solo'
theme appears in C minor in bars
30-31. If this is indeed more than mere
coincidence, then the fugal theme
could be understood as a subtle
homage to Quantz Although the fugal
theme must fit contrapuntally against
the Thema regium, which serves as its
countersubject later in the movement,
Downloaded from http://em.oxfordjournals.org/ at Georgetown University on August 21, 2015
the Thema regium only enters after this
initial motive. Thus, the opening
motive, unlike the rest of the fugal sub-
ject, is not dependent on the a priori
working out against the Thema regium.
(Foundation for Historical
Performance Practice)
I Aspects of the Historical Harp
Proceedings ofthe Intemolional Historical
Harp Sgmposium Utrechl1992
(Martin van Schaik, ed.)
Articles by Cristina Bordas. Silke Leopold
Joan Rirnrner, and others.
ISBN 90-72786-05-X.
FORTHCOMING:
The Recorder in the 17th Centuq
Proceedings of the Interncrfional Recorder
Symposium Utrecht 1993
(David h s o c k i , ed.)
Articles by Barhold Kuijken, David Lasocki
Thierno W i d , and others.
STIMU
Postbox 565
-
NL-3500 AN UtncM
The Nethcrhnd.
-
tol +31-30-362250 -
fax +31-30-322798
F E B R U A R Y 1995 53