The Keyboard Concertos of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach 0835712079, 9780835712071

Citation preview

The Keyboard Concertos of

UMI Research Press Studies in Musicology

WITHDRAWN

The Keyboard Concertos of

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach

Studies in Musicology George Buelow, Series Editor Professor of Musicology Indiana University

Other Titles in This Series

The canzone villanesca alia napolitana and Related Forms, 1537-1570

Donna G. Cardamone

Valerio Dorico: Music Printer in Sixteenth-Century Rome

Suzanne G. Cusick

The Small-Scale Sacred Concertato in the Early 17th-Century

Anne Kirwan-Mott

Operas for the Papal Court, 1631-1668 The Monodies of Sigismondo d'India The Cantatas of Luigi Rossi: Analysis and Thematic Index

Margaret Murata John J. Joyce Eleanor Caluori

The Spanish Baroque Guitar, Including a Transcription of Santiago de Murcia's Passacalles y obras, (1732) Neil D. Pennington Changing Aesthetic Views of Instrumental Music in 18th-Century Germany

Bellamy Hosier

American Popular Stage Music, 1860-1880

Deane L. Root

The Keyboard Concertos of

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach

by Rachel W. Wade

UMI RESEARCH PRESS Ann Arbor, Michigan

I MAR 9 1983 UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC

W4&7

Copyright© 1981, 1979 Rachel W. Wade All rights reserved Produced and distributed by UMI Research Press an imprint of University Microfilms International Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Wade, Rachel W., 1946The keyboard concertos of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. (Studies in musicology ; no. 48) Revision of the author’s thesis-New York University, 1979. Bibliography: p. 1. Concerto. 2. Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel, 1714-1788. Concertos. Selections. I. Title. II. Series. ML1263.W3 ISBN 0-8357-1207-9

785.6’092’4

81-7429 AACR2

Contents

List of Abbreviations

vii

List of Facsimiles

xiii

Acknowledgments

xv

1

Bach’s Activity as a Composer

2

Problems of Authenticity

1

5

Early Catalogs of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach's Works Later Catalogs Concertos of Doubtful Authenticity

3

Provenance of the Sources

23

The Preparation of Manuscripts by Bach and his Copyists Bach’s Business Dealings Bach’s Relationship to Music Dealers and Publishers Classification of Preserved Sources Provenance of Present-Day Collections of C. P. E. Bach’s Concertos 4

The Compositional Process

59

C. P. E. Bach’s Study of Music History and Theory The Interpretation and Transcription of Bach’s Successive Stages Composition Bach’s Sequence of Decision-Making Alterations

Contents

VI

5

Revised and Alternate Versions

6

Arrangements

Notes

85

103

119

Facsimiles

153

Transcriptions and Illustrations Musical Examples Appendix A

199

Manuscript and Early Printed Sources of the Keyboard Concertos ofC.P. E. Bach

Appendix B

165

233

Concertos Falsely Attributed to C. P. E. Bach and Concertos of Questionable Authenticity

259

Concertos Falsely Attributed to C. P. E. Bach (XI-X9) Concertos Attributed to C. P. E. Bach, of Questionable Authenticity (X10-X13) Concertos with Ambiguous Attributions (Not, or Probably Not, by C. P. E. Bach; X14-X26) Arrangements of Questionable Authenticity (X27-X30) Appendix C

Copyists

317

Appendix D

Owners

Appendix E

Authentic Cadenzas

325 331

Modem Editions of C. P. E. Bach’s Concertos Bibliography Index

355

341

337

Abbreviations

General Abbreviations App.

Appendix

Arr.

arranged

B.

Basso

B. c.

Basso continuo

c.

circa (before a date); century

Cemb.

Cembalo

cont.

continued

Cor.

Comi

CPEB

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach

ed.

edition, edited by

FI.

Flauti

nius.

Illustration

JAMS

Journal of the American Musicological Society

JC Bach

Johann Christian Bach

JCF Bach

Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach

viii

List of Abbreviations

JSB

Johann Sebastian Bach

MGG

Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Ed. Friedrich Blume. Kassel, Basel: Barenreiter, 1949-.

MS.

manuscript

Nachlassverzeichnis

Verzeichniss des musikalischen Nachlasses des verstorbenen Capellmeisters Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. Ham¬ burg: Schniebes, 1790.

NBA

Bach, Johann Sebastian. Neue Ausgabe samtlicher Werke. Ed. Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut Gottingen and the Bach-Archiv, Leipzig. Kassel: Barenreiter, and Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag fur Musik, 1954-.

n. d.

no date of publication given

No.

number

n. p.

no place of publication given

(NS)

not seen: sources which I have not been able to consult, either in the library or on microfilm

NV

Nachlassverzeichnis

Ob.

oboes

rev.

revised

R1SM

Repertoire international des sources musicales

t. p.

title page

t. p. n.

title page notation

Trans.

Transcription (within text); translated by (in bibliogra¬ phy)

v

Ty

Terry, Charles Sanford. John Christian Bach. 2nd ed., ed. H. C. Robbins Landon. London: Oxford University

List of Abbreviations

ix

Press, 1967. An entry such as “Ty 294,5” in Appendix B stands for page 294, the incipit labelled no. 5 there. Un

Unknown copyist; in Appendix A the terms “Un 1,” “Un 2,” etc. apply only to the source at hand.

Vc.

Violoncello

VI. I, VI. II

Violino Primo, Violino Secondo

Via.

Viola

W.

Wotquenne; the standard system referring to the works of C. P. E. Bach, using Alfred Wotquenne’s Catalogue thematique des oeuvres de Charles Philippe Emanuel Bach (1714-1788). 1905; rpt. with the title Thematisches Verzeichnis der Werke von Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Wiesbaden: Breitkopf& Hartel, 1964.

Wq. n. v.

Paul Kast’s abbreviation, “Werke, die im Katalog Wotquennes nicht verzeichnet sind”—works not listed in Wotquenne’s catalog.

XI, X2, etc.

the numbering system of Appendix B

I, II, III

first movement, second movement, third movement

Library Symbols Music libraries and collections are cited by the symbols employed by RISM A Wgm

Vienna, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Wien

AWn

Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek

B Be

Brussels, Conservatoire Royal de Musique, Bibliotheque

B Br

Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale Albert Ier

CH Bu

Basel, Offentliche Bibliothek der Universitat Basel

CH Zz

Zurich, Zentralbibliothek

x

List of Abbreviations

CS KRa

Kromenz, Zamecky hudebnf archfv

CS Pnm

Prague, Narodnf Muzeum

D-brd B

Berlin,

Staatsbibliothek

Preussischer

Kulturbesitz,

Musikabteilung D-brd BFb

Burgsteinfurt, Fiirstlich Bentheimische Bibliothek (de¬ posited since 1964 in the Universitatsbibliothek, Munster)

D-brd Bhm

Berlin, Staatliche Hochschule fiir Musik und darstellende Kunst

D-brd DS

Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek

D-brd LB

Langenburg, Fiirstlich Hohenlohe-Langenburgische Schlossbibliothek

D-brd MUu

Munster, Universitatsbibliothek

D-ddr Bds

Berlin/DDR, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek

D-ddr Dlb

Dresden, Sachsische Landesbibliothek

D-ddr G01

Gotha, Methodisches Zentrum fiir Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken beim Ministerium fiir Hoch- und Fachschulwesen, Forschungsbibliothek

D-ddr LEb

Leipzig, Bach-Archiv

D-ddr LEm

Leipzig, Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig

D-ddr MEIr

Meiningen, Staatliche Museen

D-ddr SW1

Schwerin, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek des Bezirkes Schwerin (before 1969, the Mecklenburgische Landesbibliothek)

D-ddr WRtl

Weimar, Thiiringische Landesbibliothek (since combined with the Weimar Zentralbibliothek)

1969

List of Abbreviations

xi

DK Kmk

Copenhagen, Det Kongelige Danske Musikkonservatorium

F Pc

Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Bibliotheque du Conser¬ vatoire national de musique

GB Lbm

London, The British Library (before 1974, The British Museum)

H Bn

Budapest, Orszagos Szechenyi Konyvtar

I Me

Milan, Biblioteca del Conservatorio de Musica Guiseppe Verdi

NL DHgm

The Hague, Gemeentemuseum

PL Wu

Warsaw, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka w Warszawa

SL

Lund, Universitetsbiblioteket

S Skma

Stockholm, Kungliga Musikaliska Akademiens bibliotek

USBEu

Berkeley, The University of California Music Library

US NHu

New Haven, Yale University Music Library

US NYp

New York, New York Public Library at Lincoln Center

US NYpm

New York, Pierpont Morgan Library

US We

Washington, D. C., The Library of Congress

-

Facsimiles

1

Title pages of manuscript copies of three concertos. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach St 619 (Wq. n. v. 67 = App. B,X23; W. 32; W. 43/1) 154

2

Title page in the hand of Grave. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kultur¬ besitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach St 505 157

3

The autograph score of the Concerto for Organ or Harpsichord in G Major, W. 34. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach P 354, f.2v: I, 67-81 158

4

The partially-autograph score of the Concerto for Flute in G Major, W. 169. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach P 769, f. 6v: I, 75-79 159

5

The autograph score of the Concerto for Oboe in E-Flat Major, W. 165, third movement, followed by a sketch of measures 320-36 in the keyboard version, W. 40. Berlin/DDR, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Mus. ms. Bach P 356 [W. 165], f. 12r: III, 334-48 160

6a The autograph score of the Concerto for Oboe in B-Flat Major, W. 164. Berlin/ DDR, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Mus. ms. Bach P 356 [W. 164], f. 7v: II, 65-96

161

6b The autograph set of parts for the Concerto for Harpsichord in B-Flat Major, W. 39, first violin part, second movement. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussis¬ cher Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach St 529, VI. I 162 7

The title page of a manuscript copy of the arrangement for flute of W. 22 (App. B, X28). Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Am. Bib. 101 163

\

Acknowledgments

At the present time the study of eighteenth-century musical sources remains a for¬ midable undertaking, due to the absence of up-to-date reference works listing the manuscript holdings of the various music collections in each country. Fortunately, musicologists can rely on a strong international network of librarians, RISM offices, and other musicologists, who generously share the information thus far gathered. Furthermore, in the course of visiting the great music libraries in Berlin, Brussels, London, and Washington, D.C., I was very fortunate to meet people with special knowledge or expertise, who gave me on-the-spot advice and assis¬ tance. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help I have received from many people. Several musicologists engaged in C. P. E. Bach research have assisted me by sending their unpublished manuscripts, exchanging information, and reading parts of this study. I am grateful to Eugene Helm for his informative and humorous let¬ ters and for mailing me a copy of his unpublished thematic catalog of the works of C. P. E. Bach; to Darrell Berg for sharing with me her latest research on the sona¬ tas; to Jane Stevens for her suggestions and encouragement during the many times we met to discuss the concertos; and to Elias Kulukundis for his frequent corre¬ spondence touching on many different questions. Two other musicologists, who happened to be present in research libraries during my visits, offered me extensive help over the years and, by their example, taught me much about musical scholarship. I thank Louis Bagger for sharing his knowledge of performance practice and sources, and for his insightful comments in evaluating C. P. E. Bach’s notational idiosyncracies. I am very grateful to Dr. Alan Tyson for giving advice on studying the physical characteristics of manu¬ scripts and for explaining his own working habits in source research. While assembling my notes on the manuscript sources and their physical characteristics—paper size, type, and watermark— I realized how valuable a flat light source would be. Careful attention to watermarks has been a tradition among students at New York University, under the leadership of Prof. Jan LaRue. Prof. LaRue had pioneered in the development of a portable electric watermark reader utilizing a flat luminescent panel. Following his lead, I located an electronics firm that was able to manufacture a battery-operated luminescent watermark reader. At

xvi

Acknowledgments

my request, Wayne Hanks and Wally Warmack of Control Products designed and built the reader, and then gave me one for my personal use. I am extremely grateful to them for their interest in the project and the time and effort they devoted to it. Currently, the reader is available for sale from Control Products, P.O. Box 1109, Grand Prairie, Texas 75051. Many librarians have given me assistance in my work. I am particularly grate¬ ful to the staffs of the three libraries I used most heavily: the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin, and the Yale University Music Library, New Haven. Dr. Joachim Jaenecke of the Staats¬ bibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz graciously met with me in Berlin and corre¬ sponded several times regarding sources. I thank Dr. Rudolf Elvers for permission to reproduce in facsimile manuscript pages from the collection of the Staatsbib¬ liothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz; I am also grateful to Ingrid Franke, Petra Gibisdens, and Gisela Kochinke. At the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek Dr. Karl-Heinz Kohler and Eveline Bartlitz assisted me and answered my letters. I thank Dr. Wolf¬ gang Goldhan for permission to reproduce in facsimile manuscript pages from the collection of the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek. Finally, the Yale University Library staff has unfailingly responded to my requests. I am very grateful to Harold Samuel, Kathleen Moretto, Alfred B. Kuhn, Warren Call, and the others at Yale. I also thank a number of other librarians, who assisted me by answering my questions and requests for microfilms: the late Rita Benton, the University of Iowa Music Library, Iowa City, Iowa; Dr. Oswald Bill, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek, Darmstadt; Wallace Bjorke, The University of Michigan Music Library, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Dr. Helmut Claus, Forschungsbibliothek Gotha; Sheila M. Craik, Euing Musical Library, University of Glasgow; Dr. Rudolf Dempe, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek des Bezirkes Schwerin, Schwerin; Vincent Duckies and John A. Emerson, The University of California Music Library, Berkeley, California; Dr. Albert Ernst, Universitatsbibliothek Munster; W. Hofrat Dr. Franz Grasberger, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna; Ruth Hilton, New York University Music Library, New York; Dr. D. van den Hul, Gemeentemuseum, The Hague; Dr. Istvan Kecskemeti, Orszagos Szechenyi Konyvtar, Budapest; Dr. Kratzsch, Zentralbibliothek der deutschen Klassik, Weimar; P. Krause, Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig; Prof. Agostina Zecca Laterza, Biblioteca del Conservatorio de Musica Guiseppe Verdi, Milan; FrancoisLesure, Bibliotheque nationale, Paris; A. Martiny andB. Poll, Bibliotheque du Conservatoire Royal de Musique, Brussels; the librarian Meissner, Staatliche Museen Meiningen; Dr. Hedwig Mitringer, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna; Paula Morgan, Princeton University Library Music Collection, Prince¬ ton, New Jersey; Jon Newsom, Wayne Shirley, and William Lichtenwanger, The Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.;0. W. Neighbour, V. H. Cummings, H. M. T. Cobbe, and Arthur Searle, The British Library, London; Dr. Wolfgang Reich, Dr. Burgemeister, and Dr. W. Steude, Sachsische Landesbibliothek,

Acknowledgments

xvii

Dresden; Dr. Milada Rutova, Narodnf Muzeum, Prague; Evelyn W. Semler and Rigbie Turner, The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York; Dr. Jiff Sehnal, Moravske museum, hudebne historicke oddelenf, Brno, Czechoslovakia; Susan T. Sommer, New York Public Library at Lincoln Center, New York; Martin Wittek and Luc Vandevelde, Bibliotheque Royale Albert Ier, Brussels; and Hanna Zasadowa, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka w Warszawa, Warsaw. In tracking down sources of the concertos that had so far escaped notice, I was fortunate to receive information from many RISM offices in Europe. I am particu¬ larly grateful to the following; Dr. Gertraut Haberkamp of Munich, the late Dr. Cari Johansson of Stockholm, Nanna Schipdt of Copenhagen, Dr. Mirko Velinsky of Prague, and S. V. Zhitomirskaia of Moscow. Lor their assistance in translating letters in Russian I thank Bernard Koten of the New York University Library and Paula Radzynski of the Yale University Library. In the course of my research I occasionally consulted with other specialists to receive information on rare materials or to request advice on a particular problem. Lor their helpfulness I thank John P. Anthony, Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut; Sieghard Brandenburg, Beethoven-Archiv, Bonn; A. Peter Brown, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana; Don Lranklin, The University of Pitts¬ burgh; Dorothy Rubin, Broude Brothers, New York; and Albi Rosenthal, succes¬ sor to the firm of Liepmannssohn, London. Lor technical assistance I am grateful to Jim Hughes and Sal Casella of Mathias & Carr, Inc., New York, and to Lriedrich C. Mueller of the Yale University Library Photographic Service. To my friends I am very grateful for general support and encouragement over the years. I especially thank several of them for the specific help or information they supplied regarding my work: Robert Lynch, Lred Pajerski, Nancy Reich, Ken Suzuki, and Larry Todd. I am particularly indebted to Suzanne Lorsberg for listen¬ ing to my plans at every step of the way, offering suggestions and advice, and reading carefully many drafts of this study. Lor its final preparation I thank Elise DeSanna, who painstakingly typed the last draft. My interest in the music of C. P. E. Bach began in a course taught by Jan LaRue at New York University. Prof. LaRue, who then acted as my dissertation adviser, continued over the years to stimulate, guide, and inspire me, and his own innovative methods of stylistic analysis influenced my approach directly. I warmly thank him for his many contributions. I am also grateful to the rest of the faculty of the music department at New York University, particularly to Martin Chusid and Victor Yellin, who, as members of my committee, made many valuable sugges¬ tions and comments. My parents and the rest of my family have given me many years of loving support. Above all, I thank my husband Jim, for valuing and supporting my work, for sharing with me his own passion for research, and for giving me love and understanding. I dedicate this work to him.

. ■

-

«

’

I

'v

1 Bach’s Activity as a Composer

Although Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach wrote a great deal about the performance of the keyboard music of his time, he included very little about his habits in compos¬ ing music. Some general principles can be inferred from the instructions to per¬ formers in his Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen, in which he advised that players consider the affect of the piece above all.1 Presumably a com¬ poser should consider what emotional state his piece is intended to produce in the listener, but exactly how he should arrive at a decision on note values and pitches remains obscure. Concerning the composition of vocal music, Bach stated in the foreword of his Gellert-Lieder, W. 194, that he considered the entire poem when constructing the melody, in order to make it suitable for all strophes of the text.2 In another of his published writings, “Einfall einen doppelten Contrapunct in der Octave von sechs Tacten zu machen, ohne die Regeln davon zu wissen,” he de¬ scribed a method of composition using chance elements.3 After first choosing at random two series of six numbers each, the “composer” used these numbers in consulting tables that provided a specific pitch and note value for each number. Although interesting for its parallels with twentieth-century methods, the proce¬ dure had only a limited application in eighteenth-century counterpoint, and it must be regarded more as intellectual recreation than serious theoretical writing. Another contribution in this vein, Anleitung so viel Walzer man mit Wiirfeln zu componiren ohne musikalisch zu seyn . . . has been attributed to C. P. E. Bach, but its authenticity must be questioned. The Anleitung appeared as “Op. CXLII” of the publisher J. C. F. Rellstab and dates from after Bach’s death. Rellstab had become involved in a heated dispute with Bach in 1785. After Bach’s death, Rell¬ stab did not hesitate to publish editions of Bach’s works in versions completely different from what Bach originally intended.4 Most telling, the Anleitung is not listed among Bach’s theoretical writings in theNachlassverzeichnis, the authentic catalog of Bach’s estate.5 Less direct evidence of Bach’s opinions on composing may be drawn from the many letters he wrote to friends and publishers. Most of these are confined to busi¬ ness or social matters, but in one letter to the poet Gerstenberg he expressed his reservations about programmatic music.6 In another letter, written in 1780 to Karl

2

Bach’s Activity as a Composer

Wilhelm Ramler, Bach proposed alterations in the text of an aria Ramler had just written as a revision of his libretto, Die Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt Jesu, first published in 1772. Bach’s proposed changes show that he as a composer played an active role in shaping the text he was to set, for he wrote, The Aria you sent is so beautiful, but I wished it began with a tender Adagio at the very beginning in the first section, an Adagio that I could expand, as in all first sections of an aria. Bach went on to outline the possible musical setting of the text, which became the aria “Wie bang hat dich mein Lied beweint,” W. 240/[7] (evidently not present in Bach’s original version as performed in 1778). Musicians at the court of Frederick the Great not only composed, but often wrote essays on the nature of music as well as its performance. Disputes frequently broke out among these musician-theorists of the Berlin school, and the arguments they advanced to defend their views frequently reveal more about stylistic changes occurring during this period than their original formulations did. Bach was said by some to be the author of a short article attacking the treatise on melody written by Christoph Nichelmann, a harpsichordist who shared performing duties with Bach at the Berlin court.8 In this treatise Nichelmann had proposed that there were two ways of composing, that of monody and that of polyphony. A year later his essay was sharply criticized in Gedanken eines Liebhabers der Tonkunst iiber Herrn Nichelmanns Tractat von der Melodie, written under the pseudonym of Caspar Dunkelfeind.9 “Dark enemy’’ criticized sections of Nichelmann's contribution as inconsistent, superfluous, or irrelevant to the subject of melody, and he said fur¬ thermore that the division of the compositional procedure into monodic and poly¬ phonic was an academic one, for an experienced composer could not set one line without being conscious of the whole texture (p. 13). Although Dunkelfeind s arguments directly address the subject of compositional process, there is unfortun¬ ately no way to be sure that C. P. E. Bach was the author of these arguments. The Dunkelfeind essay is not listed among Bach’s theoretical writings in the Nachlassverzeichnis. Thus, except for the few statements known to have been made by Bach in his writings and letters, the composer provided no direct answers to ques¬ tions about his working habits. Fortunately, Bach left behind autograph scores for many of his compositions. The many deletions and corrections in the scores of his keyboard concertos reveal in a startling way how restless he was as a composer, how eager to perfect his music. The wealth of autograph evidence partly compensates for the lack of com¬ ment by the composer on his creative habits, for by tracing the successive changes made in a passage, one can discover Bach’s process of decision-making. While many of Philipp Emanuel Bach’s works have been preserved in auto¬ graph sources, very few sketches are extant. The paucity of sketch material and the abundance of corrections within the autograph scores might lead one to conclude that it was not Bach’s habit to sketch. However, it is noteworthy that many of the sketches preserved are found together on the same leaves with complete composi-

Bach’s Activity as a Composer

3

tions in final form. It may be that the composer normally discarded his sketches, and only a few survived, because these few happened to be written on a leaf of paper that also contained a complete composition. The autograph manuscript Dbrd B Mus. ms. Bach P 742 provides an example of this.10 This bifolio contains sketch material on f. lr and 2v (bottom), while f. lv, 2r, and 2v (top) contain fair copies of the keyboard pieces W. 116/21 and W. 116/22. The presence of these complete pieces on the inside of the bifolio probably accounts for the survival of the sketches. The sketches appear to present the flute sonata, W. 87, arranged for violin and keyboard, but cannot serve as a suitable performing copy. Only the up¬ per melodic line is given (on single staves throughout) as a composite of the violin and keyboard parts, indicated by frequent abbreviations “V” and “C.” In this instance, at least, Bach produced sketches resembling those of Beethoven in sev¬ eral ways: 1) he omitted clef signs, key and time signatures, but not accidentals; 2) he combined the musical material of all instruments into one composite melodic line; 3) he wrote abbreviations and short descriptive phrases in prose to remind himself of his intentions; 4) he employed linking symbols to indicate the new order of material in crossed-out passages; and 5) he used rests to take the place of passages omitted in a sketch. Although it is difficult to judge exactly how much sketching preceded Bach’s preparation of a score, it is evident that much of the shaping of the work still went on in the score. The autograph sources of the keyboard concertos contain many erasures, deletions, and additions, some of great length requiring a new piece of paper to be pasted over the old. Furthermore, the process of alteration did not necessarily stop when the score was completed. Particularly during the 1740s, Bach revised works he had written several years earlier. The Nachlassverzeichnis provides dates of both composition and revision for no less than thirty works. While these revisions appear to have been Bach’s attempt to correct or modernize his earliest works, he also prepared alternate versions for some of his later works. The distinction between the two types of revision may be seen in the Nachlassver¬ zeichnis. For the first type, the correction of a youthful effort, the word “erneuert” (renewed) is used, as in the dates given for Bach’s first keyboard concerto: “No. 1. A moll. L[eipzig] 1733. E[meurt] B[erlin] 1744.”11 For revisions of the second type, in which the new version is merely an alternate to the old and not meant to replace it, two separate entries appear in the catalog. Consequently, Bach’s revi¬ sions of the trio W. 91/4 and the sonatas of W. 50 are listed: “Variations on the fourth sonata of the second part of the trios. H [ amburg]. In a copy of the first part of the reprise-sonatas variants in his own hand have been entered here and there.”12 The original versions of these two works had already been mentioned on pages 14-15 (W. 50) and on page 42 (W. 91/4). Variant versions of many other works exist in autograph sources, not all listed in tht Nachlassverzeichnis. This catalog, although fairly complete and accurate in listing Bach’s works, could not so readily have included every one of his numerous alternate versions.13

4

Bach’s Activity as a Composer

Bach also prepared arrangements of many of his works, and in the process he often altered the original slightly. Of the works listed in Wotquenne’s thematic catalog, no fewer than ninety-five exist in arrangements made by the composer. Additional arrangements will undoubtedly be uncovered as more of the sources are studied, and also as these and other works become more readily available than they have been in the past. The study of Bach’s total output is further complicated by Bach’s frequent practice of borrowing, generally from his own works, but also from those of his father and Georg Philipp Telemann, his predecessor in Hamburg. Bach’s many borrowings in vocal works written in Hamburg have been identified and discussed by Heinrich Miesner.14 According to Miesner, none of Bach’s twenty passions is completely newly composed; all draw on existing materfal, mostly Bach s Lieder.15 Borrowings may also be found among Bach’s instrumental works. Several movements in Bach’s sonatinas (W. 96-110, most scored for harpsichord, horns, flutes, violins, viola, and bass) are actually arrangements of his pieces for flute or violin and clavier, W. 81, or the little character pieces he wrote honoring acquaintances and friends, which bear their names (listed under W. 117).1 Since the sonatinas contain a part for 1 ‘ cembalo concertato, ” the structure of these works has been compared to that of the concertos. Considering their actual roots in solo and chamber music, these sonatinas should also be discussed in relationship to the little keyboard pieces and the formal models Bach used in his light music. Bach’s tendency to revise, arrange, quote, and borrow marks him as a composer of great flexibility and complexity. The fortunate abundance of autograph sources makes it possible to study the genesis of individual works, as well as their subse¬ quent revisions. Of particular interest is the notion that Philipp Emanuel Bach re¬ vised some of his works to make them more “modem.” Since he lived from 1714 to 1788, and his compositional activity took place over a wide span of time just when the transition in style from Baroque to Classical occurred, some understand¬ ing of this style change might be gained from a study of his revisions. The goal of the present study is to investigate Bach’s habits in writing concer¬ tos and to elucidate if possible the details of his compositional process. The con¬ cern will be less with the “finished product’ than how it came into existence. Such a study of course entails a thorough look at the sources their authenticity, prove¬ nance, and status as documents that might reveal Bach’s creative process.

2

Problems of Authenticity

The numerous revisions, variants, and arrangements of the works of C. P. E. Bach obviously produce a high degree of complication in his sources. But this is only the beginning of the problems of authenticity. In addition, Bach belonged to a family with several members who were composers, so some confusion inevitably resulted when a scribe simply wrote “Concerto di Bach” on a set of parts. Finally, Philipp Emanuel had become well known throughout Europe not only as a composer, but also as the author of the widely-known Versuch. His name could be expected to sell music, so like the names of other famous composers, it probably became attached to more music than it should have. In his correspondence Bach attempted to rectify false attributions whenever possible. In a letter of 15 September 1774 he found it necessary to write, “The concerto in B-flat is not by me; neither are the three fughettas.”1 Conflicting or doubtful attributions occur in the sources of at least nine con¬ certos, and C. P. E. Bach has been proposed as the possible author of several more. Moreover, he might have written alternate versions or otherwise unknown arrangements of concertos by himself and others. The most famous in this group is the variant of J. S. Bach’s Concerto in D Minor, BWV 1052, which has been cata¬ logued as BWV 1052a and suspected to be the work of Philipp Emanuel (see pp. 114-17).

Early Catalogs of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach’s Works A number of early catalogs and lists of Philipp Emanuel Bach’s works were pre¬ served and have traditionally formed the basis for evaluating the authenticity of compositions attributed to him. These sources of information guided the work of many who have written dissertations on the music of C. P. E. Bach: Erich Beurmann, Gudrun Busch, Ernst Suchalla, and, most recently, Darrell Berg.2 In the last few years, close scrutiny of C. P. E. Bach’s autograph scores has produced unequivocal evidence that C. P. E. Bach himself kept a catalog of his compositions.3 No manuscript of such a catalog has survived, but its existence can be inferred from the presence of numbers written by Bach as part of the title he

6

Problems of Authenticity

provided on copies of his works prepared by himself and others. These are the numbers associated with the concertos in the Nachlassverzeichnis, which of course was published after Bach’s death, so the numbering system had to have existed during Bach’s lifetime, when he himself was able to use it in preparing title pages. Typically, two numbers appear on the title pages, a first one in C. P. E. Bach’s hand, and a second one in parentheses, which generally appears to have been written by someone else. For instance, on Bach s own copy of his solo keyboard arrangement of the Concerto in F Major, W. 42 (D-brd B P 713) the notation “No. 158” appears at the top, and above this, “(168).” 168 is the num¬ ber in the Nachlassverzeichnis (p. 21). For most of the concertos the number in parentheses is the same as the original number. The solo keyboard listings appear to have undergone much more revision, so that the number in parentheses usually differs from the first number.4 Furthermore, the first number occasionally appears to have been written over or altered by Bach himself, so it seems likely that he revised his catalog at some point. In any case, it is the parenthetical number that corresponds to that of the Nachlassverzeichnis. Very probably, several people had a hand in writing the parenthetical numbers—Bach, his wife, his daughter, or possibly friends and copyists. Bach’s catalog may have been limited to his in¬ strumental works, for similar numberings are not found on sources of his vocal works, and the Nachlassverzeichnis does not number the vocal works either. The existence of one or more catalogs prepared by the composer-is not sur¬ prising, considering the care with which Bach conducted his business matters. From his correspondence with Breitkopf it is evident that Bach frequently became impatient when his works were not published as soon as he thought they should be, or payments not made promptly. He concealed this impatience when possible by gracious phrases, references to the family of the addressee, and words of thanks for anything that might possibly be construed as a favor shown to him. At the same time, however, he persistently but politely referred to whatever he thought due him, often reserving his request for a postscript, as if it were an afterthought. His love of order is reflected in a letter of 2 December 1772 to Breitkopf, in which he alluded to some confusion in a business matter involving the Winter family, saying, “Long live order and industry! What good is the best heart without them!”5 In a letter of 16 March 1774 Bach asked Breitkopf to settle his account promptly, and he revealed his own distrust of relying only on one’s memory in his comment, “I love order, as you do. We are mortal men.”6 There is evidence that Bach methodically saved reviews and other notices of his works, for with a letter to Breitkopf of 28 July 1786 he enclosed a review published two years earlier.7 In the foreword to his Gellert-Lieder, W. 194, dated “Berlin, den lsten Februar, 1758,” Bach stated that the songs were presented in the order in which he wrote them.8 Since the collection contains some fifty-five songs, this statement implies scrupu¬ lous record-keeping coupled with an awareness of the historian s concerns atti¬ tudes not shared by all composers. Such an awareness might have developed in

Problems of Authenticity

7

Philipp Emanuel Bach as he became increasingly involved in contemporary efforts to provide an account of his father’s life and works. The realization of how rapidly events can become obscured by time might have prompted him to update his own records continuously. Without a catalog or careful records of some kind it would have been difficult for Bach, after forty-four years of composing activity, to say precisely how many keyboard pieces he had written. Yet, he was capable of doing so in a letter he wrote to Forkel in 1775: “My works for solo keyboard number 173 pieces, partly sonatas, partly little collections of character pieces. Of these 173 pieces just 99 are printed.’’9 In 1775 Bach could give Forkel this ready summary of his output, for he had just written his autobiography. This autobiography appeared in the German trans¬ lation of Charles Burney’s The Present State of Music in Germany, the Nether¬ lands, and the United Provinces.10 Here Bach listed his published works up to that time (1773), and also provided an inventory of the total number of various types of compositions, both printed and in manuscript (p. 207). A later catalog of Bach’s published works, with prices, was prepared by Breitkopf and sent to Bach, who entered some additions and corrections and re¬ turned it to Breitkopf.11 Such a catalog may have resulted from a request of a cus¬ tomer. To cite a similar but earlier example, Leopold Mozart had requested a list in a letter dated “Salzburg den 6ten Oct. 1775”: “If you would enclose a little list of all works of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach available from you, NB with prices added, that would be much appreciated.”12 The surviving list by Breitkopf can hardly have been prepared in answer to Leopold Mozart’s request, however, since it dates from some ten years later than the elder Mozart’s request. The list was probably prepared during 1784 and 1785; the last items date from 1785, but the fifth collec¬ tion of Sonatenfur Kenner und Liebhaber of that year (W. 59) had to be squeezed in under the others in the series, indicating it was not entered until after the main part of the catalog had been written. According to Wilhelm Hitzig, this catalog was enclosed in a letter Bach wrote to Breitkopf dated 28 July 1786.13 This letter men¬ tions nothing about the catalog, however. Furthermore, in his corrections of the catalog Bach mentioned his “deutsche Gesangbuch,” which very probably refers to the Neue Melodien zu einigen Liedern des neuen Hamburgischen Gesangbuchs (W. 203), which was not published until 1787. The composer’s remarks in the foreword of that edition are dated 30 July 1787. The catalog could have been sent after 30 July 1787 either in one of Bach’s subsequent letters, or in a packet of music, or it could have been delivered personally by one of Bach’s friends who happened to be going to Leipzig (a not infrequent procedure, judging from the correspondence). A thematic catalog in Bach’s hand of his minuets and polonaises was listed by the firm of Leo Leipmannssohn in Katalog 174: Musiker Autographen [22 October 1910], p. 6, item 98: “Eigenhand, thematisches Verzeichnis von Menuetten u. Polonaisen des Komponisten, zumeist in dem ‘Musikalischen Vielerley, Hamburg

8

Problems of Authenticity

1770’ abgedruckt.” According to Liepmannssohn’s catalog description, this item was believed to have come from Forkel’s estate, and presented pieces listed under W. 116, but most in different keys and with minor variants. However, the copy of the Liepmannssohn Katalog 174 retained by the firm contains the word “doubt¬ ful” {zweifelhaft) scribbled over both items 98 and 99, the latter purporting to be a thematic catalog of a musical library containing works of several composers, poss¬ ibly the library of C. P. E. Bach, with corrections to this list in his hand.14 From the sketchy information available, Albi Rosenthal has suggested that the doubts con¬ cerning the authenticity of these two items must have arisen aftei the printing of the catalog but before the sale. The notes Bach scribbled on Breitkopf s catalog represent the last known statement he made concerning his compositions. After he died, his wife Johanna Maria assumed the responsibility of meeting requests for copies of his works.15 In answer to an inquiry of Sarah Levy, the pianist who was Felix Mendelssohn s great-aunt, and a loyal subscriber to Bach’s printed works, Johanna Maria Bach wrote a fairly detailed list of her husband s works, in a letter of 5 September 1789.16 These early records present a remarkable degree of agreement concerning the basic facts of how many works Bach composed in each category, and when each originated. The sources from Bach’s lifetime are also consistent with what is prob¬ ably the single most significant record of his works: the Verzeichniss des musikalischen Nachlasses des verstorbenen Capellmeisters Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach

(already cited as theNachlassverzeichnis), published two years after Bach’s death. In the preparation of this estate catalog, Bach’s own records were not only repro¬ duced, but also subjected to some editing. This editing is implied in a letter Johan¬ na Maria Bach addressed to Breitkopf, dated 4 March 1789, in which she offered Breitkopf the opportunity to publish the Nachlassverzeichnis.17 In this letter Maria Bach made it clear that the catalog would list all of her deceased husband’s works, not merely those available from her, and that work was then proceeding on the catalog: I also offer you the publication of the catalog, which is now being prepared. This catalog will actually contain an account of all works of my deceased husband. Thus it will include not only what may be obtained from me, but also whatever he had written. Then, the catalog—wholly prepared by the deceased—of his portrait collection as well as the number of musical books he left, his instruments, the music that I still possess of my deceased father-in-law J. S. Bach, of my husband’s brothers, and of other more or less famous composers—this will be included at the end.18

Later Catalogs After the Nachlassverzeichnis of 1790 there followed a number of other catalogs, prepared with varying degrees of accuracy and completeness. These catalogs are to

Problems of Authenticity

9

a great extent dependent on each other, and some of the more recent ones merely transmit the same information found in earlier sources, sometimes not completely accurately. Diagram 1 illustrates the lines of interdependence among the catalogs. The wholly derivative sources are shown below the dotted line in Diagram 1. Bach’s friend and admirer Johann Jacob Heinrich Westphal (1756-1825), an organist in Schwerin, compiled several lists of his compositions.19 Westphal be¬ gan by copying out reviews and notices of Bach’s works. His handwritten volume is now preserved in the Bibliotheque Royale Albert Ier, Brussels, and is titled Besammlete Nachrichten/vonldem Leben und Werken/des/Herrn Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach!Kapellmeister in Hamburg/nebst/einer Sammlung verschiedener Recensionen und Beurtheilungen/seiner herausgegebenen Werkelgesammlet und zusammen getragenlvon/J. H. Westphal.20 This volume appears to have been

compiled gradually over a period of several years, for most of it is written on three different types of paper, but ten other papers of varying sizes are also found within it. The Besammlete Nachrichten begins with the autobiography of Bach that had been published in the German edition of Burney’s travel diaries. Westphal copied out the autobiography on the inside columns of each page, and in the outer columns he entered the full title and publisher information for each work next to its mention in the autobiography. This first list, which occupies f. 4v-9r, could have been completed by 1786, since the last editions named in it date from that year. It is known that Westphal had prepared a catalog of Bach’s works even before the com¬ poser’s death, since in a letter to Westphal of 8 May 1787 Bach mentioned that he was temporarily keeping Westphal’s catalog of his works, and Bach praised West¬ phal for his systematic order.21 Bach may have been referring to this list on f. 4v9r of the Besammlete Nachrichten, or to a copy of it. Westphal’s next catalog was his Chronologisches Verzeichnissl von den sammtlichen Werken des Herrn Kapelmeister/ Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, sowohl gedruckte alsi auch in Kupfer gestochene.22 Westphal wrote in the inner

columns of each page the title, publisher, number of leaves, and price of each edi¬ tion under the year of its publication, reserving the outer columns for listing the various reviews of each edition, followed by the page number in the Besammlete Nachrichten on which the review had been copied. This catalog, then, can still serve as a bibliographical tool in finding contemporary reviews of Bach’s works. In spite of its title, this second effort of Westphal did include nineteen unpublished works under the heading “In Manuscript sind bekannt’’ (f. 25v-26r). Westphal must have compiled his chronological list over a period of several years. The inner columns were probably not begun before 1786, since Westphal was able to enter an edition from that year in the proper place. The inner columns must have been completed around 1790, for editions published or acquired by Westphal after that date had to be squeezed into the outer columns, in the place normally reserved for review citations. The outer columns continued to be filled during the next few years; the latest review listed dates from 1792.

10

Problems of Authenticity

Diagram 1 Interdependence among Early Lists and Catalogs of the Works of C. P. E. Bach [C. P. E. Bach’s own catalog]

I

[C. P. E. Bach’s revised catalog]

the works of C. P. E. Bach (1905) v

♦unpublished sources. For full citations of the sources in this diagram, seepp. 121-23. notes 10. 11. 16. 20. 22. 23. 26. 29. 30, 32.

Problems of Authenticity

11

Neither of these first two catalogs had contained any musical incipits. Around 1792 Westphal began an even more ambitious project: the preparation of a the¬ matic catalog of the works of C. P. E. Bach. This handwritten volume is also now preserved in Brussels.23 The title. Catalogue thematique des oeuvres de Ch. Ph. Emm. Bach, does not appear to be in Westphal’s hand, and in any case he should have had no reason to be writing in French. This title was probably written by Fetis.24 Westphal began his new thematic catalog by listing published items in chronological order under each heading, then undated items, and finally unpub¬ lished but dated items, also in chronological order. Under each heading (solos, concertos, symphonies, etc.) Westphal established three columns on the verso pages, using lightly-ruled lines in pencil to maintain proper vertical alignmen I the left column he listed the title, publication information for published works, and number of leaves. In the middle column he entered the place and date of composi¬ tion. The right column was reserved for mentioning subsequent editions, arrange¬ ments, transcriptions, reviews, and other details. Westphal apparently copied the middle column directly from the Nachlassverzeichnis, since the information is presented in the same order and with the same abbreviations: “Frankfurt 1735, E. Berlin 1747” (f. 8v). This column could have been written at a different time than the two outer columns, for the middle column was entered in red ink and the two outer ones in black for the most part. In the left column only the key of the piece is entered in red, apparently in a conscious effort to set it off from the rest of the text. In the right column, citations of reviews are in red, following other information in black. On the facing recto page Westphal copied the musical incipits for each item listed on the previous verso page. He found the incipits not in the Nachlassverzeichnis, but in his own large collection of the works of C. P. E. Bach, which was subsequently acquired by the Brussels Conservatoire. Not only are Westphal’s in¬ cipits occasionally longer than those in the Nachlassverzeichnis, but they also fol¬ low all the peculiarities of the musical readings in Westphal’s collection. Compare for example, the musical reading of W. 8, measure 2, in tht Nachlassverzeichnis, Westphal’s catalog, and his manuscript copy of that concerto (B Be Ms 5887). Westphal’s catalog and his manuscript copy both contain the same wrong note. The Nachlassverzeichnis, however, presents the correct reading, showing that Westphal did not rely on it for his incipits. Westphal continued to add to this carefully-conceived catalog over a period of several years. The section on keyboard sonatas must have been written between 1792 and 1802, for on f. 32v a Rellstab edition of 1792 fits into the numbering of the whole section, but a Hoffmeister edition of 1802 does not. Similarly, in the section listing various keyboard pieces, an edition of 1799-1800 had to be squeezed in without an assigned number in the series on f. 17v, while editions dating from 1789 were included in the normal manner (see f. 17v,nos. 3-5). Thus an approximate dating of 1792-1800 can be given for Westphal’s thematic cata-

12

Problems of Authenticity

log. He may not have had a chance to finish it, for the last two leaves contain the pencilled lines for alignment that were normally erased after haying served their function. Later in the nineteenth century a copy of Westphal’s thematic catalog was prepared and deposited in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, where it still may be seen (D-ddr Bds Mus. ms. theor. K. 490, hereafter cited as K. 490). On the inside flyleaf of this copy someone added the pencilled date “April 1868.” And, while Westphal’s name cannot be found anywhere on his own thematic catalog, it has been pencilled in on the title page of K. 490: “Catalogue thematique/des Oeuvres de C. Ph. Em. Bach./[in pencil:] von Westphal." The page numbering of the Ber¬ lin copy, which differs from Westphal’s original, became a means of identifying sources in the Berlin collection, which often contain pencilled notations such as “Them. Kat. 77, 3 (Nach. 34,45)” found on a manuscript copy of the Concerto in D Major, W. 43/2 (D-brd B St 509). Here “Them. Kat. 77, 3” refers to the third incipit on page 77 of K. 490, and “(Nach. 34, 45)” to the page and number of this concerto in the Nachlassverzeichnis.25 K. 490 obviously represents not just a copy of Westphal’s catalog, but also the independent investigations of one or more Berlin librarians, who have occa¬ sionally added clarifying notations to the listings of K. 490 after consulting the music preserved in the Berlin collection or the Nachlassverzeichnis. For exam¬ ple, on page 15 of K. 490, next to the incipit for the Trio for Two Violins and Bass published in 1751 (W. 161/1) someone has added in red ink, “C moll.” This was necessary since the incipit given, equal in length to that in Wotquenne s catalog, may be interpreted either as in E-flat major or in C minor. On page 42 of K. 490 there is another entry in red ink not found in Westphal s original catalog next to the listing of the Clavierstiicke mit 22 Veranderungen, W. 118/2: The variations are only partly byC. P. E. Bach. Seetht Musikalisches Allerlei 1. c.”27 In the issue of the Musikalisches Allerley in which this piece and its variations were published, the work appears without attribution initially; it is simply titled Clavierstiick mit Veranderungen.” Subsequently the composers of some individual variations are identified in headings above the variations, as on p. 194: “ 12te Veranderung von Herrn C. Fasch,” and “13te Veranderung von Herrn C. P. E. Bach.” C. P. E. Bach is also named as the author of the fourteenth and seventeenth variations (pp. 195-96). This important information remained buried in the Berlin catalog. The Nachlassverzeichnis mentions these variations, but in such a way that C. P. E. Bach’s contribution would have been clear only to someone consulting the printed editions: “ . . . and some variations on an Italian arietta follow, which are printed in the Musikalisches Allerley and Vielerley along with the arietta.”28 This exam¬ ple shows that in order to interpret the Nachlassverzeichnis correctly, one must consult the early editions it mentions. In an effort to reduce the number of musical incipits in the Nachlassverzeichnis, its editors resorted to omitting incipits for pub¬ lished works, citing only the publications instead.

Problems of Authenticity

13

The next catalog of C. P. E. Bach’s works appeared in C. H. Bitter’s biogra¬ phy ofC. P. E. Bach and his brothers, published in 1868.29 Bitter had been aware of Westphal’s catalog, for he mentioned it (II: 342-44) and the letter of Johanna Maria Bach (II: 307—11) as well as the Nachlassverzeichnis (II: 344). Bitter was the first to attempt a general chronological listing of all of Bach’s works, instead of separating them by genre. The available data, of course, did not allow strict accuracy in such a list, for although a certain sonata, trio, and symphony might be known to date from a particular year, one could not determine the order in which Bach composed these three works. Bitter did not include thematic incipits in his catalog, but he did indicate the key and time signature of each piece. In 1905, thirty-seven years after the publication of Bitter’s catalog, Alfred Wotquenne brought out the first modem thematic catalog of the works of C. P. E. Bach: Catalogue thematique des oeuvres de Charles Philippe Emmanuel Bach (1714-1788) (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1905). Although Wotquenne’s catalog was an important contribution and is still the standard reference work for C. P. E. Bach, it actually omitted a number of his vocal works: two oratorios, nineteen pas¬ sions, fifteen cantatas for the installation of new ministers, and various other com¬ positions (all listed in the Nachlassverzeichnis, pp. 56-61). Although Wotquenne knew of the Nachlassverzeichnis and even included it as W. 279, he apparently did not consult it for the preparation of his catalog. Nor did he utilize Bitter’s previous contribution, for various works such as the cantata for the installation of Haseler as minister, which Bitter discussed and quoted (I: 264—65) do not appear in Wot¬ quenne’s catalog at all. Wotquenne, who was librarian of the Brussels Conserva¬ toire, had a few years earlier prepared the first two volumes of his catalog of the Conservatoire library, which contained Westphal’s collection of the works of C. P. E. Bach. The procedures he had adopted for this inventory undoubtedly influenced his approach to ordering the thematic catalog, and a few explanatory notes from the library catalog were incorporated verbatim into the thematic catalog.30 Wotquenne apparently also consulted Eitner’s Quellen-Lexikon in order to include some items that were not represented either in Westphal’s catalogs or his manuscript collection.31 Without doubt, however, Wotquenne relied most heavily on the thematic catalog prepared by Westphal, as he himself acknowledged in his fore¬ word. In general he retained Westphal’s divisions but rearranged the order of these divisions as well as the sequence of the individual entries. Instead of grouping pub¬ lished concertos at the beginning of the section, as Westphal had done, Wotquenne combined published and unpublished concertos into chronological order, with un¬ dated items last. This decision left Wotquenne with a format that did not allow both the date of composition and the date of publication to be given for published works. Wotquenne solved this problem by simply omitting the date of composition for published works, but he did rely on this date to determine the order of individual entries within a section. Since this policy is nowhere explained, the reader has no » way of knowing why, for example, the Concerto in B-Flat Major, W. 25, follows

14

Problems of Authenticity

W. 24(1748) and precedes W. 26(1750), for the only date given for W. 25 is that of the edition (1752), not the date of composition (1749). In short, although Wotquenne’s thematic catalog was a major contribution in its time and has fulfilled an important function, to rely on it exclusively would be a mistake. Even though it is the most recently published catalog, it is neither the most complete nor the most reliable. Concertos of Doubtful Authenticity \

Since many early catalogs of C. P. E. Bach’s works can be shown to have origi¬ nated with the composer himself, his family, or his friends, these early catalogs must be considered sources of the first importance in dealing with problems of authenticity. Furthermore, with respect to the concertos at least, these catalogs all agree. In his autobiography of 1773 Bach listed nine concertos that had been pub¬ lished with his knowledge and consent, and he stated he had composed altogether forty-nine concertos.32 This information coincides with that of the Nachlassverzeichnis, pp. 26-35, which lists forty-nine concertos composed before 1773, the date of the publication of the autobiography, and three more thereafter, for a total of fifty-two. In her letter of 5 September 1789 Johanna Maria Bach had put the total number of concertos at fifty-two,33 and this same total was given in J. J. H. Westphal’s thematic catalog.34 The incipits provided in Westphal’s catalog show them to be identical with the fifty-two concertos listed in the Nachlassverzeichnis. In view of this high degree of consistency among the catalogs, any concerto attributed to C. P. E. Bach but which is not in the Nachlassverzeichnis must be regarded with some suspicion. The composer’s own record-keeping efforts, as well as the writings of those close to him, present quite a consistent overview of his activity. Of course, in listing his works even a composer might be guilty of in¬ accuracies or omissions, especially if his career extended over five decades, as Bach’s did. He might also deliberately suppress some of his early compositions, if he later judged them to be unworthy. C. P. E. Bach did write, in a letter of 1786, that he had burned several of his old works.35 Accordingly, even the authority of the Nachlassverzeichnis cannot be absolute, but it still remains a highly authorita¬ tive source of information about the works of Philipp Emanuel Bach. Concertos Attributed to C. P. E. Bach, Not Listed in Early Catalogs of His Works A number of the concertos attributed to Bach but not found in early catalogs of his compositions can be readily identified as the works of others (see Appendix B). In this group are the concertos in D minor and B-flat major cataloged as Wq. n. v. 33 and 36 by Paul Kast in his list of Bach manuscripts formerly in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek (App. B, XI, X2).36 These concertos have been identified as works of

Problems of Authenticity

15

Nichelmann, for' his autograph scores have been preserved.37 Other concertos ascribed to C. P. E. Bach are works of his brother Johann Christian. A concerto in A major published by C. and S. Thompson of London contains an attribution to “Sigr. Bach of Berlin”: “A Favourite/CONCERTO/for the/HARPSICORD/OR/ Piano Forte/Composed by/Sigr. Bach of Berlin si 6d/London. Printed for C. andS. Thompson No. 75 St. Pauls Church Yard ...” (Appendix B, X6). This title page contains a clue to dating the edition: the address “75 St. Pauls Church Yard” is known to have been that of C. and S. Thompson from around 1763 to 1776.38 The same concerto also appeared under J. C. Bach’s name, in an edition by Hartknoch possibly dating from 1771,39 In a manuscript copy of this concerto (A Wn PhA 73, film copy) it is attributed to “Carlo Filippo Emanuele Bach,” and the owner’s name and date are also written on the title page: “E. L. Gerber./Leipzig Maj:/1768.” Although E. L. Gerber contributed an important study of musicians of his time in his Historisch-biographisches Lexicon der Tonkiinstler (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1790-1792; rev. ed. Leipzig: Kiihnel, 1812-1814), at the time he copied this concerto he was a twenty-two-year-old student at the University of Leipzig and had not yet begun work on his Lexicon A second case of conflicting attribution between the two brothers is repre¬ sented by the manuscript D-ddr GOl Mus. pag. 5/6; this source contains an attribu¬ tion to C. P. E. Bach, but the concerto preserved is actually Johann Christian Bach’s Op. VII, no. 5 (Appendix B, X3).41 Another source of this concerto existed before World War II in the library of the Singakademie, Berlin, but is no longer available (D II 1472v). According to Uldall, who studied the Singakademie manu¬ scripts before the destruction and dispersal caused by the war, the concerto had originally been ascribed simply to “Bach,” although “in London” had been added to the score; Philipp Emanuel’s initials were added later.42 Such confusion over the authorship of works attributed only to “Bach” should not be surprising, considering that three of Philipp Emanuel ’ s brothers were also composers. In one instance the tangle of misattribution actually involves three of the four brothers (Appendix B, X7). An F-minor concerto that begins with some striking octave leaps has been ascribed in various sources to Philipp Emanuel, Johann Christian, and Wilhelm Friedemann. Notations made on the extant manu¬ script copies of this concerto indicate that the confusion of attribution might have resulted if this work represented some compositional effort on the part of both Phi¬ lipp Emanuel and Johann Christian Bach, during the time the latter spent in Berlin. An outer cover of the one manuscript copy contains an octagonal label with a title in the hand of Nichelmann: “Concerto ibt per il Cembalo/ dal Sgr. J.C. Bach detto il/ Milanese/ riveduto dal Sgr. C. F. E. Bach” (D-brd B St 482).43 Nichelmann could not have written this label until the time that J. C. Bach became known as a “Milanese,” i.e., after he left Berlin in 1754 and before he settled in London around 1763.44 Nichelmann died in 1761 or 1762,45 so the time span during which he penned this attribution can be narrowed to 1754— 1762. Nichelmann did not pre-

16

Problems of Authenticity

pare this manuscript copy himself; the scribe who did attributed the concerto to C. P. E. Bach on the title page of the cembalo part. Another manuscript copy of this concerto, D-brd B St 483, only clouds the issue further, for its title page reads, “F mol./CONCERTO/per il Cembalo Obligato/col/Due Violini,/Viola/e/Basso./Del Sigr. C. F. E. Bach” and continues in a different hand, “(vonJoh. Cretien bearb. in Berlin unter E. Aufsicht. ’ ’ This source belonged to Grave, the lawyer and friend of Bach who assembled a large collection of his works.46 A third manuscript copy of this concerto existed at one time in the Singakademie, Berlin (DII 1472z), but is now lost; Uldall saw this source and reported that it contained an attribution to C. P. E. Bach.47 In a manuscript copy of unknown provenance (D-brd B P 680) the work is attributed to Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. A manuscript copy in the hand of Johann Christoph Altnickol is now in the Gorke collection (D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. 40) according to Hans-Joachim Schulze, who reports the title-page inscription as ‘‘Concerto/da/J. C. Bach” and identifies the writer of this title page as “Johann Christian Bach.”48 The ubiquitous concerto in F minor appeared attributed to C. P. E. Bach in Breitkopf’s thematic catalog. Part IV, of 1763, where it was listed with his concer¬ tos in G major, W. 16, and A major, W. 19, under the heading “HI. Concerti di C. P. E. Bach, a Cl. ob. c. Viol. V. B. Race. III.”49 Even though Bach carried on extensive correspondence with Breitkopf, the manuscript copies of Bach’s works supplied by this firm bore no special authority, for Bach wrote to a friend in a letter of 7 October 1774: “The things in manuscript that Breitkopf sells by me, are partly not by me; at least they are old and erroneously copied. ”50 Although no concertos in F minor by Philipp Emanuel were listed in the Nachlassverzeichnis, various listings of a concerto in this key by C. P. E. Bach may also be found in the catalogs of the Hamburg publisher Johann Christoph Westphal (17277-1799; unrelated to the Schwerin organist J. J. H. Westphal). Johann Christoph Westphal’s Supplement of 1777 contains the puzzling entry “Bach, C. P. E. 1 Clav. Cone, fur F moll, ist F dur 4 [Mark]:—[Schilling].”51 Two keyboard concertos in F minor by C. P. E. Bach appear in Westphal's catalog dated “Von 1777 bis 1778” along with seven others of his, and one of the F minor concertos persisted into Westphal’s listings of December, 1780, where it is found with two other concertos of C. P. E. Bach.52 Westphal’s total listings of works by C. P. E. Bach increased dramatically in his catalog of 1782. Under the heading “Geschriebene Clavier-Sachen” are twenty-six concertos of C. P. E. Bach, of which one is listed as “1 Clav. Cone. F moll 4 [Mark]:—[Schilling.]”53 In subse¬ quent catalogs Westphal included a few concertos of C. P. E. Bach, but none in F minor. J. C. Westphal acknowledged several errors in his C. P. E. Bach listings in a letter to J. J. H. Westphal of 29 May 1789, including an F minor concerto, which, he said, was by J. C. Bach.54 All of these attributions to Philipp Emanuel may stem from the single error made by the firm of Breitkopf, an error probably then continued by J. C. Westphal.

Problems of Authenticity

17

If so, the large-scale copying activity of these firms would easily account for the survival of several copies with false attributions, copies which might even have been acquired by someone like Grave.55 In any event, the authorship of this con¬ certo cannot be easily resolved, for in yet another manuscript copy, D-brd B P 680, it is ascribed to Friedemann: “Concerto per il Cembalo/da/Wilh. Freidemann Bach.” The concerto has been published in modern editions as a work of Philipp Emanuel and also as one of Friedemann.56 Charles Sanford Terry included it as a work of Johann Christian in his thematic catalog of the composer’s works, but in the second edition of Terry’s book, H. C. Robbins Landon expressed misgivings about the authenticity of some of the keyboard concertos in Terry’s catalog and stated that recently there has been some attempt to attribute some to Friedemann Bach.57 The F-minor concerto is not discussed in several other thematic catalogs of the three composers involved. It has been either unintentionally omitted out of a lack of awareness of all the conflicting attributions, or purposely ignored out of a natural desire to avoid the whole thorny problem.58 The attribution puzzle with this concerto requires further research before it may be conclusively solved. In the meantime, the weight of the evidence favors Johann Christian as the composer, since Nichelmann must have written the attribu¬ tion to him within a few years of the composition of the work, and Nichelmann had been in contact with C. P. E. Bach, for he had entered the service of Frederick the Great in 1744. Of course, the feud which developed between Nichelmann and Phi¬ lipp Emanuel around 1755 might have influenced the amount of credit Nichelmann was willing to give his rival. Still, the absence of this concerto in the Nachlassverzeichnis, and the positive attribution to J.C. Bach by someone in a position to know, signify more than the attributions to C. P. E. Bach in publisher’s catalogs known to be inaccurate. Stylistically the concerto is clearly in the North German tradition, as are the concertos J. C. Bach wrote in Berlin, which are preserved in autograph scores (D-brd B P 390). On stylistic grounds it is only possible to say the work might be by J. C. Bach. Another concerto in F minor is ascribed to C. P. E. Bach in a manuscript copy now preserved in Gotha (D-ddr GOl Mus. pag. 5/7; Appendix B, X8). This work may be the second concerto in F minor mentioned in J. C. Westphal’s catalog dated “Von 1777 bis 1778” mentioned earlier (see note 68 to this chapter). This concer¬ to has been established as a work of Georg Benda.59 It appears in Breitkopf’s cata¬ log of 1763 as a work of Benda, where, because of the alphabetical ordering by composer, it follows immediately after the listings of concertos by C. P. E. Bach, and this proximity might have caused the confusion.60 Several other concertos preserved in only one source bear attributions to C. P. E. Bach. Since these concertos are not mentioned at all in the Nachlassverzeichnis nor in any other catalog, and since no further information may be gleaned from the manuscript copies preserved, these works can only be regarded as dubious. In this

18

Problems of Authenticity

group are a Concerto in E-Flat Major owned and partly copied by J. E. Oppel (Dbrd B St 522), which Uldall proposed might be by one of the other composers of the Berlin circle (Appendix B, XI l).61 Concertos in G minor and E minor ascribed to C. P. E. Bach and simply to “Bach” have been preserved in the Library of Con¬ gress (US Wc M 1010. A2B13 L. C. 1 and L. C. 2; Appendix B, X12, X14), but little can be learned of their provenance. Like the copy of W. 15 in the Library of Congress, these sources bear the scribbled name of a previous owner, “Uarell or “Agrell.” Uarell also owned a copy of W. 5 now preserved in Berkeley (US BEu Ms 727), which was prepared by the same copyist who copied the two unknown concertos now in the Library of Congress. Concertos Attributed Only to “Bach” or Lacking an Attribution Manuscript copies exist of several concertos that are only attributed to “Sig. Bach.” Two now preserved in Gotha were formerly in the possession of C. E. Boyneburg, a professor in Eisenach, whose collection came to the Gotha Forschungsbibliothek in 1945 (Appendix B, X24, X25).62 Inaccurate or incomplete attributions abound in this collection. As previously mentioned, two Gotha sources attribute concertos to C. P. E. Bach that were composed by J. C. Bach (D-ddrGOl Mus. pag. 5/6) and Franz Benda (D-ddr GO 1 Mus. pag. 5/7). In addi¬ tion, the Gotha copy of C. P. E. Bach’s Concerto in A Major, W. 19, gives “Guis. Fr. Bach” as the composer. The Gotha sources of W. 18 and W.25 bear the non¬ committal—and consequently ambiguous—attributions “da Sigr. F. Bach” (DddrGOl Mus. pag. 4/1) and “del Sigr. Bach” (D-ddr GOl Mus. pag. 4/2). For this reason, in the handwritten catalog of the Gotha collection W. 18 and W. 25 are grouped together with two other concertos in C minor and F major also by a “Sigr. Bach” under the heading “Section4. Konzerte fur Klavier/ Bach.”63 The Concer¬ to in F Major (D-ddr GOl Mus. pag. 4/4) is by Johann Christian Bach.64 The Con¬ certo in C Minor (D-ddr GOl Mus. pag. 4/3) remains unidentified, but there is no evidence that it was composed by Philipp Emanuel Bach. In his catalog of the Bach manuscripts formerly in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, Paul Kast listed the works by an unspecified Bach as “Bach-Incerta.” This group also included some works with no attribution which, because of their provenance, were thought to be by a Bach family member.65 Under this heading Kast cataloged three concertos as Bach-Incerta 35, 36 and 37. The Concerto in B-Flat Major, Bach-Incerta 35 (D-brd B St 144) has as its final movement a fugue on the name BACH (Appendix B, X20). Its title page bears an attribution to J. S. Bach, as well as the signature of a previous owner, Voss-Buch, who obtained it from the estate of the Hamburg organist Johann Christoph Westphal (1773-1828), according to an inscription at the bottom of the page: “aus dem Nachlass des Organisten/Westphal zu Hamburg, 1830./1523 Ad. 3.” The number “1523” refers to the entry for this work in the catalog of West-

Problems of Authenticity

19

phal’s estate published in 1830.66 Westphal had acquired a large part of his collec¬ tion from his father, the Hamburg music publisher Johann Christoph Westphal (172 7 7-1799).67 This concerto with its concluding fugue on BACH is probably identical to a work which appeared in the publisher Westphal’s catalog of 1783: “Bach, Joh. Seb. 1 Clavier-Concert, con Fuga a 5 p. B dur 4 [Mark]:— [Schilling]."68 No special authority should be attached to this attribution of Westphal’s for, although the Hamburg music dealer sold works of C. P. E. Bach, he did not necessarily receive music directly from the composer. After all, he competed with Bach in supplying the public with manuscript copies of works by members of the Bach family. Little is known of the provenance of the Concerto in G Major, Bach-Incerta 36 (D-brd B St 616; Appendix B, X21). The manuscript copy of it shows several signs of having been rapidly prepared. The first and second violin parts are given in a kind of shorthand on the same page, and the second violinist is expected to play with the first violinist but shift to the lower staff when his part differs. The viola and bass parts are also written together on the same page, so that, although only three parts could be listed in Kast’s catalog (p. 93), the source is not incomplete, for all five parts (Cembalo, Violin 1, Violin 2, Viola, Bass) are present. Further evidence of carelessness or haste may be seen in the crossed-out notes, use of re¬ peat signs for repetitions only two measures long, and the direction at the end of the violin parts in the last movement: “is continued to the first ritomello.”69 In the absence of other information about this source, one can only guess that the attribu¬ tion merely to “Bach” was added with similar haste and lack of thought. The Concerto in D Major, Bach-Incerta 37 (D-brd B St 624) actually does not contain an attribution even to an unspecified “Bach” (Appendix B, X22). A note now found with the source by J. K. Wolf identifies it as a work of Seifert: “Re: Bach St 624. This cembalo part belongs to Seifert Mus. ms. 20665, J. K. Wolf. Feb. 4, 1965.” Another concerto with no attribution, in B-flat major, was listed as “Wq. n. v. 67” by Kast, probably since it was found with manuscript copies of W. 32 and W. 43/l(D-brd B St 619; Appendix B, X23).70 The three concertos at one time were part of a large collection of manuscripts distinguishable by a numbering sys¬ tem employing a combination of roman numerals, arabic numbers, and letters, all written on the title page of the source (Facs. 1). The anonymous Concerto in B-Flat contains the notation “ 14a (I No. 30)” on its title page, and on the other two con¬ certos in St 619 is written “14b (I No. 31)” and “14c (I No. 32).” Similar nota¬ tions on other Berlin sources make it possible to order these three concertos within a larger group (see Table 1), in which several of the same copyists are encountered (for information on the designation of copyists, see Appendix C). Five of the above sources contain an owner’s signature on the title page: “Otto v. Voss” (St 196, St 194, St 214, St 215, St 543). A handwritten catalog of a collection owned by “Freiherr von Voss” has been preserved, and its title further

20

Problems of Authenticity

identifies this owner: Verzeichnis von denMusicalien/des/Koenigl. Wiirkl. Geheimen Etats-Kreigs-und dirigirenden/Ministre, pp Herrn Freiherrn von Voss, Excellenz (D-ddr Bds Mus. ms. theor, Kat. 21). This thematic catalog allows all of

the sources listed in Table 1 to be identified as stemming from the collection of Voss, since the arabic numbers in this catalog on pp. 8-10 correspond to the arabic numbers on the title pages. One additional concerto of C. P. E. Bach, the Concerto in G Major, W. 34, appears in Voss’s catalog simply as “56” on p. 12. The num¬ ber 56 found in parentheses on the title page of D-brd B St 213 further links this source to Voss’s collection; its numerical separation from the other concertos of C. P. E. Bach in the catalog could have been because W. 34 is identified as an organ concerto on the title page of St 213, and the other concertos were for harpsichord. Table 1 Berlin Sources with Numbers in Parentheses on the Title Page Number on Title Page

Source (All D-brd B)

Wotquenne

Copyist of

Number

Title Page

(i[!] No 8) 7a (I No 9) 7b (I No 10) 7c (I No 11) 7d (I No 12) 7e

St 202 St 208 St 201 St 196 St 194

11 24 43/2 43/4 43/6

E C and E

(I No 13) 7f (I No 14) 7g (I No 15) 7h (I No 16) 7i (I No 17) 7k (I No 18) 71 I No 19 II No 11 (I No 20) 7m (I No 21) 7n (I No 22) 8 (I No 30) 14a (I No 31) 14b

St 205 ?

43/3 ?

F

St 211 St 214

33 3 7 43/5

C E C An702

17 18 14

E E ?

46 Wq. n.v. 67

? ?

32 43/1

F F

(I

No 32) 14c

St 219 St 215 St 543 St 366 St 207 St 209 St 619 St 619 St 619

F An702 An702

The collection represented in this catalog belonged to Otto Karl Friedrich v. Voss (1755-1823), whose father, Hieronymus v. Voss, had become owner of the regions Buch and Karow (north of Berlin) in 1761.71 Otto v. Voss played a prom¬ inent role at the Prussian court, as the title of his catalog indicates. After his death in 1823 his son Karl Otto Friedrich v. Voss (1786-1864) inherited the collection and in 1851 donated it to the Berlin Staatsbibliothek.72

Problems of Authenticity

21

It is difficult to ascertain how particular items happened to become part of the Voss family collection. Martin Falck reported that some Bach manuscripts in the Voss collection had been acquired from the estate of Friedemann, but gave no documentation for his statement.73 In the Voss catalog some entries in Section 8 are marked “mainly from Heering’s estate,”74 and indeed, someone has written the name “Hering” on the manuscript copy of W. 34 belonging to Voss, men¬ tioned earlier (D-brd B St 213). From his study of manuscripts of J. S. Bach atone time belonging to Voss, Werner Neumann raised the possibility that the collection might have even originated with Hieronymus v. Voss, who could have acquired music from C. P. E. Bach during the composer’s time in Berlin; in any event, according to Neumann, not all of the Bach sources in the Voss collection stem exclusively from Friedmann’s estate.75 And, although the Voss catalog names Hieronymus’s son Otto as the collector, Otto’s son Karl might have added to the collection after his father’s death in 1823, if he is the “Voss-Buch” named on the copy of the Concerto in B-Flat Major, Bach-Incerta 35 (D-brd B St 144), discussed earlier. This source came from the sale of Johann Christoph Westphal’s estate held in 1830, seven years after the death of Otto v. Voss. Voss’s catalog cannot be regarded as a very reliable source of information, since the Concerto in D Minor, W. 17, is listed as a concerto of Sebastian Bach, and the attributions for W. 18, W. 32, and W. 43/1 are either missing or entered in a different hand.76 The unidentified Concerto in B-Flat Major, preserved in St 619, may be found in its proper place in the sequence of numbers, but in the catalog, as well as on the manuscript copy, bears no attribution to anyone.77 In view of this, it seems likely that the numbers on the title pages in the Voss collection represent only the personal filing system of the owner and indicate nothing concerning au¬ thorship. The Concerto in B-Flat Major, Wq. n. v. 67, should be regarded as an anonymous work that by chance happened to be placed with concertos by C. P. E. Bach. Most of the instances of conflicting or doubtful attributions in concertos by C. P. E. Bach appear to have resulted from the hectic pace of music copying by eigh¬ teenth-century music dealers, and from the understandable confusion in deter¬ mining which member of the large Bach family might have composed the work at hand. Even in this century a deliberate falsification of a C. P. E. Bach concerto, supposedly for four viols, has been identified by Charles L. Cudworth (Appendix B, X9).78 In correspondence with publishers, C. P. E. Bach demonstrated his awareness of the attribution puzzles caused by carelessness and avarice and, as if to compensate for this, he left a record of his compositional activity that his wife could draw on to prepare the catalog of his estate. The Nachlassverzeichnis, together with the early lists by Bach, his wife, and his friend J. J. H. Westphal provides an overview of Bach’s works that is as clear and consistent as one can hope to find for any composer no longer able to speak for himself.

. ■

,

-

’

3 Provenance of the Sources

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach played an active role in the transmission of his works. Early in his career he assumed the responsibility of an entrepreneur, supplying manuscript copies of his compositions, setting prices, keeping records, and strug¬ gling against the competition of professional music dealers. In order to carry on these activities he evidently found it necessary to employ several music copyists. For the most part little is known of these copyists, but they have come to be re¬ garded as associated with C. P. E. Bach since his own corrections appear in many manuscripts they copied. Consequently, in addition to the normal division of sources into autograph and non-autograph, one must consider a third group: copies that originated within the composer’s own establishment. Such copies have ob¬ vious significance for determining accurate readings and preparing modem edi¬ tions. Moreover, these copies provide evidence concerning other puzzling mat¬ ters, particularly the authenticity and dating of alternate versions of the concertos. The Preparation of Manuscripts by Bach and His Copyists Philipp Emanuel Bach’s voluminous correspondence with his friends and with publishers offers an occasional glimpse of the way in which he arranged for copies to be made. Other remarks and notations made by those around him also yield a smattering of information. But by far the richest source of clues to his working habits are his musical manuscripts and his own copies of printed editions of his works. From these sources, and from the letters Bach wrote, it is possible to recon¬ struct the normal process of how his works came into existence, from initial in¬ spiration to the eventual distribution of a musical product. The Role of the Composer The beginning of the process probably included some sketching activity on the part of the composer, as discussed in chapter 1, although very few sketches have been preserved. However, without question Bach made many compositional decisions while preparing the score. Like his father, he often changed his mind on the spot,

24

Provenance of the Sources

writing a new solution to the musical problem at hand right after his initial one. In other cases he apparently settled on a new version only after a period of reflection, after he had written out the entire composition. Then, in order to record the change in the score, he erased when possible, or crossed out the original version and wrote the new one close by. For example, revisions in the keyboard part are often written in the string parts above, if these parts happen to be sufficiently blank at the pas¬ sage in question. If neither erasure nor insertion was possible, Bach occasionally resorted to copying out the revision on a scrap of paper, which was then pinned or glued onto the score. For extensive revisions he could also simply recopy part of the score, and discard the entire bifolio containing the supplanted version. Such extensive revisions remain hidden from the modem observer, however, since Bach normally wrote his scores on successive bifolios, instead of uniting the bifo¬ lios into gatherings, as was customary for the manuscript copies (Diagram 2).2 Diagram 2 a.

Bifolio Structure of

b. Gathering Structure of

graph Scores

Cembalo Part in a Manuscript Copy

1-

1-

2-

2-

3

-

3

4

-

5

-

6

-

6-

7

-

7

-

8

-

8

-

C. P. E. Bach’s Auto¬

-

;□

After the completion of the score, or even after the completion of one move¬ ment, the copying of the parts began. Bach himself occasionally wrote out parts but, judging from the preserved sources, more often entrusted this work to his copyists. Since the copyists frequently worked from an autograph score that through successive revision had become illegible or ambiguous, mistakes in their copies are most likely to occur during measures in which Bach had altered his score. These mistakes, as well as other copyist’s omissions and errors, could be caught during the final stage of the whole process: Bach’s perusal of his copyist’s work.

Provenance of the Sources

25

Simple though this process may seem, matters became much more compli¬ cated when the various stages of composition, revision, and copying of parts did not always progress in the usual order. A comparison of the various sources of a concerto frequently indicates that Bach undertook further revision in his autograph score after allowing copies to be made from it. One striking example of how such earlier versions may be identified even in non-autograph sources can be cited from the Concerto in E-Flat Major, W. 2. Although the Nachlassverzeichnis (p. 26) indicated this early concerto had been revised by the composer after several years (“L[eipzig] 1734. E[meurt] B[erlin] 1743”), the earlier version remained unknown, for no source was known to pre¬ serve it. Around 1762 Huberty had issued an edition of this concerto with readings differing from those of the autograph score at some points. Since the Huberty edi¬ tion was an unauthorized one—Bach ignored it when writing his autobiography and his corrections of Breitkopf’s handwritten catalog3—the variant readings may at first glance appear to be liberties taken by an unscrupulous publisher. However, an examination of Bach’s composing score under ultraviolet light yields the aston¬ ishing information that the erased notes in the autograph are the same as those in the Huberty print! Thus, the version preserved by the erased notes must have ex¬ isted long enough to be copied, and then it was published by Huberty. Of course, it is still not definite that the Huberty version is the one of 1734, since it may repre¬ sent one stage in the revision undertaken in 1743. Not all of the revisions Bach undertook appear listed in the Nachlassverzeichnis. Still, the possibility exists that Bach did not recopy the concerto when altering it in 1743, but merely erased cer¬ tain passages in the first score he had prepared in Leipzig. Furthermore, this dis¬ covery allows us to regard the Huberty print with new respect, and to consult it for the readings of the authentic version it preserves when a few of the erasures in the autograph score cannot even be deciphered under ultraviolet light. Bach’s Copyists Many people prepared copies of Philipp Emanuel Bach’s concertos, copies that the composer then corrected or revised. Not all of these copyists associated with Bach were necessarily employed by him. Certainly some appear to have been students, relatives, or friends, who wanted copies for their own use. But at least in the last years of his life, when Bach carried on an extensive correspondence con¬ cerning the sale and distribution of his works both printed and in manuscript, Bach appears to have employed one or more copyists on a regular basis. In a letter of 10 April 1774 he mentioned that his copyist could prepare a score of a passion cantata, since Bach’s own copy had become worn from being passed around so much: ‘‘If you wish, I will have it copied out neatly for you by my copyist. The score will cost about 5 Thlr.”4 In a postscript to this same letter Bach added as an afterthought, ‘ ‘Just at the present time my copyist needs work. I have given him an accurate copy

26

Provenance of the Sources

of my passion to copy out, because there is a middling chance that someone else I know, other than you, will take it. You are not at all obligated.”5 Although Bach did not name his copyist in this letter, he clearly implied that this person needed or expected regular assignments. The existence of a regular copyist at least during Bach’s Hamburg years can be assumed from the large numberof works, not only ofC. P. E. Bach but also ofhis father and brother, preserved in the hand of a single copyist. This copyist has been identified in notations on various sources as Michel, a tenor in Bach’s choir in Hamburg. The music collec¬ tor Georg Polchau (1773—1836) wrote the following on his partially autograph copy of C. P. E. Bach's Zwey Litaneyen, W. 204: “Herr Michel, tenor in the Ham¬ burg church choir (Bach’s copyist) wrote the soprano part.”6 Bach himself named Michel in writing out the score ofhis St. Luke Passion of 1787 (mistakenly cata¬ loged by Wotquenne as a Matthew Passion, W. 234). Heading the tenor aria ‘ ‘Lob sey dem Mittler, Gottes Sohne” he inscribed, “aria for H[err] Michel, after the words ‘the power of God,’ without ob[oes].”7 Very little other information about Michel has come to light, even though the attention of Bach scholars has been fo¬ cused on Michel as a prominent copyist of J. S. Bach’sworks. Georg von Dadelsen cited a few other mentions of Michel that place him within the time span 1773 to 1789, and raised the possibility that Michel had also been employed as a copyist by C. P. E. Bach’s widow.8 At the present time the most promising source of information about Michel as a copyist is the large body of manuscripts in his hand. From a study of these sources Michel emerges as an extremely careful and painstaking person with a sense of responsibility and an uncommon dedication to neatness and accuracy. In copying J. S. Bach’s Christmas Oratorio, BWV 248, he apparently worked mainly from the autograph score but consulted a set of authentic parts in all doubtful cases and then even added clarifying notations back in the autograph score.9 As reprehensible as this seems to modem musicologists, who quite rightly maintain that a composer’s autograph should not be “corrected” by anyone else, Michel intended only to make two authentic sources consistent, not to add something ofhis own. It is this intent that shows his basic conscientiousness, a character trait of importance in judging his work as a copyist. Michel copied many of C. P. E. Bach’s keyboard concertos. Of course, since he lived in Hamburg, he would have become associated with C. P. E. Bach after the latter’s arrival in Hamburg in 1768. Thus, Michel’s copies of Bach’s early Ber¬ lin concertos must have been prepared many years after these works had been com¬ posed. The existence of variants between Michel’s copies and other earlier copies probably resulted from the composer’s own revisions, which could have been undertaken following an interval of several years after the work first came into being. Another copyist whose work bears corrections in the hand of C. P. E. Bach probably worked with Bach in Berlin. This copyist, Schlichting, wrote down

Provenance of the Sources

27

several of Bach’s keyboard pieces, four of his concertos, and J. S. Bach’s Six Sonatas for Violin and Clavier, BWV 1014—1019 in sources now preserved in Berlin.10 The evidence that Schlichting’s copying activity took place in Berlin rather than Hamburg is to be found in the paper he used. Schlichting wrote out parts for the concertos W. 31 and W. 32 on the paper with an eagle watermark that Bach himself used for a great many of the works he composed in Berlin. In contrast, Bach’s Hamburg works generally appear on paper without a watermark or with only chain lines.11 Seven other copyists whose manuscripts received the composer’s corrections have been identified by Paul Kast. Since the names of those persons remain un¬ known, Kast assigned the numbers An300-An306, following the convention of using numbers at the 300 level for copyists associated with C. P. E. Bach.12 An300, who according to Kast was active from around 1755 to the end of the 1760s, copied a manuscript of W. 35 now in Berlin. An301 contributed some parts of both W. 36 and W. 46, but neither the works he copied nor the paper he used allow him to be linked definitely either to Berlin or Hamburg. An302, however, must have been active in Hamburg, for on a title page for the Concerto in E-Flat Major, W. 35, he identified the composer as “Sig. Bach. inHambourg.”13 An303 is encountered in eight sources of keyboard concertos, but, like An301, cannot be traced to a particular portion of Bach’s career. An304 and An305 both were active in Hamburg, since they copied works of C. P. E. Bach composed in that city.14 An306 produced none of the surviving copies of C. P. E. Bach’s keyboard concertos. In the present study two additional copyists have been found to extend the list of those copying Bach’s concertos in conjunction with the composer. These have been named copyists A and B. Copyist A wrote out part of a score of W. 41, which was then finished by the composer.15 Since Bach composed this concerto in Ham¬ burg, copyist A was probably associated with Bach there. Copyist B collaborated with Bach in writing the viola and bass parts of W. 20.16 The remaining anony¬ mous copyists encountered in more than one concerto manuscript have been arbit¬ rarily assigned letters of the alphabet (see Appendix A). Members of Bach’s family also contributed copies of his works. His brothers Johann Christoph Friedrich and Johann Christian wrote out parts for several con¬ certos. Whether or not his wife, sons, or daughter occasionally copied music re¬ mains unknown; their musical handwriting has not been identified. Georg Schiinemann established that C. P. E. Bach’s daughter, Anna Carolina Philippina, prepared a copy of the Bach family genealogy to which her father added updating information.17 Hans-Joachim Schulze found that she had written a title page and additional remarks within the musical text of a source of partially-autograph varia¬ tions of C. P. E. Bach’s sonatas.18 He reserved judgment on whether or not she also copied music until all of the relevant sources could be checked. A comparison of her hand as seen in the genealogy with words written by various unknown copyists of the concertos has not produced any matching in the present study.

28

Provenance of the Sources

Bach’s Business Dealings Those who wrote to C. P. E. Bach expressing interest in a particular work did not have to order a copy from Bach in order to obtain the music temporarily. On sever¬ al occasions Bach offered to lend his own copy, or referred to music he owned that had been borrowed by someone. For example, in 1787 he wrote to Friedeisen in Itzehoe that his cantata Die Auferstehung undHimmelfahrt Jesu, W. 240, had been published, but that he could loan out the written-out parts of it if Friedeisen desired to perform the work once.19 Of course, whoever borrowed the cpmposer ’ s original could prepare his own copy and thus avoid paying the copyist. How often Bach allowed his own manuscripts to circulate is not clear, but he did so at least occa¬ sionally, for he said in a letter of 10 April 1774, “I intend either to give you the copy, or lend you the original to copy, when it comes back.”20 Necessary for both the lending and copying of music were a library of Bach’s works along with records of who had acquired what, who had paid, and other de¬ tails. The organization of his library might have been an additional reason for Bach to establish the numbering system in evidence on the title pages he wrote, the numbering system later published in the Nachlassverzeichnis. In any event, his library must have included at least one copy of each work, probably the autograph score or corrected copy, except in the case of published works. Once a work was published, Bach apparently considered it no longer necessary to keep his original, for he wrote to Forkel on 10 February 1775: ‘ ‘The seventh sonata enclosed here is a manuscript of mine, which you can keep as a remembrance of me, if you like. You will recognize it—it is in the musicalischen Vielerley, so I do not need a copy of it.”21 For published works, then, it seems likely that Bach kept the edition instead of a manuscript copy in his library. One of his Handexemplare may now be found in the British Library. It is the first edition of his Seeks Sonaten fur Clavier mit veranderten Reprisen, W. 50. On the outer blue cover Bach wrote “First part of my reprise sonatas with some variations.”22 Within the printed musical text Bach entered possible variants in the margin, with numbers and signs that link a passage with its marginal variant. These autograph additions are present for the last two movements of the third and fourth sonatas and all movements of the fifth sonata. The variants in some cases are extensive, involving alterations of melodic direc¬ tion, rhythm, chord rhythm, and tempo that continue for several measures at a time. This Handexemplar may represent the actual composition of the variants, for some crossing-out is to be found in a passage on p. 16. Possibly this copy of the edition is the one mentioned in the Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 53: “In a copy of the first part of the reprise sonatas there are autograph variations written in here and there.”23 While no such Handexemplare have been identified for the concertos, the existence of this one for W. 50 provides additional evidence that Bach methodi¬ cally saved copies of his works, copies in which he could enter changes at any time.

Provenance of the Sources

29

On copies of his works that he intended to keep in his library for reference, Bach was able to keep records of the distribution of the work. For example, on the title page of a score of the Sonatina in D Major, W. 109, Bach wrote, “only Mme. Zemitz has this Sonatina. ”24 The purpose of these records was to reserve a certain number of his works for his own immediate circle, for people whom he could trust not to pass the work on to a publisher or dealer. This allowed his wife a kind of pension after he died, for then she was able to offer unknown things to Breitkopf: There are . . . various sonatas and the like which are completely unknown and which did not go out of his hands. There are many sonatas, symphonies, trios, and the like that only a few friends of my deceased husband received from him, after giving solemn assurance that these items would not leave their hands. Of this we may be all the more certain, since otherwise Hr. Westphal would certainly have them in his catalog. Obviously, I can expect a greater honorarium for completely unknown things than for the others.25

C. P. E. Bach’s intentional withholding of certain of his works as a kind of pension or annuity system explains certain little notes found on title pages of his later concertos, identifying them as “little known” (ist wenig bekannt) or “not very well known” (ist nicht sehr bekannt).26 These notices were not meant as a reminder to himself—which hardly should have been necessary—but as informa¬ tion for his heirs, in order that they might be better able to judge the market value of the work in question. After Bach’s death his wife assumed responsibility for pro¬ viding manuscript copies of his works on request, and after her death in 1795, her daughter Anna Carolina Philippina Bach published a notice that she would con¬ tinue in her mother’s place to supply works of her deceased father and grandfather.27 Bach’s Relationship to Music Dealers and Pulishers Bach fought hard to preserve his rights in the business world. In his letters to pub¬ lishers and dealers he did not hesitate to state amounts, terms of payment, and such matters as unambiguously as possible, even at the risk of betraying his mistrust of the person receiving the letter. In writing to his friends he did not bother to hide this mistrust of publishers, so that occasionally we get a full glimpse of his mis¬ anthropy. In a letter to Kirnberger of 21 July 1769 regarding the edition of his father’s chorales (selections from BWV 253—438) he confided, ‘ The main point is this: that I be paid in advance, for I am quite well acquainted with Birnstiel. ”28 Thus, in reading the polite and even cordial letters Bach addressed to publishers, one must remember that beneath his pleasant exterior he was a shrewd and wary man. Bach’s relationship with Breitkopf can be easily traced in the extensive cor¬ respondence preserved.29 Bach’s letters to Breitkopf show his respect and admira¬ tion for the publisher. At times Bach alluded to events in their personal lives, such

30

Provenance of the Sources

as the marriage of Breitkopf’s daughter,30 or his own son’s stay in Leipzig, showing that a friendship going beyond business matters had developed. Still, Bach continued to request that his account be settled promptly. In his Catalogo de soli, duetti, terzetti, quartetti e concerti per il cembalo e I’harpa, Parte IV of 1763, Breitkopf listed twelve concertos of C. P. E. Bach.32 Of these twelve, one concerto in F Minor was never claimed by C. P. E. Bach to be his.33 The inclusion of the work in Breitkopf’s catalog indicates that he probably originally received these works not from the composer but from someone else, someone only slightly acquainted with Bach. Such things were apparently not at all uncommon. Breitkopf himself spoke of wresting music from the hands of certain musicians and appealed to famous composers to send him lists of their works so he could avoid errors in his catalog.34 From whom Breitkopf received works of C. P. E. Bach has not been estab¬ lished. By 1763 the concertos had circulated widely in manuscript, so several peo¬ ple might have passed them on to Breitkopf. J. W. Hassler offered Breitkopf some of C. P. E. Bach’s keyboard works later in a letter of 23 July 1772.35 Hassler said that, as an admirer of C. P. E. Bach, he had visited the composer in the previous summer and that his playing had received Bach’s approval.36 Breitkopf’s second supplement of 1767 listed eleven additional concertos of C. P. E. Bach, but erroneously attributed one of them, the Concerto in A Minor, W. 1, to Sebastian Bach.37 Although the preserved receipts and letters from Bach to Breitkopf cover the period 1761 to 1788, only a few scattered documents are available from before 1772, so it is difficult to judge how Bach reacted to Breit¬ kopf’s listing of his concertos. By 1773 Bach himself was supplying Breitkopf with copies of his concertos, for he referred to sending six of them in a letter of 24 June 1773.38 The firm's previous inaccurate copies might still have been used, or the copyists might have been careless, prompting Bach to label Breitkopf’s products as old and erroneously copied in a letter of 7 October 1774.39 The publisher Johann Friedrich Hartknoch in Riga listed both published and unpublished concertos of C. P. E. Bach in his catalogs. In his Verzeichniss der praktischen musikalischen Werke, Hartknoch offered the authorized Berlin edition of W. 14, as well as concertos in D major and G minor in manuscript.40 The con¬ certo in G minor was probably W. 32, judging from the instrumentation (“Concer¬ to G mol a cemb. cone., 2 flauti, 2 violini, viola e basso’’).41 In his first supple¬ ment to this main catalog, Hartknoch added Bach’s early double concerto (W.46).42 Bach occasionally mentioned Hartknoch in his letters to Breitkopf. Bach’s relationship to the Hamburg dealer and publisher Johann Christoph Westphal (17277-1799) appears to have been friendly, but businesslike. Bach mentioned Westphal frequently in his correspondence with Breitkopf, in connec¬ tion with the sale and transmission of various works and copies of printed editions. However, like Breitkopf, Westphal must have obtained music from third parties as

Provenance of the Sources

31

well, for he published the fifth of the Prussian sonatas, W. 48, as a work of J. S. Bach.43 Westphal’s printed catalogs provide an overview of a number of concertos by C. P. E. Bach that he could furnish in manuscript, but since his catalog gives no incipits, exactly what concertos he offered cannot be determined. A collection of Westphal's catalogs from 1770 to 1796 includes many references to concertos of C. P. E. Bach, especially in the issue of 1782, which listed twenty-six of them.44 Since four in A major and two in G minor appear listed here, Westphal must have owned copies of all of Bach’s concertos in these keys: W. 7, W. 8, W. 19, W. 29, W. 6, and W. 32. Other entries indicate that Westphal could also offer the organ concerto in G major, W. 34 (catalog of 1777) and the double concerto in F major, W. 46 (catalog of December 1780).45 After Westphal’s death, his music collection passed on to his son, the organist Johann Christoph Westphal (1773-1828), and following his death, the collection was auctioned. The auction catalog of 1830 lists several concertos by members of the Bach family, including forty by Philipp Emanuel, at least thirty-one of which were available in manuscript.46 In the copy of this catalog now in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek the names of Cranz and Behn have been written in as the buyers of these concertos.47 Eventually the collector Otto v. Voss acquired eighteen of the concertos that had been in Westphal’s possession.48 Although these sources can be traced back to someone in direct contact with the composer, they bear no special authority, since it is clear that Westphal acquired at least some works through third parties. While Bach found it expedient or convenient to deal peaceably with West¬ phal, his relations with other publishers were much less amicable. The Augsburg publisher Johann Jakob Lotter (1726-1804) included a concerto of C. P. E. Bach in his catalog of 1753,49 but like his colleagues, very likely acquired it from some¬ one other than the composer. In his Versuch Bach made it known that an edition of sonatas listed in Lotter’s Catalogus aller musicalischen Bucher was unauthorized, possibly contained works not by him at all, or at most, old and badly copied things.50 Finally, Bach’s attitude toward the Berlin dealer and publisher Johann Carl Friedrich Rellstab (1759-1813) was downright hostile. Rellstab, who was fortyfive years younger than Bach, had in 1778 decided to go to Hamburg and try to study under Bach.51 But in 1779 his father suffered a stoke, and from then on he had to take charge of the firm.52 Rellstab became involved in a dispute with Bach in 1785. Rellstab maintained he had bought the rights to Bach’s Reprisensonaten W. 50) from the estate of the deceased publisher Winter. Rellstab wanted to pub¬ lish a new edition, even though Bach still had several copies of the Winter edition left to sell. When the argument could not be resolved, Rellstab proceeded to pub¬ lish the sonatas in 1785, labelling them “Op 1 ,”53 Bach then sold the remaining copies to Breitkopf, who published his own new edition in 1786. The heat of the argument is shown in Bach’s letter to Breitkopf of 26 August 1785: “Enough, I am

32

Provenance of the Sources

not going to waste another word because of that awful man. I am too proud to have anything more to do with him. Nevertheless, he must not remain unpunished.”54 After this dispute Rellstab continued to profess admiration for Bach, at least in public. Following Bach’s death Rellstab even had the audacity to admit to losses from his edition of the Reprisensonaten, in such a way as to suggest Bach s works were not popular. At the same time he hinted that his own motives were only altruistic in continuing to publish works of Bach, since this might be unprofitable. Probably it is really not the time for a music dealer to send works from the inimitable pen of the great C. P. E. Bach out to the musical public, and particularly when the considerable losses of his from the edition of sonatas with varied reprises and the organ sonatas should have made him more careful; but the editor’s weakness is excused if he makes his profit out of being able to understand and treasure C. P. E. Bach’s works, as these works merit it, and that he wishes to bring some to his side . . . . The editor possesses nearly all of the still unprinted things from the estate of the great man and promises, if he only to some extent recovers his expenses, to deliver at least the keyboard sonatas to the admirers of Bach, in time. He had to give up J. S. Bach’s works, since only twenty interested ones had applied for them.55

Here Rellstab also impled that he had acquired copies of Bach’s compositions directly from the composer’s estate, although this is hard to believe, since Frau Bach was certainly familiar with Rellstab’s duplicity. By September 1790 Rellstab could offer fifty-two of Bach’s concertos to the public, the same number as listed in the Nachlassverzeichnis.56 At least two concertos, W. 11 and W. 35, have been preserved in copies stemming from Rellstab s firm, and are now in Brussels. On the main cover for both concertos in the set has been written “found in manuscript, in Rellstab’s music store in Berlin, Gamison Street. ”58 In the lower left-hand cor¬ ner the date “1810” has been entered. These copies from Rellstab’s firm, and any others that might have come from him, bear no special authority, and actually should be regarded with a great deal of suspicion. From Rellstab’s published edition of Bach’s Kurze undLeichte Clavierstiicke, W. 113 and W. 144,59 it is clear that he felt no obligation to publish the pieces as the composer had written them. Originally Bach had provided varied re¬ prises for these pieces as an aid to those who were not able to supply the impromptu embellishments that had become customary for the repeat of a section. Rellstab snipped out the embellished repeats and presented them as separate compositions. Occasionally he had to rewrite the ends of sections in order to accomplish a smooth transition for newly juxtaposed material. Rellstab justified this in the foreword to his edition on pedagogical grounds, saying that Bach’s pieces were too long for the patience of a student.60 Of course, he quietly overlooked the fact that Bach, in writing out the embellished repeats for these “short and easy” pieces, obviously intended them for students. In his discussion of the performance of the works Rell¬ stab began by referring to the composer as “the great C. Ph. E. Bach,” but then proceeded to take issue with many of Bach’s opinions on fingering and on how the

Provenance of the Sources

33

Manieren should be learned.61 All this suggests that Rellstab had more respect for

C. P. E. Bach as a source of income than as a source of enlightenment. Classification of Preserved Sources From the previous discussion of Bach’s working habits and business dealings, one can conclude that the extant sources of his works range from copies he actually supervised and corrected to careless or possibly even deliberately altered copies by music dealers having no connection with the composer. In the interest of knowing what Bach actually intended in a particular passage, it is desirable to compare all the preserved sources, paying particular attention to the manuscripts whose prove¬ nance links them to the composer of his circle. To this end a hierarchy may be established for evaluating the importance of the sources, by dividing them into seven groups: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Autograph or partially autograph sources: The music, whether in score or in parts, is written in the hand of C. P. E. Bach; or, is written by someone else but contains his corrections; or, is written by someone else but has a title page wholly or partially in his hand. Sources known to have come from the composer and very likely seen by him: In this group are the authorized prints, as well as certain manu¬ script sources that may be unequivocally identified as something obtained directly from the composer from the evidence in correspond¬ ence, reminiscences of contemporaries, and so on. (The prints were not necessarily proofread by Bach, however.) Sources in the hand of Bach’s copyists: The manuscript copies in this group bear nearly as much authority as those in group 2, except that some of them might have been produced after Bach’s death, since his wife and daughter may have continued to employ the same copyists. Sources copied or owned by Bach’s students, friends, acquaintances, and family: Very probably these manuscripts were copied from authen¬ tic sources, but may also have been obtained from music dealers. Sources for which there is only incomplete information concerning provenance: More than one previous owner of the source may be identi¬ fied, but it is not always possible to trace ownership back to the eight¬ eenth century. Also, even if an eighteenth-century owner may be named, his or her relationship to C. P. E. Bach remains unexplored. This group includes nineteenth-century manuscripts copied from some unknown earlier source. Sources about which little or nothing is known: No more than one pre¬ vious owner is known, either from the twentieth century or from some unknown period of time.

34

Provenance of the Sources 7.

Unreliable or unimportant sources: “Unreliable” includes any manu¬ script copy that came from Rellstab, for example, since he is known to have altered the works of C. P. E. Bach quite frequently. “Unimpor¬ tant” includes, for example, any manuscript source that can be shown to be a copy of an early printed edition, such as a manuscript copy of W. 14 which quotes the title page of the Berlin edition, even including the imprint “In Berlino./Alle spese di F. L. Winter./MDCCLX.”6“

The sources of Bach’s first concerto, the Concerto in A Minor, W. 1, provide a good illustration of how sources may be evaluated using this hierarchical framework. Bach composed this concerto in Leipzig in 1733 and revised it in Ber¬ lin in 1744.63 He wrote out a set of parts for this concerto, and these autograph parts eventually came to the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, but have been missing since the removal of manuscripts from the library for safe-keeping during World War II.64 No other autograph or partially autograph sources have survived, nor was there an edition of the work prepared under the direction of the composer, so neither of the first two groups mentioned above are currently represented. As so often happens, however, it would be extremely interesting to find out more about the genesis of this piece, since it clearly existed in two different versions. Did Bach revise it because his control of compositional matters had increased from the time of his student days in Leipzig? Or did the musical style in vogue at Frederick’s court in Berlin inspire him to “update” the concerto after Berlin models? Without a fairly firm determination of what constitutes a reliable source of this concerto, not even speculation on these matters may take place. Fortunately, there still exists a manuscript copy prepared by Michel, Bach’s Hamburg copyist (B Be 5887). Admittedly Michel’s copy had to date from at least twenty-four years after even the second version had been composed, since Bach did not arrive at Hamburg until 1768. Still, this copy stems directly from Bach s establishment, and moreover, it was done by one of his most careful and painstak¬ ing copyists. This source now in the Brussels Conservatoire thus falls into the third group described earlier. A score of this concerto now in Berlin (D-brd B P 239) represents the fourth group: sources copied or owned by those close to Bach. Georg Polchau, the pre¬ vious owner of P 239, wrote a general title page for this source in which he identi¬ fied this copy of the concerto as “partly in Kimberger’s hand.”65 Kimberger joined Berlin’s musical circles early in the 1750s when he was named violinist in the royal chapel in Potsdam, and he and Bach maintained a correspondence after Bach left for Hamburg. Kimberger’s score of W. 1 preserves a version unlike any of the rest. It differs extensively from the other sources both in the keyboard and in the string parts. Since Bach very likely would have given Michel his later rework¬ ing of the concerto to copy out, Kimberger’s score probably contains the readings of the earlier Leipzig version of 1733. It is even possible that Kimberger prepared

Provenance of the Sources

35

this score during his stay in Leipzig in 1740 and 1741, when, according to E. L. Gerber, he received instruction in keyboard playing and composition from J. S Bach.66 The remaining sources of W. 1 generally agree with the musical readings of Michel’s copy, but much less may be said about their provenance. A set of parts now in Leipzig (D-ddr LEm Poel. mus. Ms. 41) once belonged to Karl Heinrich Ludwig Poelitz, a professor of history, law, and political science at the University of Leipzig, whose library was acquired by the city of Leipzig in 183 9.67 Although the eighteenth-century origins of this source remain obscure, it was prepared by a rather irresponsible copyist. In writing out the harpsichord part this copyist faced a vexing problem at the end of the first movement: the available space at the end of the page would suffice for all but one measure. He solved the dilemma by rewriting two measures of four beats each as one measure of six beats, thereby guaranteeing confusion when this part was used for the first time. At least he valued precision concerning his copying activities, for he wrote at the end of the keyboard part: “Fined. 2. Nov. 1762.” Even less is known about a manuscript copy of W. 1 now in the library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna (A Wgm VII 23442). The library had ac¬ quired the collection of Ernst Ludwig Gerber in 1819,68 but none of the four con¬ certos of C. P. E. Bach preserved there stem from Gerber’s collection, since they do not bear his usual owner’s mark.69 The last provenance group discussed above, the unreliable or unimportant sources, needs to be mentioned in connection with W. 1, for two manuscript copies of the concerto are, or may be, untrustworthy: D-brd B P 438 and D-brd B P 235. One of these, P 438, only originated in the nineteenth century. It had belonged to Josef Fischhof (1804—1857), a professor of piano in Vienna, whose collection numbered among the richest private collections of the nineteenth century.70 Fischhof copied out the work himself and added a few comments on the inside of the cover: “was composed by Emanual B. in Leipzig in 1733, revised in Ber¬ lin in 1744. See Eman. Bach’s Nachlass pag. 26 Nro. 1. Very probably the first piece is by Sebastian. Also given as Seb. in Hartels [sic] Catalog.”71 The firm of Breitkopf and Hartel, which during C. P. E. Bach’s lifetime had been the firm of Breitkopf alone, had at an early point begun attributing this concerto in A minor to Sebastian Bach.72 Breitkopf himself realized his catalog contained many mistakes in attribution, a state of affairs that has only become clearer with the passing of time.73 In light of this, Fischhof’s remark can only be regarded as a highly speculative one made by someone removed in time and distance from the Bach family tradition, someone who trusted Breitkopf’s accuracy to a degree that has since proved to be unwarranted. The remaining source of W. 1, D-brd B P 235, actually was acquired from Breifkopf and Hartel in the nineteenth century, for in its title page is written, “obtained from the firm of Breitkopf & Hartel in manuscript 1829.”74 Not sur-

36

Provenance of the Sources

prisingly, the original copyist attributed the work to ‘ ‘ Joh. Seb. Bach,

but some¬

one else later crossed this out and substituted “C. Phil. Em. Bach.” Considering the large scale of Breitkopf’s operation, a mistake made by his firm could have been repeated many times as new manuscript copies were prepared from old ones. That appears to have happened with W. 1. Of-the two most reliable sources for this concerto, the copies by Michel and Kimberger,75 neither one attri¬ buted the work to Sebastian. Michel unambiguously named C. P. E. Bach as the composer, while the original copyist of the title page of P 239 wrote only “Sigr. Bach” in black ink.76 The remaining sources of this concerto, for which complete information concerning provenance is not available, all contain at least one attribu¬ tion to Sebastian. However, since all could have been acquired from Breitkopf, or copied from a Breitkopf manuscript, the attribution to Sebastian bears no author¬ ity. Quite rightly Wolfgang Schmieder listed this concerto as BWV An 189 under the heading of works falsely ascribed to Johann Sebastian Bach.

Provenance of Present-Day Collections of C. P. E. Bach’s Concertos

In this section what is known of the provenance of the sources will be presented by their present location, beginning with the largest and most important repositories. East Berlin: Deutsche Staatsbibliothek (D-ddr Bds) and West Berlin: Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz (D-brdB)

By far the largest and most valuable collection of C. P. E. Bach’s concertos was formed by the German state library in Berlin, known as the Konigliche Bibliothek from 1824 until 1919, and as the Preussische Staatsbibliothek from 1919 until 1946.78 During World War II the music manuscripts were sent out of Berlin to several different places to escape the bombing. The manuscripts stored in what later became West Germany remained under the control of Western authorities, while the manuscripts hidden in what later became East Germany were returned to the Staatsbibliothek. The library in East Berlin was known as the Offentliche Wissenschafliche Bibliothek from 1946 until 1954, and, from then until now, the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek. After the war the West German holdings were initially stored in the Westdeutsche Bibliothek, Marburg, and the Universitatsbibliothek, Tubingen. In the 1960s these two collections were moved to West Berlin, to the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Therefore, all Bach manuscripts listed by Paul Kast in Die Bach-Handschriften der Berliner Staatsbibliothek (1958) as being in Marburg or Tubingen are now in the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kultur¬ besitz, West Berlin. The sources of the works of C. P. E. Bach acquired by the Berlin Staatsbib-

Provenance of the Sources

37

liothek over the years number among the most significant to be found anywhere. In addition to the many autograph or partially autograph manuscipts are numerous copies from the collections of Bach’s friends and family. While the ownership of these sources cannot always be traced in a direct line from the composer on to the present time, enough may usually be learned of the provenance to confirm the au¬ thenticity and importance of the source (see Appendix C and Appendix D). The now surviving autograph scores of the concertos at one time belonged to Georg Johann Daniel Polchau (1773-18 36).79 Polchau became a resident of Ham¬ burg in 1799 after his studies at the University of Jena, and in 1813 he moved to Berlin. There he became active in the Singakademie, and after Zelter’s death he assumed the task of overhauling and administering the library of the Sing¬ akademie. Polchau built his own music collection from a variety of sources. Judging from the contents of his collection, he acquired music manuscripts formerly in the possession of the Hamburg organist Christian Friedrich Gottlieb Schwenke (17671822),80 the Viennese music dealer JohannTraeg,81 C. P. E. Bach’s friend Johann Gottfried Miithel,82 as well as many others, including J. C. Westphal, Forkel, E. L. Gerber, and Georg Michael Telemann.83 Polchau not only collected autographs, but made every effort to ensure their complete authenticity. He insisted that an original source not be altered by others, as is seen in his correspondence with Georg Michael Telemann regarding works of Telemann’s grandfather.84 The younger Telemann said he felt completely justified in making corrections in those works of his grandfather that he liked the most. Polchau must have objected strongly to this, for in a subsequent letter Telemann offered a long defense of his “corrections.”85 By 1811 Polchau sold some of his manuscripts to A. Mendelssohn, who in turn donated them to the Singakademie.86 That manuscripts of C. P. E. Bach were in this group is clear from a letter of Zelter to Polchau of 28 June 1811,87 However, there were apparently no sources of C. P. E. Bach’s keyboard concertos in this group. In another letter dated the next day Zelter wrote that he had prepared a pre¬ liminary catalog of Mendelssohn’s donation by entering dashes in red pencil in his copy of C. P. E. Bach’s Nachlassverzeichnis,88 This copy, now in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, contains many red slashes next to items throughout the catalog, but none in the section listing concertos.89 It is quite likely that the autograph scores of the concertos remained in the possession of Bach’s wife and daughter, since they continued to have manuscript copies made of his works on request. Bach’s daughter Anna Carolina Philippina died on 2 August 1804, and apparently at an auction held in the following year her possessions were sold, for the catalog of the auction identifies the items as from the estate of the deceased Kapellmeister C. P. E. Bach.90 Unfortunately, the listings in this catalog give only a rough overview of the auctioned items.

38

Provenance of the Sources

Concertos of C. P. E. Bach appear in the third supplement: 88.

A large bundle of symphonies, sonatas, trios, arias, etc.

89. 90.

-of 20 concertos. -of 10 concertos.

105. 106.

A large bundle of 16 concertos. A bundle with many little pieces, sonatinas, concertos, motets, etc.91

Since the first editions of W. 14 and W. 43 also numbered amOng the items in this collection,92 it could have included all fifty-two of C. P. E. Bach’s concertos. Polchau apparently acquired at least some of the autograph scores of the con¬ certos as late as 1818 from G. Wahler of Altona. A letter dated 9 March 1818 from G. Wahler to Polchau mentioning enclosed concertos of Emanuel Bach is bound with twelve of the concertos in Polchau’s possession.93 By 1832 Polchau had ac¬ quired all the autograph scores of C. P. E. Bach’s concertos now in the Berlin libraries, for he listed them in his handwritten catalog of his collection dating from that year: Die handschriftlichenpraktischen WerckelBerlin den 8ten Mai 1832.94 Polchau’s entries showed that he also owned seventeen other concertos in manu¬ script copies or partially autograph sources: “9. A bundle of seventeen keyboard concertos, partly in the hand of the composer, as well as in the hand of the Biickeburger Bach and Miithel. No. 2. 5. 6. 7. 9. 13. 15. 19. 20. 21.25. 29. 33. 35. 36. 38. 43. 226 bifolios. In parts.”95 After Polchau’s death in 1836 his manuscripts of C. P. E. Bach's concertos passed with the rest of his collection to his son, Hermann Daniel Polchau. The younger Polchau sold the collection to the Konigliche Bibliothek in 1841. follow¬ ing the wishes of his father.96 Polchau maintained a friendly relationship with another music collector of his time, Aloys Fuchs (1799-1853). Their friendship is reflected in a note on the title page of a partially autograph source of W. 20: ‘‘Fur Herm Aloys Fuchs von Georg Poelchau.”97 Polchau evidently presented this gift after 1832, for his catalog of that year still lists a partially autograph source of W. 20 in his collection.98 Fuchs, whose financial difficulties forced him to sell many of his treasures, nevertheless hung on to this gift long after Polchau’s death, for it was listed in a catalog of Fuch’s collection dating from 1853.99 From Fuchs we know that his friend Polchau acquired many things from C. P. E. Bach’s estate, for on an autograph manuscript of a cantata by J. S. Bach, Fuchs wrote, ‘‘This valuable autograph comes from the famous collection of my friend Georg Poelchau in Berlin, who died in 1836. He acquired a large part of the music¬ al estate of C. Ph. Emanuel Bach in Hamburg. ... His musical collection pre¬ sently is one of the greatest treasures of the royal library in Berlin. Vienna, in November 1846.”100

Provenance of the Sources

39

Fuchs became recognized as an authority on musical manuscripts and was called upon for his opinion in many matters not involving his own collection. It has not always been easy to distinguish between manuscripts that he owned and those that just passed through his hands. Through a comparison of many catalogs, Richard Schaal was able to establish that after Fuch’s death his collection was ac¬ quired by Friedrich August Grasnick in Berlin and the Stiftsbibliothek Gottweig (Musikarchiv).101 Fuchs gave many things to acquaintances like S. Dehn, Franz Hauser, Otto Jahn, Ludwig Landsberg, and Georg Polchau. At the present time many manuscripts that previously belonged to Fuchs may be found in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek and the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, because the former Konigliche Bibliothek acquired the collection of Grasnick in 1879, as well as the collections of Fuch’s friends mentioned above.102 Members of Bach’s family copied his concertos or obtained copies of them, and these sources now in Berlin warrant close attention. Johann Christoph Fried¬ rich Bach (1732-1795) wrote out the parts for several concertos, and is identified as the copyist in title-page references to the “Buckeburger Bach.” He competed with his brother Philipp Emanuel for the position of music director of the Hamburg churches.103 Such competition between the Bach siblings was apparently regarded as a normal consequence of being in the same profession, and did not generate any lasting ill-will. C. P. E. Bach included fifteen pieces by Johann Christoph Fried¬ rich in the collection Musikalisches Vielerley of 1770, which he edited.104 Also, Johann Christoph Friedrich visited Philipp Emanuel around 1774 and heard him play in a concert.105 Friendly relations did not persist, however, between C. P. E. and his brother Wilhelm Friedemann Bach (1710-1784). While Philipp Emanuel lived in Potsdam the two were apparently on good terms. Marpurg, in his Legende einiger Musikheiligen of 1786 recounted an anecdote concerning a visit in 1750 of the late “W. F. B.,” the most ingenious improviser at the keyboard and organ of his time, to his brother in “P” [Potsdam],106 In his later years C. P. E. Bach appears to have had little contact with his older brother, and there is evidence that he did not regret this state of affairs. In a letter of 1779 to Forkel, Kimberger men¬ tioned Friedemann, saying “his brother in Hamburg also will have nothing to do with him . . .”107 Wilhelm Friedemann’s alcoholism and his financial difficul¬ ties must have greatly disappointed his frugal and industrious brother. Most telling is the cryptic line C. P. E. Bach added to his copy of the family genealogy under the entry for Friedemann: ‘ ‘ was music director and organist in Halle; resigned his posi¬ tion, and lives without engagement.”108 Although as a keyboard player Friede¬ mann should have been interested in his brother’s concertos, he has not yet been identified as the copyist or owner of any surviving sources. Johann Christian Bach, however, wrote out some of the parts for several of Philipp Emanuel’s concertos. He probably did so during his stay in Berlin; the copy he prepared of W. 32 was revised by the composer.109 Among Bach’s admirers in Berlin was Princess Anna Amalia (1723-1787),

40

Provenance of the Sources

the youngest sister of Frederick the Great. She possessed a library of around 3,000 books and over 600 volumes of music, including scores of eight of Bach’s keyboard concertos.110 Anna Amalia began to study composition herself at the age of thirty-five,111 and her compositions preserved in her library bear dates ranging from 1771 to 1785.112 Her study of music, however, began much earlier. At the age of thirteen she wrote in one of her keyboard exercise books, ‘ ‘This book be¬ longs to Anna Amelie. the third of July Berlin 1737—. ”113 Thus, from the time of Bach’s arrival in Berlin she belonged to the circle of active musicians at the court. When Bach made plans to leave for Hamburg in 1767, she named him her Kapell¬ meister. With Kimberger, her teacher, she began building her'library of music. In her will Anna Amalia left her collection to the Joachimsthalsche Gymnasium in Berlin. In 1914 the collection was moved to the Konigliche Bibliothek, Berlin, where it was preserved intact under the sigla Amalien-Bibliothek. Now the Amalien-Bibliothek is divided between the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek and the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Also associated with C. P. E. Bach in Berlin was a musician named Hering. The name Hering appears on some lists of subscribers to Bach s works, and some pencilled entries on manuscripts in Berlin identify him as “Prafekt Philipp Ema¬ nuel Bachs.”115 Bach mentioned “H. Musikus Hering, dem altem, in Berlin’' in a list of persons acting as his representative for the collection of subscription money in various towns.116 Hering has been identified as the copyist of two concertos of C. P. E. Bach,117 and as the owner of a third manuscript (B Be 5887, W. 27). Since the sources he copied were not revised by Bach, Hering cannot be assumed to be one of Bach’s copyists. Since some sort of business relationship can be documented, however, Hering’s manuscript copies belong to the large group of sources originating with Bach’s friends and acquaintances. Of obvious importance to music history was Bach’s friendship with the early biographer of his father, Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1749-1818). This friendship also needs to be considered in a study of sources of C. P. E. Bach’s works, for Forkel possessed manuscript copies of many of Philipp Emanuel’s compositions in addition to those of his father. The symbiotic relationship between C. P. E. Bach and Forkel developed gra¬ dually over the years. Bach, of course, could provide first-hand knowledge of his father, and Forkel possessed the power of the pen, which he could use to promote the careers of his friends. Forkel became involved in Bach's business dealings, for Bach wrote to Breitkopf that the name of his representative in Gottingen was “Forckel,” whose name should be listed in newspaper advertisements.118 The events surrounding the publication of Forkel’s Musikalische-kritische Bibliothek in 1778 provide an example of the way in which the relationship be¬ tween Forkel and Bach grew to be mutually beneficial.119 In this book Forkel in¬ cluded a lengthy and highly complimentary review of Bach’s Sonatas for Clavier, Violin, and Cello, W. 90 and W. 91.120 He then must have requested Bach to write

Provenance of the Sources

41

a review of his Bibliothek, for Bach declined on the grounds that he could not be impartial.121 But Bach did promise to have someone else review it for the Ham¬ burg Correspondent.122 After Forkel s death in 1819 his sizable collection of books and music was auctioned. The catalog of his estate shows that he possessed many concertos of C. P. E. Bach: all of the authorized editions, and sixteen additional concertos in manuscript. ■ However, the entries listing the concertos in manuscript give only the instrumentation and key of the work, such as in item 193, “_[C. P. E. Bach, Concerto] a Cemb. concert. 2 Viol. Viola c[on] Basso. A dur. Gfeschrieben], 124 Since Bach wrote four concertos in A major, it is not possible to say exactly what Forkel possessed in most cases. He must have owned copies of W. 6 and 32, for the catalog of his estate lists two concertos in G minor, and Bach only wrote two in this key. Also, Forkel probably possessed a copy of the solo arrangement of W. 42, for item 190 is a “—Concerto per il Cemb. solo. F dur G[eschrieben].”125 Beyond this, we only know that Forkel owned the following concertos of C. P. E. Bach: three in A major, one each in A minor, B-flat major, G major, D major, D minor. E-flat major, E minor, F major, G major, and one of the two double concertos (W. 46 or W. 47).126 Forkel definitely received at least some of these concertos directly from C. P. E. Bach. In an undated letter to Forkel, Bach mentioned enclosing six solos and four concertos of his.127 This same letter also indicates that the double concerto in Forkel’s possession was the one in F major, W. 46, for Bach said, “In addition to the enclosed concerto in F I have also written two sonatinas for two harpsi¬ chords.’’U8 Like other collectors, however, Forkel built his library from a variety of sources. He is known to have received copies of the works of J. S. Bach from Kimberger, who also engaged a copyist to prepare a score of a chorus by Graun for Forkel.129 Forkel also received assistance in acquiring rare items from Carl Friedrich Zelter (1758-1832), whom he visited in Berlin.130 Among Bach’s friends who collected his music in Hamburg was Christoph Daniel Ebeling (1741-1817). Ebeling headed an academy for the training of businessmen.131 Charles Burney described Ebeling as “a man of letters, and an extremely well-informed dilettante in music.”132 Ebeling translated the first volume of Burney’s travel diaries for the German edition. While Burney was in Hamburg, Ebeling organized a concert in which C. P. E. Bach participated.133 Ebeling’s interest in Bach’s music dated from Bach’s years in Berlin, however, for on his copy of the Winter edition of the Concerto in E Major, W. 14, Ebeling wrote, “C. D. Ebeling/1762.5,134 Ebeling also owned a manuscript copy ofW. 5 in its early version (D-brd B St 197), a copy with the inscription “Nov. 4. 1758” on its title page, and “C. D. Ebeling 1770” at the end of the keyboard part. Less is known of another close friend of Bach, the lawyer Grave in Greifswald,135 who owned copies of at least eighteen of Bach’s keyboard concer¬ tos. A letter from Bach to Grave is dated 28 April 1784, showing that Grave’s

42

Provenance of the Sources

collecting activity took place late in Bach’s career.136 In this letter Bach chided Grave for subscribing to an upcoming edition of his music, saying that he gladly gave out copies to his friends. Bach also mentioned sending three concertos, one sonatina, and one trio.137 Grave himself copied out some or all the parts for ten of the concertos, and added notations or wrote in cadenzas on three more. He posses¬ sed copies of W. 5 and W. 19 in the hand of Michel. This is an important piece of information, since it confirms the impression created by the correspondence, that Grave was in close contact with Bach and received music directly from him, either already copied by Michel, or on loan, so that Grave could prepare his own copy. The manuscripts in Grave’s possession characteristically bear his name, a roman numeral at the top of the title page, and often an arabic number on the top right hand comer. Also, at the bottom of the title page there is generally a four-digit number. These distinctive markings suggest that two sources were part of Grave s collec¬ tion, even though he did not write his name on them (see Facsimile 2). Also acquainted with C. P. E. Bach, although apparently not closely, was the musician Johann Gottfried Miithel (1728-88). Bode, in the translation he pub¬ lished of Burney’s travel diary, added a long footnote giving details of Miithel’s life.139 Miithel visited J. S. Bach in 1750 just before Bach’s death and also travelled to Berlin to see C. P. E. Bach. According to Bode, Miithel returned to his position at the Mecklenburg court after his travels and stayed there for about two more years.140 Since he left the court in 1753, he must have spent 1751 to 1753 at the court. But since his permission to visit J. S. Bach was only granted in May 1750,141 and he also spent time in Dresden and Hamburg, he probably stayed only a few weeks with Philipp Emanuel Bach, and certainly no longer than a few months. Miithel and Bach continued to correspond over the years.142 Miithel copied several solo keyboard works of C. P. E. Bach, as well as four of his concertos.143 In his will Miithel left all his possessions to his brother Gottlieb Friedrich and his brother’s children.144 Robert Gordon Campbell has suggested that Miithel’s music collection passed from his brother to Georg Polchau, who had grown up in Riga.145 This hypothesis gains support from a notice in Polchau's hand on a manuscript copy of W. 19: “in the hand of J. G. Miithel, student ot J. Seb. Bach.t, in Riga 1788.”146 Miithel’s student Johann Gottfried Wilhelm Palschau (c. 1742-1813) owned a copy ofC. P. E. Bach’s first concerto, W. 1 (D-brdBP239). Bach evidently also knew Palschau, but is said to have disapproved of the way Palschau played his works.147 During his long career Bach became acquainted with many of the most prom¬ inent musicians of his time. Of the sources now in Berlin of unknown provenance, some might very well have belonged to Bach’s pupils and acquaintances. Heading the list of these probable owners of Bach’s concertos are Karl Friedrich Christian Fasch (1736-1800), Christian Friedrich Gottlieb Schwenke (1767-1822), Johann Gottfried Vierling (1750-1813), and Karl Eugen von Wurttemberg (1728-1793).

Provenance of the Sources

43

Several important collections of C. P. E. Bach’s works made after his death or by persons not obviously close to Bach are now preserved in the Berlin libraries. In this group are the collections of Otto v. Voss,148 Johann Ludwig Freiherr von Pretlack (1716-1781), Friedrich Wilhelm von Thulemeier (1750-1811), and Ludwig Christian Erk (1807-1883). The Pretlack collection was acquired by the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz in 1969.149 Several members of the Pretlack family, whose home was in Darmstadt, had careers in the military. Johann Ludwig served in the imperial army from 1734 on, first in the regiment of Johann August, Duke of SachsenGotha, and from 1741, in the regiment of Carl Eugen, prince, and later duke, of Wiirttemberg.150 Joachim Jaenecke has established that some items in the Pretlack collection had been the property of Johann Ludwig’s first wife, Friederike Sophie, countess of Epstein, while others had belonged to his stepbrother, Johann Franz (1709-1767).151 The copies of concertos by C. P. E. Bach in the collection, though, either bear the pencilled initials “L. v. P.” or the full name “Louis v. Pretlack,” clearly indicating their origin as his property. Furthermore, these sources were all prepared by the same copyists from music in the collection of the Darmstadt court, with which the Pretlack family had many ties.152 After the death of Johann Ludwig in 1781, his collection passed down through succeeding gen¬ erations of the family, until its sale to the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz.153 Friedrich Wilhelm von Thulemeier, who served as the Prussian ambassador to Holland and later as a minister of state, owned manuscript copies of eleven of C. P. E. Bach’s concertos.154 He willed his collection to the library of the Joachimsthalsche Gymnasium in Berlin, where it was received in 1811.155 The Joachimsthalsche Gymnasium continued to hold the collection after its move to Templin, and following the dissolution of the Gymnasium after World War II, the collection went to the Padagogische Hochschule in Potsdam, then to the Hochschule fur Musik in Weimar, and finally in 1961 to the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek in Berlin.156 The nineteenth-century musicologist Ludwig Christian Erk (1807-1883) possessed six manuscript copies of C. P. E. Bach’s keyboard concertos that are now all in the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz.157 Known for his re¬ search in folk song, Erk was active in Berlin from 1835 until his death. That he valued a painstaking evaluation of the available sources of a work may be seen from his edition of the chorales and sacred arias of J. S. Bach (a selection from BWV 253-438 and BWV 439-507).158 Berlin: Bibliothek der Singakademie

The library of the Berlin Singakademie, which had been extraordinarily rich in both autograph and manuscript sources of the music of C. P. E. Bach, was deci-

44

Provenance of the Sources

mated by the end of World War II.159 There were around fifty keyboard concertos, predominantly in manuscript copies, including one of Bach’s G-major concertos in the hand of Fasch, and one in G minor in the hand of Agricola, as well as the double concerto in E-flat, W. 47.160 Hans Uldall consulted these sources in prepar¬ ing his study Das Klavierkonzert der Berliner Schule published in 1928. Then, in an air raid of 23 November 1943, the building of the Singakademie was heavily damaged, and in 1945 it was confiscated by military authorities and rebuilt as the Maxim-Gorki Theater.162 During the division of Berlin into east and west zones, items from the library and other precious possessions were deposited m Silesia and have disappeared without a trace, according to Friedrich Herzfeld.163 Long before World War U, other sources that had been in the Singakademie were sold at auc¬ tion, so that a few still survive, perhaps in private hands. In the auction sale of 1854_55 some manuscripts were sold from the residual collection (Restband) of the Singakademie, manuscripts that later found their way to the Berlin Staatsbibliothek.164 Recently, the Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz was able to acquire the autograph score of W. 47 that had been in the Singakademie at one time.165 That many important sources of the works of the Bach family were deposited in the Singakademie should come as no surprise, considering that several friends and admirers of C. P. E. Bach became active in the Singakademie during its first years. Carl Friedrich Christian Fasch (1736-1800), the founder of the Sing¬ akademie, had served as a harpsichordist with Bach at the court of Frederick the Great. Sara Levy (1761-1854), a highly talented harpsichordist and patron of Bach, willed her valuable collection to the Singakademie. Carl Friedrich Zelter (1758-1832), the second director of the Singakademie, expressed his high regard for the works of C. P. E. Bach in a short essay dated 14 May 1825. The ritomellos of his Berlin and Potsdam concertos are and remain the most sublime of their kind ever written. They can hardly be recognized as such, however, since they require an execution all their own and an orchestra completely steeped in his genius. Georg Polchau sent manuscripts of J. S. Bach and Philipp Emanuel Bach to Zelter, sometimes as gifts and sometimes on loan, so that copies could be made.167 When Zelter died, a dispute broke out between the Singakademie and his heirs over which Bach manuscripts had belonged to him and which to the Singakademie. In the ensuing attempts to sort matters out, it was established that Polchau had also sold a collection of Emanuel Bach’s works to A. Mendelssohn, who in turn had passed them on to Sarah Levy.168 The Singakademie then received from her the vocal works for the Singakademie and the instrumental works for the Ripienschule, according to her testimony. The Ripienschule, the group of instrumentalists associated with the Singakademie, was not founded until April 1807,169 so Levy’s manuscripts did not come to the Singakademie until some time after then, though they may have arrived around that time, for the group performed concertos of Philipp Emanuel Bach in performances of 1807 and 1808.170

Provenance of the Sources

45

Brussels, Conservatoire Royale de Musique

The C. P. E. Bach manuscripts in the Brussels Conservatoire stem from the col¬ lections of two individuals: J. J. H. Westphal, the organist in Schwerin who pre¬ pared several catalogs of Bach’s works,171 and privy councillor Wagener in Marburg.172 Westphal s collection of Bach’s concertos numbers among the most impor¬ tant anywhere, since it includes many manuscripts in the hand of Michel and other copyists associated directly with the composer. The exact details of how the Brus¬ sels Conservatoire acquired Westphal’s collection remain obscure, but this prob¬ ably happened during the 1830s.173 The Wagener collection was acquired for the Conservatoire in 1902 by its librarian, Alfred Wotquenne. Wotquenne sold some of the most important items from the Wagener collection again, in an auction of 1913.174 Washington, D. C., Library of Congress, and Paris, Bibliotheque du Conservatoire national de musique

The manuscripts of C. P. E. Bach s concertos now in the Library of Congress and in the Paris Conservatoire collection175 were all sold by the firm of Liepmannssohn around 1906-1908. These sources fall into two main groups: those at one time owned by Friedrich Wilhelm Rust (1739-1796), and those owned by a “M. Lasserre, Notaire/Chatellerault (Vienne),” according to a stamp on their title pages. The sources owned by Rust include manuscript copies of W. 2, W. 8, W. 12, W. 17, W. 32, and W. 35 in the Library of Congress, and W. 14 in the Paris Con¬ servatoire. He also possessed the Schmid edition of W. 11, now in the Library of Congress. Rust identified his property by writing his name on the title pages. A variety of copyists and papers may be seen on Rust’s manuscripts, but two main copyists may be discerned, and the watermark HALLE recurs several times.176 These characteristics distinguish the Rust collection from that of Lasserre. Rust, a composer active in Dessau, had been a student of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach and also came to know Philipp Emanuel during his stay in Potsdam from July 1763 to April 1764.177 Later, with Bach, he contributed to the collection Die Muse published in 1775 and 1776.178 Although Rust came in personal contact with C. P. E. Bach, it is not clear that he obtained copies of Bach’s keyboard con¬ certos directly from the composer. In his later years he is known to have acquired works of Philipp Emanuel Bach from the firm of Breitkopf, with whom he carried on an extensive correspondence.179 After his death F. W. Rust’s collection apparently remained in the family. From the many manuscripts of his own compositions that Rust left behind, his grandson, Wilhelm Karl Rust (1822-1892) was able to publish several editions. The startlingly modem features of these works caused an outpouring of admiration

46

Provenance of the Sources

from writers such as Vincent d’lndy, but shortly after the rediscovery of F. W. Rust as a romantic composer, Ernst Neufeldt revealed that the modem features in Rust’s compositions had been added by his grandson, who composed and inserted whole new sections in the process of editing the works. The scandal brought a flood of commentary by d’lndy, Saint-Saens, and Neufeldt.180 In 1903 the collection still remained in the family.181 Then, several years af¬ ter the death of Wilhelm Rust, his wife approached Erich Prieger for advice on what to do with the music collection.182 According to Prieger, it was decided that the autograph manuscripts of Rust’s own compositions would be donated to the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, while the Bach manuscripts were privately acquired but placed at the disposal of the Berlin library. This private owner, or some subsequent owner, must have offered the manuscripts to the Liepmannssohn firm. The long story of the provenance of the Rust manuscripts casts a shadow of doubt on their reliability. It is not certain that Friedrich Wilhelm Rust acquired them from Bach. Furthermore, the carelessness evident in the copying of these sources would have been unusual in a manuscript prepared under the composer s supervision. The Lasserre collection differs completely from the Rust collection in copyists, watermarks, format of the title page, and other details. Furthermore, the Library of Congress acquired the Lasserre group some ten months after receiving the Rust collection, for the Rust sources uniformly bear the date of accession ‘ 'Aug 23 1906” stamped on the back of the cover, while those of Lasserre are stamped “June 26 1907.”183 Thus, it seems unlikely that the two collections were united before being sold by Liepmannssohn. Probably, Liepmannssohn offered the Rust collection to Oscar Sonneck of the Library of Congress before listing it in any cata¬ log, a not uncommon practice.184 Sonneck accepted all but the manuscript copy of W. 14, probably because this concerto was known to exist in an early edition. A few months later Liepmannssohn must have offered the Lasserre group to Son¬ neck, who, in line with his policy, accepted everything but the manuscipt copies of the published concertos W. 11, W. 25, W. 43/1, and W. 43/6, and the copies of W. 12 and W. 17, since he had just acquired those two concertos in the Rust collection. Thus, seven manuscripts remained to be sold, one from the Rust collection and six from the Lasserre. Liepmannssohn listed these seven works in his Katalog 169 of 2 March 1908 as items 33-39, describing them as “contemporary accurate copies.”185 This is an important detail, for after these seven works entered the Conservatoire they came to be regarded as autograph sources, first by a librarian in the Conservatoire and consequently by later scholars. The card catalog of the Conservatoire collection identifies as “ms. autographe” W. 25, W. 14, W. 11, W. 12, W. 43/6, and W. 43/1, and notes that the bass part of W. 17 seems to be autograph. In this catalog under “Bach (famille)-Autographes” this same person wrote, “NB. It is sometimes difficult to discern exactly what belongs to which son of J. S. [Bach], since each of the brothers sometimes copied or adapted works of his

Provenance of the Sources

47

brothers or father. Several of the doubtful autographs or contemporary copies could be in the hand of one of the brothers of the composer. ”186 This indicates that the tradition of viewing the Paris sources as autograph was only based on the judg¬ ment of the librarian. None of these sources are autograph, as is clear from the Liepmannssohn catalog entries. Very little can be learned of Lasserre. His stamp appears on several of the sources in the Paris Conservatoire, and also on sources in the Library of Congress, even though there the stamp has been erased so that only its general shape remains visible on the page. We can surmise that he, or some French-speaking person using the concerto manuscripts, played from the keyboard part. On the copy of W. 34 in the Library of Congress someone inserted a cadenza written on a small piece of paper, containing dynamic indications in French such as “peu vite,” “peu lent,” etc. The worn and dirty edges of the pages indicate the source must have been used several times. Although little is known about Lasserre, several sources in his col¬ lection are in the hand of C. P. E. Bach’s copyists: W. 5, 6, 9, 13, 19, 21, and 27. A few other possessors’ names occur on sources in the Library of Congress and the Conservatoire: Sorensen (F Pc W. 25), Franz Areck (F Pc W. 25), Uarell [?] (Us Wc W. 15, L. C. 1, L. C. 2), and Commer (US Wc W. 20). Of these, only the name Commer is well-known in musical circles. Franz Commer (1813-1887), a composer, editor and collector of music, became interested in musical sources while studying at the Konigliche Institut fur Kirchenmusik in Berlin, where he was assigned the task of cataloging the library. The Konigliche Institut had purchased several items from Forkel’s estate in 1819. Either Commer or S. Dehn appropri¬ ated some Lasso prints bought from Forkel’s estate that were supposed to go to the Konigliche Bibliothek in 1845 along with other items from the Konigliche Institut fur Kirchenmusik.187 In this connection it is interesting to note that Commer’s copy of W. 20 in the Library of Congress was copied by the same scribe who wrote out the score of W. 20 in the Amalien-Bibliothek (D-brd B Am. Bib. 96). Since Forkel is known to have received things from Kimberger, who administered Anna Amalia’s library, the Library of Congress copy of W. 20 could very well have also belonged to Forkel at one point. If so, it is a much more significant source than most of the manuscript copies in the Library of Congress. Darmstadt, Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek

In addition to its large collection of letters written by C. P. E. Bach, the Hessische Landes-und Hochschulbibliothek possesses two important sources of Bach’s keyboard concertos: a manuscript copy of W. 32, with a title page in the hand of the composer, and a manuscript copy of W. 5 in the hand of Johann Chris¬ toph Friedrich Bach. The copy of W. 32 had belonged to the famous singer Franz Hauser (1794—1870), and on his death passed with the rest of his collection to his son Joseph. The extent of the Hauser collection has recently become clear in a

48

Provenance of the Sources

study by Yoshitake Kobayashi, who also has provided information regarding the provenance and copyists of the manuscripts.188 Part of the collection was auc¬ tioned in Leipzig in 1905, including the copy of W. 32, for it is listed in the auction catalog.189 From this auction Prof. Dr. phil. Karl Anton (1887-1956) pur¬ chased over half of the manuscripts, including the copy of W. 32, and the Hessische Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek in turn acquired it from his estate in 1961.190 The Darmstadt copy of W. 5 contains a note on its title page identifying J. C. F. Bach as the copyist: “In the hand of the Buckeburger Bach / [in a different hand:] confirmed by the music division of the Berlin Staatsbibliothek/ letter from Prof. Altmann of 11 June 1924/ DU.”191 Actually, a close comparison of all the parts shows that J. C. F. Bach wrote the title page, cembalo, viola, and bass parts; the two violin parts are in the hand of an unidentified copyist. On the back of the title page is inscribed ‘ ‘ Pour Monsieur Wacker a Rinteln. ’ ’ The title page of this source also contains a small round stamp, “Breitkopf & Hartel Archiv.” Part of the ar¬ chives of this Leipzig firm survived the destruction of World War II and were to have been auctioned in 1951, but were instead bought by the government of Hesse and preserved from further dispersal, being deposited in the Hessische Landesund Hochschulbibliothek.192 Dresden, Sdchsische Landesbibliothek

The C. P. E. Bach concerto manuscripts in the Sachsische Landesbibliothek, Dres¬ den, bear the blue stamp “BIBLIOTHEKA MUSICA REGIA,” indicating their origins as part of the royal private music collection founded by August the Strong at the end of the seventeenth century.193 Since the royal collection did not become incorporated into the Dresden library until 1896,194 its holdings were not included in Robert Eitner and Otto Kade’s catalog of the library published in 1890.195 The outer covers of the Dresden copies of W. 2, W. 4, and W. 5 contain the name “D. Tunerstein” along with the number of the concerto from the Nachlassverzeichnis, written in the same ink. The multicolored design of the outer cover resembles the covers of sources owned by Anna Amalia in Berlin, and the water¬ marks in the Dresden sources of W. 4 and W. 5 are the same found in the Gotha sources of W. 18 and W. 19, and the Weimar sources of W. 5 and W. 8. However, this observation does not produce any firm conclusions concerning provenance. The paper could have been acquired independently but from mills of the same geographic region; or an owner in one town could have had additional copies made and sent to friends in the other two places; or, all three collections could have been acquired through the same music dealer. One physical feature of the Dresden sources of W. 2 and W. 4 does provide a clue to their provenance: in each case the outer cover of the keyboard part has been made from a Hamburg lottery form. Since a design was painted over it, the original lottery form can only be seen by

Provenance of the Sources

49

holding the cover up to the light. Thus, the cover originated in Hamburg, and only after 1770, for the form contains a blank space to allow the year to be written in: . . zu Hamburg den [blank] 177 [blank].”196 This information makes it prob¬ able that the other sources in Gotha and Weimar having the same watermark as the Dresden copy of W. 4 also originated in Hamburg. Weimar, Thiiringische Landesbibliothek (now in the Zentralbibliothek, Weimar)

The music collection previously in the Thiiringische Landesbibliothek was formed mainly from the collections of Anna Amalia of Weimar (1739-1807) and Maria Paulowna (died in 1859).197 The five manuscript copies ofC. P. E. Bach’s concer¬ tos preserved here probably stem from Anna Amalia’s possession; she is known to have owned works of Emanuel Bach, and she should have been interested in con¬ certos, since she herself composed some.199 Anna Amalia, like her aunt Anna Amalia in Berlin, supported an active musical life at the Weimar court.199 Through her aunt, or through musicians at her court such as Georg Benda and Johann Ernst Bach,200 she very probably was exposed to the works of C. P. E. Bach. Schwerin, Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek des Bezirkes Schwerin (before 1969, the Mecklenburgische Landesbibliothek)

In his catalog of the music collection of the ruling family of MecklenburgSchwerin, Otto Kade listed a copy of W. 25 in their possession.201 Ties existed between C. P. E. Bach and this family, for Bach dedicated his settings of psalms in Cramer’s translation (W. 196) to Herzog Friedrich von Mecklenburg (17171785). Three other concertos by C. P. E. Bach, all in the hand of the same copyist, are also preserved in the Schwerin library (W. 17, W. 43/3, and W. 43/4). These copies were acquired after 1945 from the library of the Domschule in Giistrow. The copies had belonged to Theodor Gottlieb Besser (1743-1791), an organist ac¬ tive in Halberstadt, and his son Dr. Johann Friedrich Besser (1771-1847), an organist and teacher in Giistrow.202 Vienna, Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde

In the library of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde is a manuscript copy of a con¬ certo in D minor by Nichelmann, attributed originally, however, to C. P. E. Bach (Mus. MS VII 3 6 2 5 8).203 On the title page of this source appears the stamp “Aus dem Nachlass von/Johannes Brahms.”204 Brahms developed an interest in the music of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach that is reflected in the catalog he prepared of his collection, which lists a wide variety of Bach’s music, including sonatas, con¬ certos, sonatinas, trios, and sacred vocal music.205 This catalog shows that

50

Provenance of the Sources

Brahms possessed, in addition to a keyboard concerto in D minor, the 1772 edition of the six concertos of W. 43. From three of the concertos in this set Brahms pre¬ pared an edition published by Cranz around 1862, although Brahms was not identi¬ fied as the editor on the title page.206 Brahms’s editorship is established by some directions he wrote to the printer, now in the Brahms-Archiv-of the Staats-und Universitatsbibliothek, Hamburg.207 In Cranz’s edition the original order of the six concertos was not preserved, so that the three concertos edited by Brahms were the ones in C minor (W. 43/4), G major (W. 43/5) and F major (W. 43/1), published in that order.208 From whom Brahms acquired the D minor concerto of Nichelmann is not clear. The name of G. Schlichting is written on the title page. Schlichting has been identified as a copyist associated with C. P. E. Bach, but this source is not in his hand, so perhaps he merely owned it at some point. The copy of W. 19 now in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde previously be¬ longed to Fanny Amstein, a pianist who lived in Vienna.209 Further details con¬ cerning the provenance of the Viennese sources are not to be had. A likely candi¬ date for the owner of these concertos would have been Ernst Ludwig Gerber, whose collection came to the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde after his death in 1819.210 However, the sources do not bear his characteristic mark of ownership.211 London, The British Library

From two nineteenth-century music collectors the British Library acquired its four manuscript copies of concertos by C. P. E. Bach, catalogued as MS Add. 31 679 (W. 6) and MS Add. 29 907 (W. 33, W. 35, and W. 27). The inside cover of the copy of W. 6 bears the bookplate of Julian Marshall, and a library stamp in the same place provides the date: “31,679/purchased of Julian Marshall, esq./lO July 1880; 20 March,/8 April 1881. ”212 This source numbered among those acquired privately by the library, which were therefore never cataloged for auction.'13 Ju¬ lian Marshall (1836-1903) was an art collector and the author of various books on tennis.214 He also contributed articles to the first and second editions of Grove’s Dictionary of Music.

The other three concertos in the British Library were purchased from S. Albu on 11 January 1875.215 The name of another previous owner is written on the title pages of these sources: “Schicht.’’ The Leipzig Thomaskantor Johann Gottfried Schicht (1753-1823) owned copies of no less than forty-eight of C. P. E. Bach’s keyboard concertos in scores and sets of parts, as the auction catalog of his estate shows.216 In this copy the date on the title page has been crossed out, and a new one written in: “d. 19 Decbr. 1832.’’ Also in this copy, a handwritten note “MMV next to the listing of C. P. E. Bach concertos (item 903) signifies that this was bought by M. Mehnert, according to the key written on the front flyleaf. Mehnert

Provenance of the Sources

51

was listed within the catalog under “Commissionen iibemehmen” as from Leipzig. Schicht was a theorist and, like C. P. E. Bach, directed his attention to prac¬ tical matters of composition and performance. In his Grundregeln der Harmonie he classified chords by their intervallic content, described their preparation and resolution, and provided extensive musical excerpts designed to illustrate the chord with several possible distributions, as it might occur in the context of a piece.217 Thus, in preparing this treatise, Schicht could have profited from a study of the musical works of C. P. E. Bach in his own collection, as well as from a reading of Bach’s theoretical writings. After his death Schicht’s possessions must have been disbursed fairly widely, for items once belonging to Schicht or copied by him later made their way into the collections of Friedrich August Gotthold, Erich Prieger, Franz Hauser, and the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, among others.218 Although many details may be established concerning the nineteenth-century owners of the manuscripts in the British Library, less can be said concerning the eighteenth-century origins of these sources. Of course, in trying to guess what Englishmen might have collected the music of C. P. E. Bach in the eighteenth cen¬ tury, one thinks immediately of Charles Burney. In his description of his visit to Hamburg, Burney stated that he received several works of Bach directly from the composer.-19 The catalog of Burney’s library listed several editions of con¬ certos by C. P. E. Bach under “Instrumental, etc. Printed” and three more con¬ certos under “Instrumental Music, in MS.”220 Another eighteenth-century owner of Bach’s music is definitely represented in the British Library: Sarah Levy. She owned the copy of Bach’s setting of Klopstock's Morgengesang am Schopfungsfeste (W. 239) that is now in the British Li¬

brary, for the familiar signature “Sarah Levy, geboren Itzig” appears on its front flyleaf. It is not known whether she played a role in the transmission of the concer¬ to sources. Berkeley, University of California

In 1966 the University of California acquired ten manuscript copies of concertos by C. P. E. Bach from Gwendolin Koldofsky, whose husband had purchased them from a book dealer in Canada in the 1930s.221 These sources, which were acquired along with seven other anonymous concertos, frequently are missing the keyboard part or the cover or title page. In one case (W. 24) only the viola and bass parts are extant. From his investigation of the Berkeley sources, Charles H. Buck was able to identify the incomplete, anonymous sources such as that for W. 24 as works of C. P. E. Bach.222 He also concluded that the copies of W. 16 and W. 24 preserved early versions originating before the generally accepted dates for these concertos. However, a comparison of the Berkeley sources with the other known sources of these concertos shows that the Berkeley sources preserve no new or unknown ver-

52

Provenance of the Sources

sions, but rather the commonly encountered version."-3 Of the dates written on the Berkeley sources, only the one on W. 16 is not in agreement with the Nachlassverzeichnis, and even this notation of “1738” has been crossed out and replaced by “1746,” the date in the Nachlassverzeichnis. Whoever wrote the crossed-out date of 1738 could have confused W. 16 with another concerto in G Major, W. 4, of 1738.224 Unless more can be learned of the provenance of the Berkeley sources, there is no reason to regard them as specially significant. Eight of the ten concertos now in Berkeley are known to have been available in manuscript through Breitkopf,225 and another, W. 11, had been published by Schmid in 1745. The name of one owner scrawled on the Berkeley source' of W. 5 is the same as that on the Washington source of W. 15: “Uarell” or possibly, “Agrell. This Agrell—if that is indeed his name—also owned the the unidentified concertos attributed to C. P. E. Bach now in the Library of Congress,226 as well as a manu¬ script copy of Bach’s unaccompanied concerto in C major, W. 112/1, now in the collection of Dr. Alan Tyson, London.227 An identification of this unknown per¬ son might contribute a great deal toward understanding the provenance of the Ber¬ keley sources. Small Collections

A number of libraries possess manuscript copies of one or only a few of Bach s concertos. In many cases one can no longer determine how, or from whom, these few sources were acquired. This is true for the single sources now preserved in the Narodm-Museum, Prague, the Staatliche Museen, Kapellarchiv in Meiningen, and the New York Public Library, New York.228 For the rest, some information or educated guesses are possible as a guide to evaluating the reliability of these sources. The manuscript copies of W. 9 and W. 11 now in the Biblioteka Uniwersytecka w Warszawie, Poland, may have once belonged to the Breslau music director Johann Theodor Mosewius (1788-1858), since they bear the same kind of library sigla and stamps as a manuscript score of J. S. Bach’s Widerstehe dock der Siinde, BWV 54, that was part of his collection.229 These manuscripts passed to the Akademische Institut fur Kirchenmusik with part of Mosewius’s estate, and later to the Musikwissenschaftliches Institut der Universitat Breslau, and after 1945 to the Warsaw library.230 In the Bach-Archiv, Liepzig, are manuscript copies of W. 10 and W. 25 that once belonged to Manfred Gorke (1897-1956) of Meiningen, whose collection was acquired by the city of Leipzig in 1935.231 J. V. Bach is believed to be a pre¬ vious owner of W. 25.232 It is possible that Gorke’s copy of W. 10 formerly be¬ longed to Forkel, since Gorke’s great-grandfather had been able to acquire items from Forkel’s estate,233 and the catalog of Forkel’s collection included one concer¬ to of C. P. E. Bach in B-flat major.234 Only the harpsichord part of W. 10 has been

Provenance of the Sources

53

preserved in the Gorke collection, so the only source known to be complete for this concerto is the manuscript prepared by Bach’s copyist Michel, now in the library of the Brussels Conservatoire. West of Leipzig, in the small town of Gotha, a collection of manuscript copies of Bach’s concertos is preserved in the Forschungsbibliothek. The provenance of these sources has already been discussed in conjunction with attribution problems (see p.17). The Hochschule fur Musik in Berlin owns a neatly prepared manuscript copy of W. 32, which preserves the ornamented version of the concerto. The red stamp “R" on the title page indicates that this source previously belonged to Ernst Rudorff (1840-1916), a composer, editor, and professor at the Hochschule, who owned an important collection of music and letters written by musicians.235 The Furstlich Hohenlohe-Langenburgische Schlossbibliothek in Langenburg possesses a manuscript copy of W. 43/6 on which is written, “C[harles] L[ouis] Pr[ince] d[e] Hohenlohe 1783. ”236 The connection between the Langenburg court and Bach very likely was August Tobias Bernhard Bach (1740-1789), the son of C. P. E. Bach’s first cousin Johann Christoph Bach (1702-1756). August Tobias Bernhard Bach was an organist and teacher in Langenburg, in the service of the prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg.237 In the collection of the Furst zu Bentheim und Steinfurt is a manuscript score of W. 8 (D-brd BFb B-ach 20). This collection formed in Burgsteinfurt has been placed on loan to the Universitatsbibliothek Munster since 1964.238 The Universitetsbiblioteket in Lund, Sweden, possesses a manuscript copy of W. 25.239 Although the title page of this source lists the five normally-encountered parts (“ . . . Cembalo Concertato/accompagnato/da/Violino Primo/Violino Secondo/Violetta/e/Basso ...”), seven parts are to be found: the five named, along with an additional Basso part and a part for “vl concertato” [!].240 This puzzling source belongs to the Kraus collection named for Friedrich Kraus, the music director of the Academic Chapel in Lund, 1745-c. 17 80.241 The Kongelige Dansk Musikkonservatorium in Copenhagen possesses manuscript copies of six of Bach’s concertos: W. 11, W. 14,W. 18,W. 24,W. 25, and W. 28.242 In the absence of more information about the provenance of these sources, it should be noted that all six were available either in the early editions of Schmid, Walsh, Winter, or Longman, Lukey, or in manuscript from Breitkopf.243 The National Szechenyi Library in Budapest preserves a manuscript score of W. 47 formerly owned by Joseph Haydn. This score is in the hand of Michel, and appears as No. 177 in the handwritten catalog of Haydn’s library prepared at the beginning of the nineteenth century by Johann Elssler.244 This catalog lists a num¬ ber of works by C. P. E. Bach: some of the Kenner und Liebhaber sonatas, W. 56, W. 57, and W. 59, various chamber music, the Fantasy in F-Sharp Minor, W. 67, the Zwei Litaneyen, W. 204, the second collection of sacred songs on texts by Sturm, W. 198, and the Heilig, W. 217.245

54

Provenance of the Sources

Haydn’s veneration of C. P. E. Bach is well known.246 Unlike Haydn, Bach did not write string quartets, but he did compose three pieces for clavier, flute, and viola in the last year of his life (W. 92-94),247 and Haydn owned scores of two of these works, according to his library catalog, where they are listed as quartets.248 Although the extent to which C. P. E. Bach influenced Haydn’s string quartet writing has been debated, Haydn clearly made an effort to see what Bach had contributed. Haydn may have acquired his copy of W. 47 from Bach’s family or from Baron Gottfried von Swieten (17 34-1803).249 As Bach’s letters to Breitkopf show, Baron von Swieten arranged for subscribers to Bach’s works in Vienna and carried on a regular correspondence with the composer."50 Thus, it is not surpris¬ ing that Haydn’s score of W. 47 should have been prepared by one of Bach’s copyists. The first page of the harpsichord part of Bach’s Concerto in G Minor, W. 32, has been preserved in the collection of Johann Christian Heinrich Rinck (1770— 1846), which was purchased by Lowell Mason in 1852 from Rinck s son, and given to Yale University in 1873 by the Mason family.251 Several items in Rinck’s collection reflect his study of composition with J. C. Kittel from 1786 to 1789.-5“ Kittel himself probably owned a manuscript copy of W. 32, for the catalog of his estate includes a keyboard concerto of C. P. E. Bach in G minor, along with five others in E-flat, A minor, F, D minor, and E.253 Sources Now Lost or No Longer Available In addition to the many important autograph and manuscript sources of Bach’s concertos that disappeared in the destruction of the Berlin Singakademie during World War II, a few other potentially significant sources preserved in the Staatsund Universitatbibliothek in Konigsberg can be assumed to have burned in a fire that took place during the war.254 These sources had once belonged to Friedrich August Gotthold (1778-1858), who had bequeathed them to the library.255 Gotth¬ old owned the autograph score of the Organ Concerto in E-Flat Major, W. 35, which had also belonged to the Konigliche Orgel-Unterrichtsanstalt, which later became the Insitute fur Kirchen- und Schulmusik.256 His collection also included manuscript copies of W. 19, W. 29, and W. 46, and two other concertos, both in B-Flat.257 Gotthold may have acquired some of his C. P. E. Bach holdings from Bach’s friend Baron Dietrich Ewald von Grotthuss, to whom the third collection of the Kenner und Liebhaber sonatas (W. 57) was dedicated.258 Other collectors known to have possessed manuscipt copies of C. P. E. Bach’s concertos include Werner Wolffheim (1877-1930),259 Otto Jahn (18131869),260 Erich Prieger (1849-19 1 3),261 and Alfred Wotquenne (1867-1939).262

Provenance of the Sources

55

Early Prints C. P. E. Bach undertook the publication of six of his concertos in 1772 (W. 43), and he sanctioned the editions of three others, for he mentioned these editions in his autobiography.'63 The three authorized editions were those by G. L. Winter of Berlin, who brought out W. 14 in 1760, and Balthasar Schmid of Niirnberg, who published W. 11 in 1745 and W. 25 in 1752.264 Unauthorized editions of seven concertos appeared by several foreign publishers during Bach’s lifetime: W. 2 by Antoine Huberty of Paris; W. 11, W. 25, and W. 14by John Walsh of London; and W. 18, W. 34, and W. 24 by Longman, Lukey & Co. of London. Although the distribution of manuscript copies of Bach’s concertos indicates the works were most popular in Germany, apparently no German publishers under¬ took an unsanctioned publication of them. Foreign publishers, on the other hand, obviously had no such scruples. The absence of unauthorized German editions probably resulted not from any greater sense of honor among German publishers, but rather from the skill with which C. P. E. Bach handled his business matters. He was able to use both the carrot and the stick, for he could make an offer clearly in the best interest of the publisher, and at the same time insert a threat so hidden by a' veneer of good will that no one could take offense. A good example of Bach’s competence in these matters may be seen in his dealings with Alexander Reinagle. Reinagle had apparently proposed publishing only the rondos from some of Bach’s Kenner und Liebhaber collections, W. 55-58, for Bach protested that his own sales of these collections would be hurt by such a publication.265 Bach proposed instead that Reinagle pay 34 guineas for the privilege of reprinting the rondos along with four new ones to be composed expressly for Reinagle’s edition. Bach added as a postscript: Here in Germany no one has reprinted anything of mine, for I would have immediately exposed him in the newspapers as a swindler. That is how such people are generally regarded here, so no one wants to risk it. My public permission for your publication and the new added rondos would surely prevent a reprint from harming you.266

This postscript, ostensibly meant to reassure Reinagle that no one would be likely to reprint his rondo edition, actually also served to warn him of the consequences of going ahead with his planned reprint without accepting Bach’s offer. A compos¬ er less gifted in the art of negotiation, less orderly in his record-keeping, or less willing to spend time in correspondence would certainly not have fared so well in the competitive atmosphere of music publishing during this period. Bach’s attitude as a composer toward the publishing of music reflects his awareness of its commercial aspects. He believed that compositions destined for publication should conform to the public’s expectations. Ideally, these pieces should not attempt too much in the way of compositional innovation. At least he

56

Provenance of the Sources

gave this advice to Johann Christoph Kuhnau (1735-1805) in the friendly spirit of a mentor, after Kuhnau had sent Bach one of his cantatas: For the future, allow me to give you some advice from the heart. In things that are to be pub¬ lished—and thus are for everyone—be less artistic and give more sugar. A clear theme like you have is sufficient. One must take the false prejudice of the ignorant, who believe that a regular theme hinders pleasantness. In things that are not to be published, allow your ddigence full reign. I will see to an advantageous review. . .

,267

The first authorized edition of Bach’s concertos came from Nuremberg, from the publisher Balthasar Schmid. Although Schmid did not include the date of pub¬ lication in his edition of W. 11, Bach gave the year of publication as 1745 in his autobiography.268 Bach’s Concerto in B-flat Major, W. 25, came out in 1752, according to Bach,269 under the imprint of Schmid’s widow. Schmid had died in 1749, and his widow assumed control of the business. Both of Bach s concertos published by the Schmids appear in the Verzeichnis der musikalischen Wercker [sic] welche bey Balthasar Schmid seel. Wittib in Niirnbeg [sic] zu haben sind, and W. 25 was advertised in the Nuremberg Friedens- und Kriegs-Currier of 2 March 1754.~70 For the edition of his Concerto in E Major, W. 14, Bach turned to a Berlin publisher, Georg Ludewig Winter.271 While the Schmid editions of W. 11 and W. 25 had been engraved, Winter’s edition of W. 14 was actually printed—a distinc¬ tion made clear in the Nachlassverzeichnis 27~ In 1756 Winter had adopted the system of music printing pioneered by Breitkopf,"73 in which tiny pieces of type for each basic unit of a musical symbol—a notehead, stem, flag, etc. were com¬ bined to produce the diverse patterns necessary to notate music. The title page of Winter’s edition provides the date of publication: “. . . G. L. Winter/MDCCLX [1760].” After he left Berlin in 1768 Bach increasingly acted as an entrepreneur, assuming responsibility for the production and distribution of his works, like many other composers of this decade. Not surprisingly, the edition of his six concertos of 1772 bears the imprint “In Hamburg./at the author’s expense./1772.”274 Forkel must have had this edition in mind when he mentioned “Herr Bock in Hamburg” as the publisher of Bach’s keyboard concertos and Musikalisches Allerley.275 More likely Bock only sold copies of this edition, for Bach’s correspondence with Breitkopf show that Winter of Berlin actually did the printing of these concertos.276 In a letter of 9 April 1772 he advised Breitkopf not to pay for the edition of the concertos, for it would be delayed somewhat by Herr Winter’s deaf¬ ness and phlegm.277 Bach also advised his subscribers of the delay in a notice in the Hamburg Unpartheiischer Correspondent of 25 April 1772."78 Winter died some¬ time before June of 1772,279 but Bach’s concertos had nevertheless appeared by 15 September, for in a letter of that date he asked Breitkopf how Breitkopf’s copies should be sent.280 Then Bach became involved in a fight with Winter’s widow,

Provenance of the Sources

57

apparently over the copies of his Versuch still in stock, and she confiscated the edition of the concertos.281 The affair caused Bach much anguish, and he finally severed business relations with Madame Winter entirely.282 Bach dedicated the six concertos of W. 43 to Peter III, the last duke of Kur¬ land (1724—1800). He acknowledged the assistance of the duke in his dedication: Royal Highness, The merciful assistance, with which Your Royal Highness has favored me, has impelled me to dedicate this work to you, to be both the fruit of a science to which you give your support and to show my respectful sentiments of gratitude. Forgive me. Your Royal Highness, for following the usual style and characteristic manner of many other dedications. 1 considered it proper to send back the truth in this, which so many other times has served to flatter the author. For that reason I hope that you accept the work and the intention; and I dedicate to you at the same time as the book, all of myself, with a humble parting bow to Your Royal Highness. Your devoted, respectful, and humble servant, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.283

The Nachlassverzeichnis gives 1771 as the date of composition for all six of the concertos of W. 43. Bach began thinking about these works in the previous year, though, for notice of his plans appeared in 1770 in the Hamburg Unpartheiischer Correspondent.284 By April 1771 he could solicit subscribers for these con¬ certos, which according to his announcement would be easier and more suitable for harpsichord [Fliigel] than his previous ones, and would have embellished slow movements and written-out cadenzas.285 The concertos became popular, whether for these features or not, and many copies of them are extant, both printed and manuscript. Part of this success may have been due to the edition’s inclusion of the tutti melody in the keyboard part, which meant that the concertos could be played as solos. Bach’s pupil Niels Schiprring cited this as an advantage of the edition.286 The subscribers to W. 43 received their copies in installments,287 in the form of successive bifolios instead of gatherings, as the unbound copy in the Library of Congress shows. Details concerning the unauthorized editions of Bach’s concertos cannot be so easily uncovered. Since he retained a financial interest in the editions he au¬ thorized, Bach did not hesitate to publicize them, but he simply ignored the pi¬ rates . The surviving publishers’ catalogs and recent studies of music publishing al¬ low a partial reconstruction of events.288 The Huberty engraving of Bach’s second concerto must date from c. 1762, for a Huberty catalog from that year lists under the heading “Conc.‘° de Clavecin”: “1 de C. P. E. Bach N° 2.”289 This entry does not appear in a catalog thought to date from the previous year.290 Like Huberty’s catalog, the title page of his edition also mentions this concerto as ‘ ‘No. 2,”291 which causes one to wonder if Huberty had as good a source of information about Bach’s composing activity as

58

Provenance of the Sources

he had for procuring the work itself. As previously discussed, Huberty s edition incorporates musical readings that have been erased in the autograph score, and thus may preserve the original 1734 version of the concerto. Generally, the opus numbers assigned by eighteenth-century music pub¬ lishers bear no special authority. Certainly this is true of the edition of three of Bach’s concertos by John Walsh of London.~92 Walsh united concertos from 1743, 1744, and 1749 (W. 11, W. 14, and W. 25), and labelled them as Bach’s “Op. 3.za” Walsh included the tutti melody in the keyboard part in the same way that Bach later did for the concertos of W. 43. The Walsh print dates from around 1765, for it was advertised in the Public Advertiser of 26 November 1765."93 The London firm of Longman, Lukey & Co. engraved three of Bach’s con¬ certos (W. 18, W. 34, and W. 24) sometime between 1771 and 1775.294 This dat¬ ing derives from the form of the firm’s name and the address found on the title page: “London. Printed & Sold by Longman, Lukey & Co. N. 26 Cheapside.’’ The firm was known as “Longman, Lukey & Co.” from 1769 until September 1775, and in 1771 the firm announced that it had moved to St. Paul’s Churchyard 45 while its new building at 26 Cheapside was being built.295 Longman & Lukey’s title page alone immediately arouses suspicions about the reliability of the edition, for it identifies the composer as “Bach of Berlin.” By the time Longman and Lukey had settled into their new building at 26 Cheapside, the composer had been “Bach of Hamburg” for several years. Comparison of the musical readings shows the Longman, Lukey edition to be a poor abridgment of the original concertos. In the process of snipping out several measures here and there, slight alterations in the harmony became necessary'. In one particularly awkward transition remnants of accidentals in the original version can still be seen in the print (See W. 24,1, mm. 132-33 in Longman, Lukey). These last-minute emendations mark the birth of the Longman, Lukey version during the actual engraving process. To end the story of the sources with the Longman, Lukey print presents a rather depressing picture of the eighteenth-century composer’s lack of control over the publication of his works. It also underscores the commercial aspects of music distribution. Longman and Lukey were naturally interested in producing a salable commodity—concertos by a known composer, which an amateur could play with¬ out accompaniment, and which would not be so long that the edition would be priced beyond his means. With these constraints, the intentions of the composer necessarily took second place. Considering that the alteration of music occurred so frequently, at the whim of both avaricious publishers and ambitious performers, we must carefully investigate the provenance of surviving sources before conclud¬ ing that they represent the preferences of the composer.

4 The Compositional Process In studying Philipp Emanuel Bach’s compositional process, one cannot ignore the fact that his career lasted some fifty years and spanned the highly significant change in musical style that occurred during the middle of the century. Bach wrote his first concerto in 1733, when he was nineteen, and his last in 1788, the year of his death. Not surprisingly, Bach’s concertos incorporate elements of both the old and the new, frequently intermingled in a way that by custom has received the patronizing label, “transitional.” Among the many writers who have attempted to describe Bach’s role in the evolution of the concerto, few have been able to view Bach's works as meriting study, except as embryonic stages contributing to the development of the style of Haydn and Mozart. In surveys of the concerto literature his works frequently are evaluated in terms of how “developed,” or “advanced” they are, and generally the discussion is restricted to the few concertos available in modem edition. Bach’s many alterations in his scores show his awareness of the conflict be¬ tween the old and the new, and more often than not, his revisions favor the new. A study of his compositional process provides a means of examining the develop¬ ment of Classical style. Mid-century composers caught up in this current were not necessarily learning how to write better music, but they were writing differently. Hans Engel captured the spirit of the change without rejecting the older tradition by making an analogy with language in describing Bach’s concertos: His style ranges from that of his father to Graun and to the classicism of Haydn and Mozart; there is a gradual fermentation of the old mighty language of the high baroque period with the North German gallant style (which was nonetheless a little stiff when com¬ pared to Couperin), to which was added the pathos of storm-and-stress and the cantabile of the sentimental style—this multitude of stylistic elements did not occur in succession but grew up in Bach’s output side by side and in combination.1

In composing, C. P. E. Bach drew from both the old and the new styles. When it pleased him, he employed all the old-fashioned contrapuntal devices, as in two movements of the Wiirttemberg Sonatas, which resemble his father’s threepart inventions in their form (W. 49/4, II and W. 49/5, II). In other movements examples of invertible counterpoint may be found (W. 49/4,1 and W. 49/6, III). In

60

The Compositional Process

the same collection he could construct phrases with classical proportion, balance, and symmetry (W. 49/4, III). Problems arose when the syntax of these two lan¬ guages did not permit amalgamation. In her analysis of Bach s concertos Jane Stevens touched on this dilemma when she said that Bach adopted a late Baroque form which was already firmly established and attempted to develop within its framework a vehicle for his own progressive musical expression, adding, As always in such situations, this attempt was difficult.”2 The many revisions Bach made in his concertos show that he consciously moved toward the Classical language and desired to speak it as idiomatically as possible. In tracing the details of Bach’s compositional decisions it is not necessary to imply that the Baroque style was somehow defective. During Bach’s lifetime the new language simply eclipsed the older conventions, and the struggles of a Baroque-trained composer to employ this new language provide a means of under¬ standing its structure.

C. P. E. Bach’s Study of Music History and Theory Bach’s early musical education gave him a thorough grounding in Baroque tradi¬ tions. He stated in his autobiography that in composition and keyboard playing he had no other teacher than his father.3 Few documents survive to present Sebastian Bach’s teachings. A “few quite essential rules of thorough bass by J. S. B.” were written into the Second Notebook of Anna Magdalena Bach,4 but these rules cover only the most elementary details of scales, chords, and the realization of figures. Another exposition of Sebastian Bach’s teachings, also preserved in a manuscript copy, is contained in the ‘‘Rules and Instructions for Playing Thoroughbass or Accompaniment in Four Parts, made for his Scholars in music by Herr Johann Sebastian Bach, of Leipzig, Royal Court Composer and Capellmeister, also Direc¬ tor of Music and Cantor of the Thomasschule, 1738.”5 The provenance of this manuscript is not clear, and its authenticity has been questioned.6 The treatise is based on an earlier work of Friedrich Erhard Neidt, his Musicalische Handleitung, Parti, first published in 1700.7 Spitta called attention to J. S. Bach’suse ofNiedt’s treatise, and he pointed out that Bach’s alterations, abridgments, and additional comments constitute a critique ofNiedt’s volume and show what principles were particularly important in Bach’s theoretical teachings.8 For example, Niedt titled his chapter 6, “Some general rules to observe in playing thoroughbass” (Etliche allgemeine Regeln beym Spielen des General-Basses zu observiren). J. S. Bach, or whoever wrote the “Rules and Instructions,” changed this to, “Some rules for how the thoroughbass should be played in four parts throughout” (Etliche Regeln wie man den General Bass durchgehends mit 4 Stimmen spielen soil.) Sebastian Bach stressed four-part realization for, as Spitta pointed out, otherwise students would have been able to slip into three-part solutions whenever faced with a diffi¬ cult passage.

The Compositional Process

61

In response to a question of Forkel, Philipp Emanuel Bach provided informa¬ tion concerning his father’s teaching methods in a letter of 13 January 1775: Since he himself had composed the most instructive pieces for the clavier, he brought up his pupils on them. In composition he started his pupils right in with what was practical, and omitted all the dry species of counterpoint that are given in Fux and others. His pupils had to begin their studies by learning pure four-part thorough bass. From this he went to chorales; first he added the basses to them himself, and they had to invent the alto and tenor. Then he taught them to devise the basses themselves. He particularly insisted on the writing out of the thorough bass in [four real] parts. In teaching fugues, he began with two-part ones, and so on. The realization of a thorough bass and the introduction to chor¬ ales are without doubt the best method of studying composition, as far as harmony is con¬ cerned. As for the invention of ideas, he required this from the very beginning, and any¬ one who had none he advised to stay away from composition altogether. With his children as well as with other pupils he did not begin the study of composition until he had seen work of theirs in which he detected talent.9

C. P. E. Bach’s habits in composing began to develop under his father’s tute¬ lage. At the core of Sebastian Bach’s teaching was the thoroughbass, and pupils began by writing out the three upper parts of the four-part texture. Although Bach did achieve musical independence from his father and cultivated the style of his own generation, his early training decisively shaped his compositional habits. In his concertos the bass line, figured or unfigured, played a very important role. Whether conceived before or with the melody, the bass line rapidly assumed the position of a “fixed point’’: it implied both harmonic structure and rhythm of chord change. Most significantly, the bass line rarely underwent alteration. Generally, when some change in the part-writing became necessary, whether for grammatical or purely musical reasons, Bach recomposed the three upper parts to accommodate the bass part. Here the legacy of his father’s teaching and probably also his own career as an accompanist decisively influenced the compositional process. After Bach left his father’s house, he entered a musical environment in which a knowledge of music history and theory was highly prized. Berlin musicians not only composed and performed, they wrote about music, and their ability in prose established their status as much as their talent in composition.10 Here Bach expanded his understanding of music theory by collecting the treatises of his contemporaries. Remnants of Bach’s library of theoretical writings survive today in the British Library, London. This collection has not previously been evaluated, probably because the clue to its existence lies buried in one of these treatises. In the British Library’s copy of Friedrich Wilhelm Riedt’s Versuch iiber die Musikalische Intervallen are some words written on the verso of the flyleaf, which the library catalog identifies as C.P.E. Bach’s manuscript notes.11 These manuscript notes do

62

The Compositional Process

not relate to the text of Riedt’s Versuch, but rather provide a list of theoretical treatises: (1) Riedts Versuch (2) Telemans Intervallen System (3) baers Bellum musicum. 1701. (4) Lippii III Disputationes musicae. 1610. (5) Koswicks Compendiaria Musice 1520. [added in a different hand:] Leipsig. (6) bodenburgs II Programata von der Historie der Music. 1745. (7) Musikalische Erwegungs- u. Ubungs Wahrheiten. [added in darker ink:] vom burg Rath Lincke.12 On the title page of this copy Bach wrote, “C. P. E. Bach. Berol. 1754.” Although his list of treatises provides only abbreviated references, all but the one by Telemann may be identified in the inventory of writings on music undertaken by RISM:13 (1)

‘‘Riedts Versuch”: The treatise in which Bach entered his list; see note

(2)

‘ ‘Telemans Intervallen System”: It is not clear what is intended by this note. It may refer to the system of calculating intervals devised by Georg Philipp Telemann, which was presented inL. C. Mizler’sA/us/-

n.

kalische Bibliothek in 1752.14

(3)

‘ ‘baers Bellum musicum’ ’: Johann Bahr, Bellum musicum oder musicalischer Krieg, in welchem umbstandlich erzehlet wird, wie die Konigin Compositio nebst ihrer Tochter Harmonia mitdenen Hiimpern und Stumpern zerfallen undnach beyderseits ergriffenen Waffen zwey blutige Haupt-Treffen sambt der Belagerung der Vestung Systema unfern der Invention-See vorgegangen, auch wie solcher Krieg endlich gestillet

und

der

Friede

mit

gewissen

Grund-Reguln

befestigt

worden . . . [n.p.], 1701.

(4)

“Lippii III Disputationes musicae”: Sebastian Carolus, Disputatio musica tertia, divina unitrinitate concordante publice proposita in Alma Witteberg: Academia, praeside M. Joanne Lippio, Argentinensi Alsato, respondente Sebastiano Carolo Ratisbonensi Bavaro, octob. 27, hora locoque solitis. Wittenberg: Johann Gormann, 1610.

(5)

“Koswicks Compendiaria Musice”: Michael Koswick, Compen¬ diaria musice artis aeditio cuncta quae ad practicam attinent mira quadam brevitate complectens. Cum quibusdam novis additionibus

(6)

. . . Leipzig: Wolffgang Stockel, 1520. “bodenburgs II Programata von der Historie der Music”: Joachim

The Compositional Process

63

Christoph Bodenburg, Einladungs-Schrift von der Music der Alten, sonderlich der Hebraer, mit welcher die Hochansehnlichen Herren Patronen . . . den 31 Martii 1745 . . . nebst einen Verzeichniss der im vorigen Jahr gehaltenen wochentlichen Reden . . . Berlin: Chris¬

(7)

tian Albrecht Gabert (1745). “Musikalische Erwegungs- u. Ubungs Wahrheiten”: [Georg Fried¬ rich Lingke], Einige zum allgemeinen Nutzen deutlicher gemachte musikalische

Erwegungs-

und

andere

leichter

eingerichtete

Uibungs-Wahrheiten, herausgegeben von einem Freunde dieser Wissenschafft. Leipzig: Michael Blochberger, [n.d.].

By happy coincidence, a copy of each of these rare treatises is found in the British Library. The books may have belonged to Charles Burney at one point, since Burney reported receiving some from Emanuel Bach during his visit to Ham¬ burg: “He presented me with several of his own pieces, and three or four curious ancient books and treatises on music, out of his father’s collection . . . ”15 Bur¬ ney, or some other English-speaking person must have owned the treatise by Riedt before it passed into the British Library, for on the front of the flyleaf is written, “Reid on Musical Intervals.”16 Bach’s list of musical treatises reflected his particular interest in what had been written on music theory, and his collecting activity may have begun as he prepared to write his own Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. The items he listed in his copy of Riedt’s Versuch probably did not influence him sig¬ nificantly, however, considering the subject matter and level of discussion found in these treatises. Riedt required thirty-two pages to develop his theory that nature was the true guide in understanding the relationship of musical tones. Apparently in an effort to expand his contribution, he included three tables at the end, which merely reproduce in musical notation the information that had been given on pages 19-23 using pitch names. It seems unlikely that Bach profited much from this pedantic and redundant treatise, which dealt with only the simplest theoretical con¬ cepts. The same holds for Georg Friedrich Lingke’s Wahrheiten, which covers merely rudiments such as scales, intervals, part-writing, inversion, and modulation.17 The treatises of Riedt and Lingke are the only ones in the group at all similar in subject matter to Bach’s own Versuch. The writings of Koswick and Carolus would only have been of historical interest. Bodenburg, too, would have been con¬ sulted for his contribution to the history of music, for he gave lectures on this sub¬ ject in Berlin during Bach’s first years there.18 Finally, the droll satire by Johann Bahr, Bellum Musicum oder Musicalischer Krieg, must have earned its place in Bach’s library as a source of entertainment. This description of a supposed musical war was accompanied by a map showing the battle area, divided into regions such as “Regio Contrapuncti Duplicis,” “Terra Instrumentista,” “Figuralia,” and

64

The Compositional Process

“Choralia,” corresponding in geographical position to the regions of Europe at the time that were most associated with each type of music. As a group these six or seven treatises were not particularly important, and Bach may have given them away for just that reason; but their presence in his li¬ brary does confirm Bach’s own interest in theoretical writings. In practice, how¬ ever, Bach’s ideas were probably shaped more by his everyday contact with Marpurg, Quantz, Kimberger, and other members of the Berlin circle of musiciantheoreticians. The combination of Bach’s early training and his independent study of music as a young adult led to his own substantial contribution to music literature, his Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. Bach himself initially pub¬ lished both parts of the Versuch. Part One first appeared in 1753 and treated finger¬ ing, embellishments, and general considerations in performance. Part Two fol¬ lowed in 1762 and dealt with intervals, throughbass accompaniment, and impro¬ visation. The fame and influence of Bach’s Versuch spread rapidly, and both parts appeared in reissues and revised versions during Bach’s life and after his death. Although Bach intended both parts of the Versuch to serve as practical guides to performers, Part Two in particular reflects his approach to composition as well. In his letter to Forkel of 13 January 1775 previously quoted, Bach stressed the essential role of thoroughbass exercises in the training of a composer. Bach viewed his Versuch as his formal statement on disputed issues in eighteenth-century com¬ position, for he wrote to Johann Christoph Kuhnau, music director in Berlin, in a letter of 31 August 1774: “You are correct in defending the ninth in opposition to Herr Fasch . . . My defense is found in my second Essay, in the chapter on the ninth.”19 The opinions Bach expressed in his Versuch, especially in Part Two, bear directly on his own decisions in composition, and will be discussed later in individual cases. Bach’s contemporaries recognized his Versuch as the product of Sebastian Bach’s training and Emanuel’s awareness of the changes occurring in his own gen¬ eration. Johann Friedrich Agricola wrote in the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek of 1774, “Just as thorough as J. S. Bach in teaching figured bass was his sonC. P. E. Bach in the second part of his Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instru¬ ments, in which he added an extensive discussion of the changes dictated by taste, and, if you will, fashion, in recent times.”20 Although the Versuch was not often quoted by nineteenth-century writers, its importance has been recognized in the twentieth century. Otto Vrieslander pro¬ vided a general overview of Bach’s theory and its influence on Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven.21 William J. Mitchell was among the few to explore the teachings of the Versuch in detail. Mitchell sought to clarify Bach’s use of the terms Ausweichung and Modulation, pointing out that Ausweichung referred to change of key in its “clinical” sense, while Modulation stood for context, shape, pattern, and conduct of a passage in the traditional sense of the term.22 More recently, Peter

The Compositional Process

65

Cohen has discussed the Versuch extensively in his Theorie und Praxis der Clavierasthetik Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs.23, Future studies of the Versuch and especially of its relationship to the writings of Rameau would further clarify Bach’s position as a theorist among his contemporaries.24 There remains yet one other document that represents Bach’s study and teaching of music theory. That is the Miscellanea Musica, an unpublished manu¬ script preserved in the Brussels Conservatory.25 Since this source has been virtu¬ ally completely overlooked by both C. P. E. Bach’s biographers and those in¬ terested in his music theory, it will be described here in some detail.26 Although no autograph copy of the Miscellanea Musica survives, there can be no doubt about its authenticity. The Brussels copy is in the hand of Michel, Bach’s Hamburg copyist, who clearly ascribed it to Philipp Emanuel Bach on the title page: “Miscellanea/Musica/von C. P. E. Bach.’’ Further, the. Miscellanea Musi¬ ca is listed in the Nachlassverzeichnis, where it is identified as “consisting of exer¬ cises in thoroughbass, etc., etc.”27 It also appears in Westphal’s thematic catalog of C. P. E. Bach’s works, along with a more complete description of its contents: “Miscellanea Musica, consisting of exercises in thoroughbass, in various modula¬ tions, harmonic passages and solutions, various canons and evolutions, by C. P. E. Bach.”28 Since Wotquenne prepared his thematic catalog from that of Westphal, the Miscellanea Musica appears in Wotquenne’s catalog as W. 121, and Westphal’s description of the contents is reproduced faithfully. While Wotquenne noted that W. 121 was preserved in manuscript, he neglected to mention that the manuscript was located in the Brussels Conservatory. If he had, the source prob¬ ably would be more well-known than it presently is. The Miscellanea Musica contains no text, only a series of short exercises, progressions, and contrapuntal studies. It is striking, however, how much these little passages resemble the examples a present-day instructor in counterpoint might copy out for students. From studying the progressions outlined on the pages of the Miscellanea Musica one can almost imagine the accompanying lecture. Page 3 contains the examples for a discourse on common ways of modulating to the dominant and the subdominant. Subsequent pages explore paths to the relative minor, the mediant, and other keys. Later pages present the examples for lectures on the resolution of the \ chord (p. 14) and the 6 chord (pp. 15-16), interspersed with possible fugal subjects, short canons, and a type of contrapuntal writing la¬ belled “Evolutio,” which illustrates various devices such as augmentation (p. 17), diminution (p. 22), invertible counterpoint (p. 22), imitation (p. 19), and in¬ version (p. 16). While the Miscellanea Musica indirectly reflects the teachings of Johann Sebastian Bach, actually it probably served as Philipp Emanuel’s notes for teaching his own students. The source dates from the latter part of C. P. E. Bach’s life, since it contains snatches of pieces he wrote in his last years, and since it is preserved in the hand of Michel. Other snatches of short pieces and fugues on

66

The Compositional Process

BACH suggest that the Miscellanea Musica also served as a general repository for a variety of little compositions and ideas. In this respect, it might have served a function similar to Beethoven’s sketchbooks in preserving fleeting musical thoughts for later work. This is certainly suggested by Bach’s label “Einfalle” (sudden ideas), which is found on page 7 above brief excerpts labelled “Allegret¬ to,” “Andante,” “im vorigen tempo,” ‘‘All. assai,’’ and 1 ‘Adagio. Beethoven even used the same word “Einfall” in labelling his sketches. The Miscellanea Musica, at least in the form it has been preserved, is not the true equivalent of a Beethoven sketchbook, however, since the painstaking working out of musical ideas is not present.

The Interpretation and Transcription of Bach’s Successive Stages in Composition The autograph sources of C. P. E. Bach’s concertos vary greatly in the amount and type of information they can provide about his compositional process. Bach some¬ times composed a work, or some passages in it, directly in the process of preparing the score. Other times he referred to his score to revise a concerto, and on other occasions he simply wrote out a fair copy of a work in score. The terms ‘ ‘compos¬ ing score, ” “fair copy, ” and “revision copy, ’ ’ used by Robert Marshall in discus¬ sing the cantatas of J. S. Bach30 apply equally well to Philipp Emanuel’s scores which, like those of his father, may also have mixed functions. However, one may conclude that the scores Bach prepared in Berlin are more likely to be composing scores than those dating from Hamburg. Gradually, as time went on, Bach either became more adept at penning a polished version of a passage at his first try, or he could afford the luxury of recopying heavily altered sections on fresh paper, for the scores dating from Hamburg contain relatively few crossed-out passages, era¬ sures, and inserted notes. The few corrections made in these scores can usually be traced to copying errors. For example, in writing out W. 36 Bach used two arched lines to indicate the continuation of the first system of f. 14v on f. 15r. He also drew a small crown design at the end of the system on f. 15r, and another crown on f. 14v, to mark the point where the section was to continue. This inser¬ tion presumably was undertaken after Bach mistakenly omitted an entire system, while he was copying from an earlier composing score or some other manuscript no longer preserved. While a few of the concertos written in Berlin have been preserved in fair copies made by the composer, there are generally indications that these fair copies were prepared for some special purpose. Bach undoubtedly intended some of these carefully-written scores to serve as Stichvorlagen. A note he wrote at the end of W. 18 makes it clear that at some point Bach planned to arrange the publication of this concerto, since he referred to printing a trill sign:

The Compositional Process

67

All figures belong in the keyboard part, t means tr The # are for the most part unclear and small, but must be very carefully distinguished from the tj. all Da Capo are written out31

Like C. P. E. Bach and his father, other composers left evidence of the steps in their decision-making. In recent years a variety of techniques for transcribing successive stages have evolved. In the editions now available of Beethoven’s sketchbooks alone, the transcriptions run the gamut from the “diplomatic facsim¬ ile,” which attempts to capture the appearance of the original as closely as possi¬ ble, to the frankly interpretive transcription, which presents the editor’s opinion of the composer’s intention without including idiosyncracies of stemming, beaming, etc., of the composer. Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvan¬ tages. The choice of transcribing method should depend on what the interpreter is trying to convey, and also, the medium of communication available for this pur¬ pose. Someone preparing the transcriptions for a facsimile edition of a complete source can approach the task differently from the author of an article citing briefly many different unpublished sources. Ideally, whatever method is used should clearly indicate what the interpreter believes to be the musical reading of the original, as well as the specific note spac¬ ing, crossing-out, or other detail in the appearance of the composer’s notation which has led to the interpreter’s conclusions. This second goal can best be achieved by including a facsimile of the original. Unfortunately, Philipp Emanuel Bach frequently used black ink for writing music onto staves drawn in an ink that is now light brown, so that in high-contrast line reproductions of his scores the staff lines disappear, rendering this type of facsimile useless for a reader. Accordingly, in order to show the appearance of Bach’s scores as clearly as possible, the present study contains two types of transcription for most passages cited. The first serves the function of a facsimile in attempting to capture the image of the original, but it is actually a type of diplomatic transcription. However, instead of the approximate rendition of note-spacing and other details usually provided in diplomatic tran¬ scriptions, an even closer representation of the original has been possible. This has been achieved by viewing films of the autograph scores on a photographic enlarger or microfilm reader with adjustable enlargement, and tracing the projected image on a sheet of music paper to produce an even more faithful diplomatic transcription than otherwise possible. Of course, this method sacrifices the representation of how the staves were drawn in the original, which has been shown to be quite im¬ portant in some cases.32 Because of the importance of the exact appearance of a composer’s score or other composing document, tracings cannot fully substitute for a facsimile—still less for a direct examination of the manuscript. In preparing tracings, even the most careful worker can overlook certain details, preventing the reader from being

68

The Compositional Process

aware of them, while in viewing a facsimile the reader may still discover fine points overlooked by the writer. Tracings are warranted only when it is not feasible to include facsimiles and should be viewed as a means of communication rather than a means of representation. The tracings supplied here go beyond diplomatic transcriptions in another way as well. Highly important in the discussion of Philipp Emanuel Bach’s com¬ positional process is an awareness of his erasures, which are visible on direct ex¬ amination of the paper but not on film or in facsimiles. Since the erasures do not always entirely remove the original version and sometimes allow it to be recon¬ structed under ultraviolet light, the exact location of erasures may play as big a role in deciphering the successive stages of decision-making as the layout and appear¬ ance of the musical symbols. To communicate this information, a grid of tiny dots33 appears over places where erasures may be seen in the original. In some cases the grid of dots forms the noteheads that have been erased, but which are still visible upon direct examination of the source.34 In other cases, the grid of dots simply marks the location of an erasure in the manuscript.35 Because this method produces neither a facsimile nor the usual diplomatic transcription, but incorporates features of both, the end product will be referred to here as an illustration. The function of illustrations is only to show what I have seen in the original. The interpretation of this information, involving judgments concerning especially the sequence of events, will be provided by excerpts labelled transcriptions. Since the function of the transcription is to communicate a musical reading, no attempt is made to reflect the spatial organization or notational idiosyncracies of the original, since these details will already be given in the illustrations. In the transcriptions the successive stages in the composition of a passage will be given one under another, with dotted vertical lines between points of correspon¬ dence. Occasionally, when the autograph score is quite legible, its interpretation will be given in the text and the transcription will be omitted. When other passages of music need to be quoted, but not for the purpose of discussing how those pas¬ sages were composed, these excerpts will be termed examples. Bach’s Sequence of Decision-Making The earliest stages of Bach’s compositional process now preserved are found in his autograph scores. Unlike his father, he did not often write brief sketches in his scores, and although he may have entered early drafts on separate sheets, these sheets have for the most part not survived. Fortunately, Bach's autograph scores contain many clues to the earliest stages in his work on a concerto. A composer’s first decisions vary greatly with the individual.36 Some com¬ posers conceive of a melody, and then work out its harmonization and other de¬ tails. Others may decide first on a harmonic sequence, desired length of a passage, or even an instrumentation, and construct the rest accordingly. These first deci-

The Compositional Process

69

sions can even vary depending on the compositional task, so that a con¬ siderable variety of approaches may be seen within the output of a single composer. In writing his concertos Philipp Emanuel Bach adopted a procedure tailored to the genre. Study of the autograph sources leads to the following conclusions: 1.

2.

3.

Bach first composed the two outer parts throughout a movement, switch¬ ing back and forth from the string parts to the keyboard part, depending on whichever carried the main melodic interest. a. In sections remaining within one key, such as the statement of the tutti theme or the closing material, he wrote down the melody first, although he probably had in mind the general outline, if not the speci¬ fic notes, of the bass line. b. In modulatory sections he conceived of the bass line first and only later went back to add appropriate figuration in the upper parts. After building a skeleton for the movement, he returned to the begin¬ ning and worked out the inner voices of the string parts, and at the same time made necessary corrections and additions in the solo part. He generally began by adding the viola part, and the second violin. Occa¬ sionally, when the viola part played a critical role in the preparation or resolution of dissonances, it was written down at the same time as the two outer voices. Finally he added articulation, ornamentation, dynamics, and all the symbols necessary to make a score complete and usable by a copyist, such as rests, fermatas to mark the cadenza, da capo indications, and unison signs.

There is considerable evidence within the autograph scores to support these conclusions. The evidence derives from the way in which the musical symbols are entered on the page and involves study of the inks used, the spacing of the notes, and other details in the appearance of the score. This paleographic evidence of a composer’s working habits has increasingly served as the basis for understanding the process, replacing the earlier tradition of making judgments, usually subjective ones, about what pitches or note values produced the better version. Evidence that Bach first constructed the skeleton of a movement, instead of writing entire sections at once, is found in the autograph scores of W. 7 and W. 11. In writing these concertos Bach possibly happened to be interrupted, or in some way shifted from his usual setting (perhaps in one of the moves between Potsdam and Berlin?) for some reason so that he changed both paper and ink in the middle of a movement. In the score of W. 7, the shift occurred during the final movement, for the last bifolio of the score differs in paper type and staff ruling from the rest of the score (f. 9r-10v). On this last bifolio, and the verso side of the folio immediate¬ ly preceding it, Bach used a heavy black ink. In contrast the first part of the score

70

The Compositional Process

appears exclusively in light brown ink (f. lr-7r). However, near the junction of the two paper types (f. 7v-8r), both brown and black ink appear together. This sug¬ gests that Bach had begun sketching the skeleton of this movement in brown ink, when due to some interruption, he returned to his work with a different ink and paper. He then finished the last side of the original paper using black ink (f. 8v), and also used this black ink to complete the skeleton already sketched out on the inside of the bifolio (f. 7v-8r). What appears in brown, then, represents his early work, and what appears in black, his later additions. Brown ink has been used in the upper and lower parts for whatever instruments occupy center stage at any given moment. The outer parts of the opening tutti, and some of the viola part, occur in brown. Then in measure 34, with the solo entrance, the brown shifts to the keyboard part, and only returns to the first violin and bass parts in measures 41,66, and 90, when the strings briefly interject a few measures within the solo section. During the remainder of the first solo section the keyboard part, and often only its upper line, appears in brown; the accompanying strings parts are written in black ink. When black ink is used within the solo part, it is only for some segments of the bass line (mm. 46-65, 94-101), articulation (mm. 34-36, 69-73), ornamental appoggiaturas (mm. 41,58-65), corrections (m. 88), and revisions (mm. 98-101). A similar stratification in the color of ink used may be seen in the autograph score of W. 11. As in the score of W. 7, a change of both paper and ink occurs within the source, and both inks may be seen near the junction. After four bifolios of thick beige paper with prominent laid lines, a change to smaller paper of a green¬ ish cast occurs (compare f. 8 with f. 9). Just before the change of paper, during some twenty-seven measures of solo-tutti interchange, whichever part that con¬ tains the main melodic line appears in brown ink, the ink previously used. Accompanimental figures, rests, and dynamics appear in black ink, the ink also used for the remainder of the movement. A different type of evidence suggesting Bach’s construction of the melodicharmonic framework first is derived from the revisions of a few measures that he undertook immediately, writing the new version directly following the old on the staff. For example, in the final tutti of the opening movement of W. 12, Bach wrote in the notes of the first violin and bass parts for eight measures following measure 182, but then crossed out these measures and continued notating the passage on the next system. Thus the revision must have been done immediately. Only the two outer parts had been formed before Bach rewrote the section, for the inner parts contain no notes nor rests. Bach’s habit of composing piecemeal the segments of an individual part dur¬ ing which it carried the main melodic line may also be seen in the score of the slow movement of W. 17. In this source the part with the main melodic interest at a given moment is written with a relatively fine point. The noteheads are small, and the stems often curved and slanted to the right. In contrast, the accompanying parts appear much thicker and bolder, with large noteheads, straight stems, and little

The Compositional Process

71

diagonal slant. This is true of the entire slow movement, and it is particularly ob¬ vious during the development of the opening motive. In this section (mm. 44-61) a fragment of the principal material is tossed between the harpsichord and the first violin part (written with a fine point), while the second violin and viola play the supporting role with repeated eighth notes (written with a thick point). Such strati¬ fication created by the migration of material might conceivably have also occurred during the preparation of a fair copy, for the melodic line generally requires more space than the accompaniment, and writing it first would allow for a neater score. However, the autograph score of W. 17 undoubtedly represents a composing docu¬ ment, for it contains immediate corrections (as in the slow movement, solo part, m. 60). Alterations and corrections in the autograph scores also confirm that Bach first concerned himself with the broad outlines of the concerto, and later returned to fill in the details. Some of his erasures in the final movement of the Concerto for Organ, W. 34, left the original noteheads still visible, and this passage shows Bach’s working out of the relationship between the solo instrument and the tutti (Illustration 1, Transcription 1). The measures containing erasures occur during what might be termed the fourth solo section, though here the tutti instruments frequently steal the spotlight with snatches of the very attractive principal theme and its permutations.37 The problem then became one of creating an interplay be¬ tween tutti and solo, so that neither, especially the solo part, was overshadowed. To accomplish this Bach originally planned that the organ would play brief octave leaps to punctuate one of the tutti interjections. He later abandoned this plan, pos¬ sibly because of considerations of balance, and entrusted the octave leaps to the second violin. In giving up the dramatic leaps in the solo part, Bach caused it to retreat further into the background and only reiterate the dominant pedal. Bach’s custom of writing the main melodic line first throughout the move¬ ment occasionally caused problems when the note values of the accompaniment were smaller than those in the melody, and thus required more space than was available in the score. One example of this is found in the first movement of W. 15. For the second tutti Bach apparently had planned at the outset that the harpsichord would contribute some brilliant thirty-second note runs while the strings played the primary motive at different pitch levels (mm. 50-55). He allowed enough space for the harpsichord accompaniment in measures 50 and 51, but subsequently he must have written only the tutti melody until measure 55, for when he later filled in the solo part he was forced to crowd many of its notes in over the barline (Illustration 2). Bach’s habit of writing the bass part first during modulatory passages prob¬ ably stemmed from his early training. Certainly the many possible modulations given in the basses of his Miscellanea Musica represent more than a pedagogical exercise, for the planning of modulations in terms of the underlying harmony, in¬ stead of the melody, rhythm, or other element, can be seen in Bach’s autograph scores. The autograph score of W. 44 contains erasures that provide clues to the

72

The Compositional Process

order in which Bach worked out a modulatory passage (Illustration 3, Transcrip¬ tion 3). At the end of the second solo section in the first movement (f. 3v-4r) he appears to have decided on the harmonic skeleton first, for an erasure in measure 80 seems to have been necessary when the bass note he originally wrote had to be moved up an octave for desirable voice-leading with the subsequently composed top part. Additional evidence may be seen in the downward stem of the A# in measure 80, which should have been written upward if the final octave placement of the F# had been anticipated. Thus the notation of this passage suggests three stages in its composition: (1) the determination of the way in which the eventual modulation to the tutti in E minor (m. 85) was to be accomplished, recorded first in the notes of the left-hand part, with two measures left blank for an as yet undeter¬ mined idiomatic, ornamental figuration in the high register; (2) the composition of the right-hand part; (3) correction of the bass line, necessitated by the nature of the right-hand part. Alterations The alterations C. P. E. Bach made in his scores vary greatly, from his corrections of occasional mistakes in the writing of a note, and mechanical revisions of part¬ writing, to substantial changes in a passage for musical reasons.38 The first two categories are predictable and do not require extensive treatment. The third cate¬ gory—that of changes reflecting a composer’s preference—promises the most useful information not only about the working habits of composers, but also about their reactions to the conventions of writing music in effect at the time. Creating Tutti-Solo Interractions Probably the most important problem C. P. E. Bach set for himself in writing con¬ certos was the interrelating of the solo and tutti parts. Many of the most interesting alterations he made resulted from his efforts to pit the strings against the keyboard. Bach viewed a concerto not simply as a chance for a harpsichordist and an orches¬ tra to gather in the same room and alternate in the playing of good melodies. In¬ stead, each was to react to what the other had played. This reaction could take a variety of forms. Within the space of only a few measures, the solo instrument might repeat exactly what the tutti instruments had just played, taking advantage of the contrast in timbre between keyboard and strings. To an implied question raised by the strings, the harpsichord could make a response. For an interaction of large dimensions, the soloist could react to the tutti exposition by varying its thematic material. Within a solo section, the major divisions or articulations could be under¬ scored by a short tutti interjection just before the cadence. These devices, which have become quite familiar to modern audiences in the concertos of Mozart and Beethoven, were only to some extent built into the concerto form. Fully exploiting

The Compositional Process

73

them depended on the talent and originality of the composer. At a time when the keyboard concerto as a genre was still comparatively young, Philipp Emanuel Bach recognized the interesting compositional challenges it presented and set out to meet them. To accomplish the interrelating of solo and tutti, Bach frequently relied exclu¬ sively on simple contrasts in sound—in timbre, in dynamics, or in surface articula¬ tion. For example, in the slow movement of W. 45 he expressly indicated that the viola play a certain run “sciolte"—unslurred—while the harpsichord (or piano) was to follow with the same motive played legato (m. 53). Later, after having the soloist glide to a cadence via some descending sixteenth-notes slurred in pairs, he called on the violins to play the same pitches as staccato eighth-notes (mm. 66-67). Bach also relied on the technique of variation as a resource for relating solo and tutti. If the tutti instruments played a self-contained unit, even a phrase that returned to the tonic, the soloist could still comment on this by immediately ex¬ tending and embellishing this material, as for example in W. 18, measures 54-47 and 47-51. Bach placed such a high value on interrelating the solo and tutti parts that in at least one remarkable case he deliberately disobeyed the rules of part-writing that he himself had laid down in his Versuch. The passage in question occurs in the final movement of W. 15, during the first solo section. This movement begins with a concise head-motif built around a trill (Example 1). During the first solo section Bach capitalized on this brief and memorable trill motive by arranging entries of the tutti at different pitch levels, or in a slightly varied form as an interjection and commentary on the soloist’s part. In this concerto, as in so many others, Bach especially valued an interchange between the parts as cadences, where the momen¬ tary lull in tension in the solo part could be offset by a brief interjection by the strings, typically, a unison sounding of a very brief motive. In W. 15 the first half¬ cadence of the solo section followed this pattern, as the tutti instruments entered with the appropriate motive just as the soloist cadenced (Example 2). Later in this first solo section Bach constructed a modulation to D major by combining idioma¬ tic keyboard writing with a fragment of the second half of the principal material re¬ peated sequentially (compare Examples 1 and 3). Although ingenious in its juxta¬ position of seemingly disparate elements, this sequence ended at an inopportune point to be joined to the unison motive. To be consistent with the earlier treatment of a cadence, quoted in Example 2, it was desirable that the strings play the headmotif in unison. In order to do so, all the strings had to be able to begin on the new tonic, but only the bass could do so, since the three higher parts were required to provide a proper resolution for the seventh chord in measure 102. The requirements for the preparation and resolution of all the various seventh chords were extensively treated by Bach in the second part of his Versuch, where he devoted twenty-two pages to the subject in the first edition. Like many of his fellow theorists, he stated these requirements in an unequivocal way:

74

The Compositional Process The seventh is a dissonance which appears with preparation (a) and without it (b). It pro¬ gresses by stepwise descent .... The most essential consideration with regard to the construction of the chord is that the seventh must appear and resolve in the voice in which it is prepared .... When the fifth is diminished, it too must resolve .... When the bass ascends a step, the third of the second chord must be doubled occasionally (c).39

There can be no doubt that Bach was aware of the rules, and that he deliber¬ ately broke them in this case in order to obey another rule, an unwritten but very important one: the tutti and the solo parts of a concerto should interact in such a way as to maintain movement within a section. Perhaps this is^the rule Kirnberger had in mind when he argued that harmony was not the sole basis of music, but rather that movement (Bewegung) and rhythm were the most essential elements. Consequently, music unquestionably gained much through the introduction of harmony. However, some certainly push things too far when they would assert with Rameau that the whole art is merely founded on harmony, and that even melody itself has its origins in har¬ mony. The latter has nothing that could lead to movement and rhythm, which nevertheless are the most essential in music.40

In any event, Bach erased his first grammatically “correct” resolution of the seventh chord, and substituted in its place a unison playing of the opening motive in the string parts (Illustration 4, Transcription 4). In doing so, he tossed aside the normal rules. The seventh and the diminished fifth in the string parts did not re¬ solve downward, but were ignored. Although the harpsichord part contained the resolution, Bach had specifically stated in his Versuch that the seventh must appear and resolve in the voice in which it is prepared. After having broken all these rules, Bach could afford to ignore his stipulation about doubling the third when the bass ascends a step, since this rule had been necessary in order to eliminate parallel fifths in the resolution. Bach’s problem with this passage derived not so much from a discrepancy between theory and practice—for Bach did have to ponder his alteration—but rather from the primacy of certain considerations that were difficult to pinpoint and discuss in theoretical treatises. It was easy to construct beautiful tables of musical intervals, list them, categorize them, and collect compliments from one’s ac¬ quaintances. It was more difficult for an eighteenth-century theorist, or any theor¬ ist, to explain what he meant by the elusive term “movement,” although the con¬ cept may have been intuitively obvious to composers. Occasionally, in order to generate this highly-prized movement within a work, Bach found it necessary to pare down the string parts to the barest minimum, so that the keyboard part could assume an equal role. Particularly in passages featuring a rapid shifting of the melodic line between the first violin and the harp¬ sichord, Bach judged a simple orchestral texture to be the most appropriate. In the slow movement of W. 32, for example, the erasures in measure 23 suggest that Bach originally planned to have the soloist and the strings alternate in playing a

The Compositional Process

75

short rhythmic motive (Illustration 5, Transcription 5). Then he discovered that this rhythmic motive permitted an attractive overlapping, so that the soloist could begin a new statement of the motive even before the strings had finished playing it. In telescoping the dialogue in this way, Bach increased the intensity of the tuttisolo interaction. However, the lower string parts in the first version now actually masked the rapid interplay between the first violin and the harpsichord. Pruning was necessary. By omitting the notes in the second violin, viola, and bass parts in measures 22-23, Bach brought into sharp relief the contrasting melodic motion in the harpsichord and first violin parts. He must have been especially fond of his solution of overlapping the parts here, for these measures were among the few that remained unchanged in the later ornamented version of the concerto. In composing his first concerto for two harpsichords, W. 46 of 1740, Bach became aware of a new dimension in the interaction of the instruments: not only could one create an interplay between tutti and solo, but also, the two solo instru¬ ments could imitate or echo one another, play two different melodies at the same time, and otherwise compete, just as the strings and the harpsichord vie for the listener’s attention in a solo concerto. Bach’s interest in the problems of relating the two solo instruments may be seen in some erasures he made in the autograph score of W. 46 (Illustration 6, Transcription 6). In spite of the erasures, the stems and heads of the original notes may still be detected. The passage in question occurs twice, first toward the end of the first solo section (mm. 70-74) and again later at the corresponding point at the end of the second solo section (mm. 187-91) with an erasure in both places. Except for the transposition, however, the original version of measures 70-74 is the same as the original version of 187-91, and Bach’s revision of these measures is also identical. Aware that he could capitalize on spa¬ tial effects available with two solo instruments, Bach first sought to produce an echo in this passage by having a motive played by one harpsichord and repeated by the other after only one beat. His first effort featured four echoes of the same few notes, set against the harmonic outlining of the strings. He rejected this, and intro¬ duced greater variety in the echo figure: first it appeared in thirds, then in sixths, then down an octave, and finally in thirds again. Each time the second harpsichord dutifully repeated exactly what the first had played. In this way the echo effect actually increases. It is as if someone were standing on the edge of a canyon testing an echo. When his first words come back to him, he is delighted, and as a test of this new power to command the repetition of his exact tone and speech rhythm, he shouts out something different. The new version had another advantage: it added variety and implied move¬ ment to four measures which otherwise remain quite static. The string parts were restricted melodically to a range of a diminished seventh, and were further con¬ fined tightly to the rising and falling melodic line and the same rhythmic pattern, both only one measure long. This rigid pattern further functioned only to imply harmonic movement, not to effect it, for no actual change of harmony occurs be-

76

The Compositional Process

tween measures 70 and 74, nor between measures 187 and 191. Set against this background, exact repetition in the two keyboard parts of a one-bar melodic and rhythmic pattern must have resulted in too much stasis for the critical section just before the beginning of a new tutti. Designing a Phrase The Classical style of Haydn and Mozart differed from that of the Baroque most obviously in its phrase structure. In place of the spinning-out of small rhythmic motives over a long and indeterminate span, composers began to write shorter, more heavily punctuated phrases. Often, but by no means always, these phrases were eight measures long, and frequently the last four measures provided a com¬ pletion, or response, to the first four. Basic to the creation of this response, or antecedent-consequent phrase structure, were still smaller elements. These dis¬ crete melodic, rhythmic, or harmonic building blocks have been termed modules.41 Modules varied in size, but during the Classical period were typically one, two, or four measures long. Increasingly, during the eighteenth century, com¬ posers tended to structure their phrases around larger and larger modules.42 C. P. E. Bach’s alterations in his scores indicate that he sometimes became conscious of what we now term the module only after having composed a passage. His subsequent corrections then reflect his awareness of the module, as he rids the passage of undesirable breaks in the modular rhythm. In the final movement of W. 15, for example, Bach apparently crossed out one measure after realizing that it conflicted with the two-bar module of what fol¬ lowed (Example 4, Illustration 7, Transcription 7). Originally, he had planned that the third solo would begin with two measures of tonic, as the third tutti had (com¬ pare mm. 163a-b with mm. 133-34). But what developed for this solo was a clear two-bar module, which arose naturally due to the two-bar harmonic pattern repeated sequentially and the rhythm of the top line, which further set off each new step of the sequence with an eighth-rest. The second measure of tonic, how¬ ever, disrupted the pattern. Since it could be omitted without any change in either the previous or the subsequent measures, Bach merely crossed it out. This altera¬ tion probably took place after the solo section was written, for he had already entered the whole rests in the string parts. If the alteration had been an immedi¬ ate one, the rests would not yet have been entered. Bach’s awareness of the modular nature of Classical phrase structure also in¬ fluenced his revision of the solo arrangement of W. 42. Here, as in so many other instances, the alterations in the score show his determined efforts to find the best solution possible, even if it meant changing many measures after the entire work had been written. No autograph source of the orchestral version has survived, but Bach undoubtedly had a copy of it available when he penned the solo arrangement, since he was able to calculate how much paper the solo version would require—

The Compositional Process

77

three Bogen—and arrange a regular gathering of three bifolios. Actual composi¬ tional activity did take place even during the preparation of the arrangement, however. The many erasures in the second movement were not corrections of care¬ less mistakes. Bach repeatedly deleted the same motive, the decorative cadential closing of the primary material. Although Bach's attempts at erasure were so strenuous as to cause a hole in the page in measure 38, enough of the earlier noteheads are still visible to allow a reconstruction of the earlier version (Example 5, Illustration 8, Transcription 8). Bach's decision to revise this passage hinged on whether he preferred the activity and interest at the cadence to be generated harmonically by a deceptive cadence in measure 10, or melodically and rhythmically by the introduction of a large melodic leap and trill in measure 9. His original choice, the deceptive cadence, certainly contributed to the maintenance of harmonic tension until the final resolution in measure 12 was to come. However, in the first eight measures a two-bar module had been established, with a clear pattern of response as the means of continuation. Thus, whatever sounded in measure 9 would reappear in some form two measures later. With Bach’s first choice this was certainly possible, but the rhythmic sim¬ plicity in measure 9 that worked so well to introduce the deceptive cadence, now made the true cadence less active, less important when it sounded again in measure 11. Of course, it would have been possible simply to change measure 11 and not measure 9, but this would have disrupted the two-bar module so clearly estab¬ lished. Bach chose to revise both measure 9 and measure 11, giving up the decep¬ tive cadence in measure 10. The particular revision he chose made it possible to keep the attractive echo motive in measure 10, for although this echo originally had a submediant function, its construction also allowed it to be interpreted as the new tonic. Bach may have liked the newly-introduced melodic leap so much that he altered the subsequent occurrences of the motive, or perhaps he did so in the in¬ terest of unity. In any event, erasures may be seen in several passages in which the motive recurs, erasures that represent Bach’s decision to make corresponding changes in the motive as it was subsequently developed and reshaped (mm. 36-39, 49-51,89-91,100-103). Quite possibly, Bach liked the cadence worked out in the solo version so much that he in turn incorporated it into the previously-written orchestral version, for both manuscript copies of the orchestral version contain the final reading (D-brd B St 212, B Be 5887). Considerations of Phrase Structure Just as Bach’s recognition of the modular nature of his phrases could come after he had written them, so too could his understanding of the overall phrase structure develop gradually, after the fact. In constructing phrases he sometimes conceived of only the first half, and then sought to find the completion or response that would

78

The Compositional Process

be syntactically acceptable in the musical idiom of his time. Without this response, the phrase would be incomplete, just as a sentence lacking either subject or verb remains incomplete. In the antecedent-consequent phrase structure so common in the Classical language, it was desirable to make the response parallel or equal in weight to the opening statement. Bach created a phrase structure requiring a response in.the opening movement of W. 12, but his alterations show that he remained unsatisfied with his initial con¬ tinuation (Illustration 9, Transcription 9). The passage in question, which occurs during the third solo section, begins with four measures of tonic and sub¬ dominant harmony, in the pattern I—IV4—IV4—I. Ideally the continuation of the phrase would have featured the dominant in some way, before the customary ca¬ dence on the tonic. Bach’s first solution did, in fact, incorporate one measure on V, but the second part of the phrase—the response—was only two measures long. Characteristic of the emerging Classical language was a concern for balance be¬ tween two subunits of a phrase. Often, but not always, this balance was achieved by making the two subunits the same length. Bach chose this common pattern when he rewrote one measure and inserted two more, finally obtaining two sub¬ phrases of equal weight. He did not undertake this revision immediately, but only after having written the following tutti, for he had to enter the new measures of the harpsichord part on the staves of the second violin and viola above. In many of his revisions Bach etched out the profile for a phrase by increasing the level of melodic, rhythmic, or harmonic activity just before the cadence. Typi¬ cally, he substituted notes of smaller values or introduced more variety in the note values of the penultimate measure; elsewhere he reformed the melody to include more non-harmonic tones, leaps, and changes of direction; or, he increased the chord rhythm. In the final movement of W. 7, for example, he originally intended that the first solo section end with a simple eight-bar phrase, in which the second four measures merely echoed the first (Illustration 10, Transcription 10). He re¬ vised the second four measures at some point after having written the following tutti, for he wrote the new version of the harpsichord part on the staves for the second violin and viola parts. The new melody unfolded over the same harmony, but was much more active, with its additional leaps and changes of direction, as well as added dissonance on the new peak note and the following bar, and the emphatic descent to a lower octave. The introduction of smaller rhythmic values further contributed to the sense of movement towards the cadence. Bach also re¬ vised the final solo section to bring in an extended flourish of eighth-notes before the cadence (D-ddr P 352, f. lOv). Quite possibly, he altered the final solo first, and was then inspired to go back and retouch the end of the first solo section. In any event, the revisions involved more than a small-scale improvement in a single phrase, for both times the increased activity came at an important point in the struc¬ ture of the whole movement, just before the tutti entrance. The soloist’s flurry of activity at this point signaled an important point of articulation.

The Compositional Process

79

Other instances of revision at the end of a solo section can be cited—for in¬ stance, in the slow movement of W. 7, measures 16-19, or in the opening move¬ ment of W. 27, measures 238-42. The prominence of revisions that introduce grea¬ ter activity before the tutti entrance suggests that Bach viewed this junction as an important one. If his original solo ending did not provide enough momentum to¬ wards the cadence, he rewrote until this momentum was created. Not all of Bach’s revisions came during solo sections, for he occasionally found it necessary to retouch tutti material as well. Bach’s alterations in the second, third, or fourth tutti sections often appear to result from a desire to avoid repeating the melodic and harmonic structure of the first tutti, or at least, to cast its material in a new guise. Often he constructed a fairly simple and unambiguous harmonic framework for the first tutti. Then, his original plans for later tuttis began with a simple transposition of the motive into the new key. Gradually, however, he then introduced changes causing the previously simple harmonic structure to evolve into a more amorphous one, with less clearly defined boundaries between dominant and subdominant elements. At the same time, he often altered the chord rhythm, replacing simple and regular patterns with syncopations. The net effect increases the sensation of flux, of movement, of propulsion toward the new and the unexpected. Bach’s method of altering his tuttis may be easily studied in the autograph score of his Concerto in D Major, W. 27. The first tutti in the opening movement extracts a motive from the notes of the tonic triad, sounded with large skips by the violins and in arpeggiated or scalar sixteenth-note patterns by the violas and basses.43 This recurs in the dominant (m. 13) and again in the tonic (m. 39), so that it is heard three times in the first tutti alone. The approach to the cadence at the end of the first tutti comes via an entirely regular and predictable pattern of harmonic changes once per measure until the tonic is reached, in the sequence I6-IV-l -V-I (mm. 49-53). The articulation at the end of the first tutti is then strengthened by a final two measures of tonic (mm. 53-54 in Example 6). For the end of the second tutti Bach employed the same harmonic pattern (mm. 142-47), merely changing a few notes of the melody played by the first violins in measure 143, apparently in order to avoid some extremely high notes that a literal transposition would have necessitated. So, by the time the third tutti ar¬ rived, some variety in the treatment of the ending had become quite desirable. Even Bach’s first version reflected his decision to abandon the one-bar pattern of harmonic change. Still present, however, was a regular chord-rhythm—two changes per measure until the three final measures—and the two-bar reiteration of the tonic. Bach’s decision to escape the confines of the original harmonic structure could have taken place immediately, or it could also have been the result of con¬ templation (Illustration 11, Transcription 11). The way in which he entered the change does not permit a firm conclusion, since he had originally intended the bass 4

80

The Compositional Process

to double the violins an octave lower, as can be seen from his squiggle indicating doubling still visible underneath the later reading. The blank staff there allowed him to write in the later version, and he merely added the words “con Basso to indicate the parts intended for violins and viola. The new solution for the end of the third tutti accomplished two aims: it de¬ parted from the solid regularity of the original structure by introducing irregularlyoccurring harmonic change, and it limited the amount of stasis by allotting only one measure for the tonic. Even then, the solo melody was brought in immediately, so that actually a double elision has taken place: the tonic of measures 53-55 at the junction of the first tutti and solo has now been compressed into one measure (m. 242). The new solution had yet another advantage: it continued the melodic pattern established in the previous six measures (mm. 231-36). This pattern, already quite familiar because of the many repetitions of it built into the tutti alone, was built around the same melodic shape—leap down, leap up—repeated three times. This repetition of a melodic pattern three times also characterized the new ending of the tutti, so that it both confirmed and balanced the phrase immediately preceding it.

Chain-Reactions In examining the autograph scores of J. S. Bach’s cantatas Robert Marshall dis¬ covered instances in which one alteration necessitated another. He termed these events “chain-reactions.”44 Philipp Emanuel Bach also occasionally was led into chain reactions in his composing process. Often the chain-reaction type of correc¬ tion made in the concertos can be traced wholly or nearly wholly to grammatical considerations, as the correction of one undesirable feature of the part writing cre¬ ated another at the same time. For example, at the beginning of the initial solo section in the first movement of W. 23, Bach found it necessary to improve the upper and middle lines in measure 49 (Illustration 12, Transcription 12a). The new melody introduced an undesirable doubling of the leading tone on the second beat (Transcription 12b). A solution permitting both the proper resolution of the seventh between the two lower voices and an interesting melodic line apparently was not immediately obvious, so Bach elected to omit the offending middle voice altogether (Transcription 12c). This in turn left him with a bare octave doubling between the two remaining parts, which he then corrected by altering the bass line (Transcription 12d). A far more complex and revealing chain-reaction occurred during the com¬ position of W. 25. This concerto, which was among the most well known during Bach’s lifetime owing to its wide distribution in both printed and manuscript sources, introduced a daring and noteworthy use of the augmented sixth chord in its slow movement. Here, the augmented sixth entered prominently, without prep¬ aration, on the second beat of the first measure, so that the second violin part con-

The Compositional Process

81

tained an expressive leap of an augmented second in the first measure. In place of the normal resolution of the sixth outward to the octave, Bach first had the two parts forming the sixth rest one beat and then continue as if the augmented sixth had not sounded. In his Versuch Bach stated that the augmented sixth could appear with prepa¬ ration or without it, but the examples he quoted all showed stepwise motion in approaching the dissonance.45 In the same passage he stated that the sixth resolves outward, and his accompanying examples illustrate the normal stepwise resolu¬ tion. The final version of W. 25 definitely represents a departure from the conven¬ tional way of treating the augmented sixth, as Bach had outlined it in the Versuch. The autograph score of W. 25 shows that Bach required some effort to arrive at the bold entrance of the augmented sixth in his final version (Illustration 13, Transcription 13). The opening measures have obviously been erased many times, as have the corresponding measures throughout the movement whenever the dis¬ sonant sixth appears. Unfortunately, the erasures have been so complete that only a few of the earlier noteheads and other symbols remain, so that the earlier versions cannot be quoted with certainty. Transcription 13 represents an attempt to recon¬ struct the most likely path Bach took, based on the location of the erasures and the noteheads that were not completely erased. At least it is clear that Bach required a minimum of three steps to formulate his final version, for it is impossible to explain all the ghosts of earlier notes in a musically coherent way without assuming several stages in composition. The erased noteheads in the first violin part preserve the initial version of the melody. Plain and square, this melody contained several repetitions of the pitches A and B-flat, rendering it rather uninteresting (Transcription 13a). Furthermore, Bach initially had paired this homely melody with several repeated notes in the viola part to emphasize the tonic harmony. The stasis produced by the combination of two lines so melodically and harmonically restricted probably led him to substi¬ tute the dominant harmony in measure 2, together with a separate melodic line for the second violin (Transcription 13b). Still not satisfied, he experimented with trying to create a greater degree of contrary motion between the outer voices (Transcription 13c). Finally, he added the piquant augmented sixth by inserting a sharp in the second violin part (Transcription 13d). The location of this sharp sign under, rather than next to the note, shows that the sharp had been a late inspiration. In the meantime, the alterations in the outer parts had left direct fifths in measure 1 (VI. I-VI. II, Transcription 13c) and in measure 2 (VI. II-vla.). The normal solu¬ tion— to have the augmented sixth resolve to the octave on A, would have created only an empty fourth with the upper line. Unwilling to give up his hard-won melody, Bach simply had the lower parts rest on the first beat of the second mea¬ sure. The problem of resolving the dissonance was swept under the rug, and at the same time, a dramatic pause was introduced to accompany the melodic sigh. The justification for Bach’s departures from the usual rules lay in his often-

82

The Compositional Process

quoted dictum that a musician cannot move others unless he too is moved.46 At the heart of his music was its affect, and, for Philipp Emanuel Bach, an expressive melody or rhythm that conveyed the characteristic emotion of the piece took prece¬ dence over harmonic conventions. He became viewed as daring and experimental in his use of harmony. It was true that he did not hesitate to depart from convention, but he did so for aesthetic reasons, not out of caprice. A perspective on Bach’s use of the augmented sixth in W. 25 may be gained from the contemporary theoretician, Georg Friedrich Lingke. Lingke s treatise, Einige zum allgemeinen Nutzen deutlicher gemachte Musikalische Erwegungsund andere leichter eingerichtete Uibungs-Wahrheiten, has already been men¬ tioned earlier in this chapter, since it was among those owned by Bach at one point. This treatise contains a remarkable discussion of the augmented sixth, in which Lingke attempted to answer the question, “How does my system explain the beauty of the augmented sixth?’’ In his answer Lingke admitted to being complete¬ ly baffled by the diversity of effects possible with this chord, and weakly proposed that further investigation would be necessary to explain the mystery: What strikes the ear as a clear and pleasant consonance in one key can become a very unclear and unpleasant dissonance in another. For example, when d g sharp f b flat is a seventh chord on the dominant in E-flat major or minor, it is gay and joyful. But in D minor, when it is the fifth-chord with the augmented sixth on the 6 b (or, more precisely on the b 7 of C sharp, the leading tone in D minor), it sounds dejected and sad. This phenomenon justly de¬ serves to be investigated in more detail.47

It is striking that Lingke chose to discuss the effect of the augmented sixth using D minor as an example, the very key Bach used in the slow movement of W. 25. Whether or not Lingke was inspired to comment on the augmented sixth by Bach’s concerto, he represents an approach to music very close to Bach’s own. He described chords in terms of the emotion each created in the listener. Lingke had become a member of Mizler’s Societat der musikalischen Wissenschaften in 1742 and very likely discussed the nature of musical affects with Sebastian Bach and possibly even with Philipp Emanuel as well. C. P. E. Bach’s alterations in his autograph scores can be traced to a variety of causes. Certain of them stemmed from ideals he shared with composers of his father’s generation, such as the need to find an interesting melody, or the goal of writing expressive, affective music. Other changes became necessary as Bach in¬ creasingly preferred to speak the -Classical idiom, with its balanced, finelychiseled phrases. Finally, Bach was pioneering in the development of a new genre,

The Compositional Process

83

the keyboard concerto. In the process of defining its structure, he often found it necessary to strengthen an articulation here or eliminate a redundancy there. He made these changes either immediately while composing a passage, or later, after finishing an entire movement, in the manner of a workman who returns to tighten loose nuts and bolts. The alterations were anything but mechanical, however, and they afford a rare glimpse of a mid-century composer exercising artistic choice.

.

'

'

.

'

V

5 Revised and Alternate Versions

Judging by autograph evidence, C. P. E. Bach rarely considered a work finished. More than most other composers, he revised quite frequently. In fact, variant ver¬ sions are so common in his output that it would probably be more accurate to say that he did not regard his compositional decisions as fixed and final, but only as interim solutions to a problem. He always seems to have entertained the possibility of arriving at a better version someday, even years after composing a work. A great number of his works were provided in the Nachlassverzeichnis with dates both of composition and revision, dates often separated by several years. The fortuitous survival of so many copies of Bach’s concertos and the uncom¬ mon precision possible in dating the various versions makes possible a rare glimp¬ se of how an eighteenth-century composer made large-scale changes in his works. Most interesting are the parallels one finds with small-scale revisions. For exam¬ ple, just as revisions in the course of a few measures can trigger a chain-reaction of other revisions, so too can an alteration in one large section necessitate other changes, often in preceding sections. Thus the concept of chain-reaction can also be applied to the reworking of an entire movement. The different versions encountered in Bach’s concertos are basically of three types: 1) the extensive revision of a work composed several years previously, 2) the elaboration of the melody in the keyboard part, and 3) the addition of wind parts. The first group primarily consists of Bach’s first six concertos, which he revised or ‘ ‘renewed” (erneuert in the Nachlassverzeichnis) in the sense of improv¬ ing on an earlier effort. In contrast, concertos from any period may exist in ver¬ sions in which the melody is “filled in” by the substitution of extensive figuration employing smaller note values but essentially preserving the general melodic direction and harmonic structure. In the North German tradition, such ornamented melodies could be improvised by the performer, but were also occasionally written down. However, elaborations were not meant as a correction or improvement of the original, but rather as an alternate way of performing the work. Finally, a num¬ ber of concertos originally existed in versions for string orchestra and harpsichord, and Bach added horn or flute parts. These additions were primarily undertaken in Hamburg.

86

Revised and Alternate Versions

The Notation of Different Versions Bach employed a variety of methods for notating new versions of a concerto. The most obvious means would have been simply to rewrite the entire score, but Bach does not appear to have recopied very often; at any rate, multiple autograph scores of the same concerto have not been preserved. Rather, Bach appears to have de¬ pended on his copyists to recopy e work with the alterations. Probably in most situations he furnished them with the original score along with a separate sheet of corrections and changes to be made in certain measures. One such sheet was pre¬ served with the manuscript copy of W. 4 that had belonged to Thulemeier (D-ddr BdsM. Thul. 18). Although not identified as such, the bifolio labelled “Einlagezu M. Thul. 18” by the librarian preserves autograph revisions of selected short pas¬ sages of the concerto. Instead of recopying the entire concerto, Bach merely wrote down the measures in which he desired changes, and it was understood that the rest of the work was to proceed as it had before.1 Bach followed the same procedure in writing different versions of his keyboard sonatas. For example, he and some of his copyists wrote out isolated measures of certain of the sonatas in a manuscript enti¬ tled “Veranderungen und Auszierungen iibereinige meiner Sonaten.”2 By using a code next to the short passages forming the new version, Bach and his copyists related the new to the old. For example, in revisions relating to some of the Sonaten fiir Clavier mit veranderten Reprisen, W. 50, notations such as “e 5” next to a measure signify it is to replace a measure contained in the printed edition—specifi¬ cally, the fifth staff (e) and the fifth measure of this staff (5). This system allowed Bach to refer to the printed edition without having to number all the measures of each sonata. Occasionally, if Bach’s second thoughts about a passage were short, he mere¬ ly entered them in his own copy of the printed edition, as he did in his copy of the first edition of W. 50.3 For works not yet published, extensive recopying could still be avoided by entering the change on a small slip of paper and pasting or pinning it into the score. Bach chose this means of preparing the new version of W. 2. Be¬ cause of this shorthand means of indicating new versions, it was thought until now that the early versions had not survived, when in fact they have, buried in the orig¬ inal layer underneath the glued-on fragment. Different Versions of the Early Concertos Concerto in A Major, W. 1 Bach wrote his first concerto in Leipzig in 1733 and “renewed” it in Berlin in 1744.4 No autograph sources of this concerto have survived, although an auto¬ graph set of parts was to be found in the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin before World War II.5 Of the six manuscript copies, the two most important are those prepared

Revised and Alternate Versions

87

by Michel and by Kimberger.6 In spite of the absence of autograph source material for this concerto, it appears that both versions of it have survived.7 The later ver¬ sion may be assumed to be that in Michel’s copy, since Bach would have given the final version to his Hamburg copyist; the early version has been preserved in Kim¬ berger’s copy.8 The rest of the sources present the version found in Michel’s copy.9 In preparing the new version of his first concerto Bach altered many sections, but time after time made the most extensive revisions just before the entrance of a new tutti section. The consistent way in which Bach concentrated on the prepara¬ tion for the return of the tutti material suggests that he became increasingly aware of these entrances as very significant points in the structure of the concerto. Often, the soloist’s penultimate bars accomplished a modulation to a new key, and many times Bach’s revisions provided a smoother or more precise modulation. At the same time, however, the young composer also showed his awareness of other fac¬ tors that influence the way in which modulation is perceived, notably, the relative ambiguity of thin contrapuntal textures, the rhythmic emphasis given to chord and ’non-chord tones, and particularly, the relative emphasis on the subdominant and dominant in preparatory phrases. In the first movement of W. 1 Bach made both small and large revisions but the large revisions occur immediately preceding the tutti entrances. Here a “large revision’’ signifies a new version longer or shorter than the previous one, or changes in the harmonic progression of the passage, or its chord rhythm. Bach made such changes in the soloist’s part just before the second and third tuttis. Small revisions, on the other hand, are small alterations in the melodic line or the part¬ writing, octave shifts, and so on, none of which change the underlying harmony. Bach made minor revisions throughout the movement, nearly entirely in the string parts. Finally, he added or subtracted interjections by the strings during solo sec¬ tions and added some completely new material to prepare for the final entrance of the tutti. The first of Bach’s large revisions, represented by measures 24-26 of the final version (B Be 5887) did actually result in a technically better modulation (Example 7). The original solution for the change of key from A minor to C major followed the convention of emphasizing the new dominant, but presented it so heavily deco¬ rated with its own dominant that a modulation to G, rather than C, can almost equally be perceived from this section. In order to create a modulation unambi¬ guously to C, Bach chose to eliminate the F-sharp, which pointed to the key of G, and substitute a longer passage with several profiled F-naturals. By now emphasiz¬ ing the subdominant of the new key, as well as its dominant, Bach left no doubt about the emerging C-major tonality. His changes in the passage preceding the third tutti reflect his sensitivity to chord rhythm and melodic profile as important elements in the passage preceding the tutti (Example 8). By measure 36 of the first version he had reached the domi-

88

Revised and Alternate Versions

nant of the new key, and judging from the harmonic framework of both versions, he always intended to depart from the new dominant briefly, then return to it in the final measure before reintroducing the tutti. The departure from the dominant orig¬ inally lasted only a measure and a half, but in the new version Bach extended it by introducing a sequential figure. The sequence stimulated greater exploration in harmonic vocabulary, but at the same time limited the rhythm of harmonic change to a half-measure pattern. The escape from this pattern in measure 41 of the final version occurred in a flourish extending over three octaves, as Bach exploited the extremes of register introduced by the new sequence. By making use of the con¬ trasts in sound between high and low, and by restructuring the melodies of both the top and bottom lines to include more active leaps and changes of direction, Bach increased the sense of climax in the measure before the reentrance of the tutti. For the return to the final tutti Bach made the most extensive change of all, for he inserted five new measures based on the closing material of the first tutti (com¬ pare mm. 10-13 with mm. 81-86 in the final version, B Be 5887). This revision increased the importance of the soloist’s part by providing a brilliant passage of thirty-second notes in measures 84-85 and also gave the soloist another opportun¬ ity for virtuoso display in the fermata on the dominant in measure 86. These revi¬ sions show how concerned Bach was with obtaining the proper balance between solo and tutti. He focused on the critical junction between the two opposing groups and referred to this structural point of concertos in his Versuch: There are many things in music which, not fully heard, must be imagined. For example, in con¬ certos with full accompaniment, the soloist always loses those passages that are accompanied fortissimo and those on which the tutti enters. Intelligent listeners replace such losses mentally, and it is primarily such listeners whom we should seek to please.10

Bach’s revisions in the first movement of W. 1 did not alter its basic outlines, but merely strengthened the articulations of the most significant points in its struc¬ ture. In the second movement, however, Bach rewrote much of the ritomello ma¬ terial and developed a completely new tonal structure. His original version had followed the traditional ritomello pattern by its clear division into tutti and solo sections, which presented ritomello material first in the tonic, then in the domi¬ nant (D-brd B P 239, m. 28), the relative minor (m. 34), the supertonic (m. 40), and the subdominant (m. 43). Bach’s revision of this movement shattered its regu¬ lar ritomello pattern by introducing a greater degree of interchange between the so¬ loist and the strings, so that it became difficult to distinguish between tutti and solo sections. With the soloist’s material now closely woven in with that of the tutti in¬ struments, Bach abandoned the supertonic and subdominant sections and created instead a joint recapitulation in the tonic of all but the primary theme (B Be 5887, beginning in m. 46), followed by the entire ritomello (m. 60, indicated by the da capo sign).

Revised and Alternate Versions

89

This revision reflects Bach’s attempts during the 1740s to incorporate the principle of recapitulation into concerto form. In individual movements composed between 1740 and 1745 he tried various ways of introducing a recapitulation.11 By 1746, with the Concerto in A Major, W. 19, some type of recapitulation had be¬ come a standard feature and remained so until 1751. Bach’s revision of W. 1 was done in 1744, according to the Nachlassverzeichnis, and thus falls into the time when Bach was experimenting with recapitulatory patterns in his newly-composed concertos. Bach also revised the final movement of W. 1 to introduce a recapitulation, but he did not find it necessary to rewrite the entire opening tutti, as he had in the slow movement. Rather, it appears that he decided to create a “hidden” recapi¬ tulation, one in which transitional or modulatory material from the opening tutti is woven in unobtrusively under cover of a sequence. In the final version of the last movement, measures 153-59 are virtually identical to measures 5-11, but are not perceived as such, since the passage is sequential and is introduced by part of the sequence in measure 152. Since the creation of a hidden recapitulation often requires a particular design of the primary or transitional material—in this case, a sequence—it appears likely that Bach’s alterations in the final movement took the form of a chain-reaction. First he revised the section before the final tutti, introducing sequential material in place of a long section of dominant pedal (compare D-brd B P 239, III, 136-54 with B Be 5887, III, 144-67). Then he inserted this new material in the opening tutti, the second tutti, and the final one, and revised part of the first solo section to include the new material. By this chain-reaction process of large-dimensional revision Bach transformed the ritomello structure of a concerto written in 1733 into a re¬ capitulatory scheme comparable to those of concertos being written around 1744, the date of the revision of W. 1. The process of modernization also involved changes in texture. Characteris¬ tic of the emerging idiom in Berlin was a three-part texture, replacing the older four-part realizations. The alterations Bach made in W. 1 also reflect this trend, for in revising the string parts of all movements he consistently thinned the texture. No doubt Bach’s desire to be up-to-date played a role in these revisions. But in addi¬ tion, the three-part texture proved to be more suitable to the new recapitulatory formal designs, for its occasional harmonic ambiguity allowed the same passage to have different functions depending on the context. For example, in the final move¬ ment of W. 1 the original four-part texture of the opening tutti had cemented its closing material into the key of A minor. By recasting the closing material into three parts, Bach caused the same passage to be heard as F major in the retransition to the final tutti (Examples 9 and 10). Such musical puns became a favorite device of Bach’s, and his flexible doubling in the new three-part texture made them possible.

90

Revised and Alternate Versions

Concerto in E-Flat Major, W. 2 According to the Nachlassverzeichnis, C. P. E. Bach wrote his second keyboard concerto in Leipzig in 1734 and revised it in Berlin in 1743. Unfortunately, none of the surviving sources contain dates or other notations to indicate which version of the concerto is preserved in each source. Therefore it had been assumed that the version of 1734 remained unknown.12 A comparison of the unauthorized print of Antoine Huberty dating from c. 1762 (see p. 25) has produced the surprising in¬ formation that the Huberty print preserves an authentic early version of the concer¬ to, probably the one of 1734.13 The authenticity of the Huberty version is firmly established, since this version contains notes which have been erased in the auto¬ graph score (D-brd B P 354), but which can still be deciphered under ultraviolet light. For example, in the first movement, measures 103-7, all the string parts show signs of erasure, but only the previous reading of the first violin part may be partially deciphered under ultraviolet light (Illustration 14). Even with ultraviolet light, only a hint of the previous version can be seen in the autograph score. The few erased notes visible correspond very closely to the notes found in the Huberty print, however (compare Illustration 14 with Example 11). In revising this passage Bach left the keyboard part unchanged, but simplified the string parts. The second version preserves two features of the texture of the first version, the double stops and the short rhythmic motives tossed between the string instru¬ ments. These features must have been uppermost in Bach’s mind from the begin¬ ning. Initially, however, the rapid change in the use of double stops and tossed motives created such a high level of activity in the string parts that the keyboard part became obscured. Bach’s general preference for an unobtrusive accompani¬ ment, which he expressed so frequently in his Versuch, probably led him to make these revisions. A similar instance of simplification in string parts occurs in measures 156-68 of this movement. Again, the Huberty print preserves the original version. In the autograph score at this point pieces of music paper have been pasted over the last system on f. 5v and the first two systems of f. 6r. The piece of paper on f. 5v may be lifted up to reveal the original version underneath (Example 12). The readings of the underlying page, so far as may be deciphered, correspond to those of the Huberty print. In both cases the revision represents the composer’s efforts to balance the roles of solo and tutti. The two revisions come in the middle of the third and fourth solo sections, respectively (mm. 78-132 and 141-81). In these two solo sections tutti and solo passages are intertwined to a much higher degree than earlier in the concerto. The opening measure of the primary subject appears in fast alternation between the first violin and keyboard parts, producing the elided effect of stretto but without a truly polyphonic texture. Apparently in order to counterbalance the growing tendency toward equality between the first violin and keyboard parts in the middle of a solo section, the string parts were simplified.

Revised and Alternate Versions

91

Two Concertos in G Major, W. 3 and W. 4 According to the Nachlassverzeichnis (p. 26) Bach composed his third concerto in 1737 and revised it in 1745. Since no significant variants are found among the extant sources, it appears that the early version has not survived. The estate catalog records no date of revision for the fourth concerto, which is also in G major. Yet two distinct versions of its first two movements are available in authentic sources. However, the revision consists primarily of adding notes to the melodic line played by the soloist, instead of rewriting whole sections, so possibly Bach did not consid¬ er this ornamentation process a true revision. If he did, on the other hand, it may be that he confused his third concerto with his fourth when compiling his records. Such confusion would at least be plausible, since he appears to have put his records in order toward the end of his life, and these two early concertos are both in the same key. In any case, the sources of the fourth concerto provide ample evidence that Bach sanctioned its existence in different versions. Although no autograph score has been preserved, there is a manuscript copy with autograph variants written on a separate leaf, as well as another manuscript copy revised by Bach.14 The first, owned by the Prussian minister Friedrich Wilhelm von Thulemeier, probably ori¬ ginated in Berlin. The second copy, St 618, can be identified as the later version, for it bears signs of revision at just those passages which differ from the reading in Thulemeier ’ s copy.15 Also, the ornamented version of St 618 is the one copied by Michel, who as Bach’s Hamburg copyist seems to have been cognizant of the com¬ poser’s latest preferences. All the other sources contain the original undecorated version of the concerto. With a few exceptions, Bach limited his revision of W. 4 to the melodic line of the keyboard part. Occasionally he also changed a note or two of the bass line, or the rhythm of the bass notes, but these minor adjustments did not change the har¬ monic outline or length of the passage. The top line, however, became increasing¬ ly more complex. In this process the skips of a melodic line would be “filled in,” so that a simple skipping melody would be replaced by predominantly stepwise motion in smaller note values (Example 13). The new melody also generally con¬ tained more notated trills, turns, and other ornaments. Since many of the added notes were non-chord tones, the new melody often generated suspensions, appoggiaturas, and other dissonances, introducing a degree of harmonic tension that is characteristic of the augmentation procedure. These versions of movements in which the outlines of the melody were filled in by notes of smaller values were known as Auszierungen. Auszierungen origin¬ ated most commonly with performers, since the extemporaneous embellishment of a melody frequently occurred in performance. Since performers often played embellished versions without bothering to write them out, the sources do not fully reflect how widespread the practice was. Occasionally the embellished versions

92

Revised and Alternate Versions

were written down, and several may be found among the sources of Bach s later concertos. However, in studying manuscript copies with embellished ver¬ sions, one of course cannot assume that the embellishments originated with the composer. In addition to preparing an ornamented version of the first two movements of W. 4, Bach revised the slow movement to include an opportunity for a cadenza at the end. Like Auszierungen, cadenzas were in theory improvisational, but in prac¬ tice cadenzas were also occasionally written down. Bach notated several possible cadenzas for W. 4 on the separate leaf of paper found in Thulemeier’s copy of the concerto. It appears that Bach did not originally plan for a cadenza in this move¬ ment, since his first version did not provide the essential ingredient, the 6/4 chord with a fermata, necessary to begin the cadenza (Example 14). By altering the har¬ mony of merely two measures, Bach introduced the 6/4 chord by means of the diminished seventh. In revising a manuscript copy of W. 4 (St 618) Bach made a few other nota¬ tions that for him were in the nature of proofreading corrections, but which have implications for editing and performing the ornamented version. In several pas¬ sages in the cembalo part Bach added the words “solo’ and “tutti and also en¬ tered figures over the bass line.16 This was necessary since in these passages the copyist had entered the upper melodic line to be played by the violins without dis¬ tinguishing it from the notes actually belonging to the soloist’s part. While often in manuscript copies and in early prints the keyboard part contains some or all the tutti material cued in either as small notes or regular size, the soloist ^vas not expected to play these notes, only to be aware of them while he realized the figured bass. Bach added the words “solo’ ’ and “tutti” as a warning to the performer to cease playing the melodic line during tutti sections and resume playing it during solo sections. He did not approve of doubling the melody of the principal part in the accompaniment, except occasionally at the beginning of rapid pieces.17 In discussing accompani¬ ment in his Versuch, Bach sanctioned the inclusion of the principal part in small notes over the figured bass line as a practical expedient for a smooth beginning and for keeping the ensemble together after general rests and fermatas.18 Concerto in C Minor, W. 5 Within the years 1743-1745 Bach revised three of his five concertos from the pre¬ vious decade, but he waited until 1762 to revise the last of the group. His changes in this work reflect the development of his musical style during this highly produc¬ tive period of his career. While the development may be traced in a general way by comparing the phrase structure, formal patterns, or other elements of the thirtythree concertos written from 1740 to 1762 (W. 46, W. 6-37), a comparison of the two versions of a single concerto offers a more precise means of charting the changes Bach’s style underwent during these years. In comparing two or more

Revised and Alternate Versions

93

concertos, it can be difficult to determine whether differences in their structure arise from the particular thematic material chosen, or from a new approach being tested by the composer. In comparing two versions of the same work, this variable is eliminated, although the range of types compared is necessarily restricted. Although no autograph source of W. 5 has survived, both versions exist in manuscripts prepared by Bach’s copyists.19 Another source in the possession of Bach's friend, C. D. Ebeling, bears the date “Nov. 4 1751 ,”20 which identifies its version as the early one, since the revision was not undertaken until 1762. Of the ten extant sources, five present the early version, and five the late version.21 Although these sources are now scattered around the world, some of them were probably at one time in close proximity, since they were prepared by the same copyist" or by a different copyist who followed the same layout of the keyboard part in order to make the page turns fall conveniently.23 Certain of the changes Bach made in W. 5 resemble those he made in other early concertos. In the two outer movements of W. 5 Bach extensively revised the passages just preceding reentrances of the tutti, as he had done in W. 1 and W. 4.24 With one exception, these alterations all add a few measures to the keyboard part and increase its brilliance or soloistic predominance. Like the later version of W. 4, the later version of W. 5 presents a more highly decorated melody, an Auszierung. But it also contains many other revisions of a fundamental nature, revi¬ sions that show a mid-century composer in the process of rethinking established procedures for creating and relating musical phrases. The concept of organizing an antecendent-consequent phrase by coordinating melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic building blocks—modules^-influenced Bach’s compositional process, as discussed earlier (pp.76-77), and also affected his revi¬ sion of W. 5. Just as he found it necessary to eliminate breaks in the modular rhythm of a passage while composing W. 15, so too did he retouch some measures in W. 5 in order to include all small motives within clear two-bar modules throughout the passage (Example 15). The changes were made near the end of the first tutti section of the last movement. Like the ritornellos of many of Bach’s early concertos, this opening ritomello of W. 5 does not actually modulate to a new key for the second¬ ary material, but modulation is implied by a liberal use of secondary dominants. In his first version Bach managed to introduce these secondary dominants within a sequence-response phrase structure in measures 8-11, but varied the melodic pat¬ tern of measure 12, probably in order to avoid a diminished fifth and an unprepared fourth in the two outer parts. Measures 12-15 of the original version accomplish the reiteration of the tonic necessary at the end of the first tutti, but do so without being linked by modular framework. Each of these four measures varies in melodic shape, rhythmic motives, and chord rhythm. The last three measures reduce to a common line—the simple unharmonized presentation of the melody in octaves— leaving measure 12 an orphan, disjunct from both what follows and what has pre¬ ceded. Bach’s revision of this passage incorporated the rhythmic and melodic six-

94

Revised and Alternate Versions

teenths of measure 12 into the preceding measures, by altering the violin part in measure 10 and the viola and bass parts in measure 11. This alteration had the additional advantage of making the lower parts function as semi-independent voices, which differ in melody and rhythm but which cadence together. In the counterpoint of the Baroque, the more fully independent voices began and ended phrases in an overlapping way. The galant style of early Classicism rendered the lower voices no longer independent, as they assumed the role of harmonic support for one main melodic line. Now, as this revision made by Bach in the 1760s indi¬ cates, a degree of independence was being restored to the lower voices, yet without loss of the modular coordination.25 Bach also revised another passage of W. 5 to make the texture more contrapuntal (compare St 197 and St 523, III, 45-52). Increasingly tight organization by modules of one or two measures instead of the spinning out of small, unrelated motives also characterizes Bach s revision of the third solo section in the first movement (Example 16). This revision shows quite dramatically the difference between the Baroque procedure of varying small rhythmic motives formed from notes of adjacent values (here, quarters, eighths, and sixteenths) and the Classical procedure of constructing modules or patterns from notes of a wide range of values (here, thirty-second notes, triplet sixteenths, sixteenths, eighths, and quarters). In measures 153-56 of the new version Bach introduced a two-bar module built around the beginning of the primary theme, which, he recognized, could be recast into a response-type phrase structure by merely a slight alteration. Then, in measures 157-59 he switched to a one-bar mod¬ ule, clearly delineated by the melodic and rhythmic pattern of the top part. In the new version measure 160 provides a release from the tight one-bar pattern ot measures 157-59, while in the earlier version it merely continued the previous un¬ differentiated sixteenth-note motion. The sense of release or articulation predom¬ inates in the newer style developing around the time of Bach's revision because of the increasing concern for using discrete modules to form a phrase. The skillful combination of contrasting melodic, rhythmic, harmonic, or textural patterns to place the heaviest emphasis on ends of phrases or sections and relatively lesser emphasis within a phrase has been termed differential articulation by Jan LaRue,26 and is found to a great degree in the later Classical style of Haydn and Mozart. While creating a hierarchy of articulations generally requires careful attention to choosing the appropriate melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic patterns from the outset, Bach found he could introduce some differential articulation in revising W. 5. The opening measures of the slow movement originally followed the Baroque tradition of unfolding the melody over a beat-marking bass (Example 17). The beat-marking, carried on by repeated eighth-notes in the viola and bass parts without pause for the first thirteen measures, did not disappear in the new version, but it was broken up by rests in measure 4. These rests acted as a means of articulating the first three-and-a-half measures as a subunit of the first musical sentence formed by measures 1 -6. In addition the new viola part in these measures.

Revised and Alternate Versions

95

' with its octave leap in measures 3 and 6, further added to the profile of one musical sentence with two subunits. Some revision in the viola part had been necessary in order to shift from the figured bass accompaniment of the first version to the tasto solo of the second version, and, in the process of transferring all the essential har¬ monic tones to the string parts, Bach added new shape to the viola part. Although the upper melodic line remained Baroque in its construction, the adjustments Bach made in the lower parts created two balanced subunits within a larger entity. Concerto in A Minor, W. 21 The last concerto to be revised, according to the Nachlassverzeichnis, was No. 22 in A minor (W 21). Bach composed this concerto in Berlin in 1747 and revised it in Hamburg in 17 75.27 No autograph source of the work has survived, and only two manuscript copies of it are known, one in the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., the other in the Conservatoire Royal de Musique, Brussels.28 By great coincidence, however, these sources present different versions of the concerto. Furthermore, each version is apparently authentic, since two of Bach’s Hamburg copyists are represented within these manuscripts. Copyist An 302 wrote the keyboard part of the Washington copy, and Michel wrote all the parts of the Brus¬ sels copy. The differences between the two versions largely fall into the category of Auszierungen of the type already encountered in the two versions of W. 4. Michel’s copy contains the highly ornamented melody that nevertheless does not depart from the harmonic framework of the simple version. Occasionally Michel’s copy differs from that of An302 in its shifts of some notes up or down an octave. Also, in the slow movement, Michel’s copy provides a written-out cadenza.29 Otherwise, no extensive alterations are to be found. Possibly a more significant revision of this concerto existed at one time but has not survived. Considering that extensive revisions are to be found among the sources of W. 1, 2, and 5, it is not clear that Bach considered the notating of an Auszierung to constitute a real revision. Also, ornamented versions exist for sever¬ al concertos that are not listed as erneuert in the Nachlassverzeichnis. Several ex¬ planations could be given for this circumstance. Bach might have forgotten some of the ornamented versions he had written. Or, some of the alternate versions might not have been his, but rather those of a performer. Or, Bach produced elabo¬ rated melodies so casually and frequently that he did not consider them worth men¬ tioning in his business-like records of his compositions. Other Revised Concertos: Ornamented Versions Although the Nachlassverzeichnis identifies only five concertos as erneuert, many others exist in multiple versions. Generally the sources of these works provide a

96

Revised and Alternate Versions

simple version and one or more elaborated versions of the keyboard part. Occa¬ sionally such elaborations necessitated changes in the string parts. In other cases deletions or other changes have been made in the string parts during solo sections, shifting the balance between the solo and the tutti instruments. In evaluating these multiple versions, it is important to remember that not all of them necessarily originated with C. P. E. Bach. The extemporaneous elabora¬ tion of a melody during performance occurred so frequently that Bach felt obli¬ gated to give special notice when it was not desired. In the foreword to the first edition of the two trios published in 1751, W. 161, he cautioned, “One would do well to play this first trio without adding all the optional embellishments, that is, as it is written. ”30 Bach also commented on the practice in his Versuch. His advice on varying the reprises of an allegro, first published in Part I of 1753, could also apply to the extemporaneous ornamentation of a concerto: The F major Lesson is an illustration of the present practice of varying extemporaneously the two reprises of an allegro. The concept is excellent but much abused. My feelings are these. Not everything should be varied, for if it is the reprise will become a new piece. Many things, particularly affettuoso or declamatory passages, cannot be readily varied. Also, galant notation is so replete with new expressions and twists that it is seldom possible even to comprehend it immediately. All variations must relate to the piece’s affect, and they must always be at least as good as, if not better than, the original.31

By 1787 Bach had apparently become concerned lest the custom of soloistic elaboration deprive the composer of full control over his works, for he added the following as a footnote in the later revised edition: For example, many variants of melodies introduced by executants in the belief that they honor a piece, actually occurred to the composer, who, however, selected and wrote down the original because he considered it the best of its kind. 3-

His resentment at losing some of his prerogatives as a composer also surfaced in Part II of the Versuch, in which he remarked that a soloist “may have taken a long time to prepare his piece, which, after the present fashion, he himself must compose.”33 Since Bach made it clear in his Versuch that a performer’s embellishments could offend or displease the composer, a certain amount of caution is warranted in studying manuscript copies of embellished versions, which might have been writ¬ ten by performers. Although ostensibly the soloist improvised his additions to a simple melody, recent research into the sources of music by eighteenth-century composers has shown that the elaborated versions were quite often written down.34 C. P. E. Bach himself wrote out an ornamented version of the slow movement of his Concerto in C Minor, W. 31. Both versions survive in autograph sources,33 although no mention of a revision of this concerto is made in the Nachlassverzeichnis (Example 18). A letter Bach wrote to Grave in 1784 mentions this concerto,

Revised and Alternate Versions

97

however, and offers some insight into why a performing version might have been written down. Bach said, “The Concerto in C Minor was formerly one of my showpieces. The recitative is given approximately as I played it. ”36 A composer’s or soloist’s desire to share his performing version with a friend in another city obviously necessitated its notation. Apparently Bach also sent copies of his per¬ forming versions to J. J. H. Westphal in Schwerin, since ornamented versions abound in Westphal’s music collection, now in the Brussels Conservatory. Ornamented versions were also written down because students and perfor¬ mers of lesser ability found it difficult to cope with the task of improvising on the spur of the moment. In his preface to the first edition of the Sonaten . . . mit veranderten Reprisen, W. 50 (1760) C. P. E. Bach spoke of some beginners and dilettantes who had others write down the ornamented versions for them to play, versions which had to be carefully memorized. His reason for writing out the varied reprise, he said, was to make all this trouble unnecessary.37 Finally, even an experienced performer and composer like C. P. E. Bach wrote out embellished versions for teaching purposes. Westphal’s manuscript copy of Bach’s sonata embellishments, W. 68, reveals their didactic purpose: “Al¬ terations and embellishments of some of his printed sonatas, for students.”38 When an ornamented version stems from the composer, it should be included in a modem edition of the work. Of course, all extant sources should be scanned for any light they might shed on the composer’s intention. Although there are good reasons for the custom of basing an edition on one source, to omit entirely all refer¬ ences to an ornamented version gives a distorted picture of the work.39 A modem editor looking for multiple versions not only must examine all the manuscript copies for variants, but should also be aware that two versions may be found within a single source. When C. P. E. Bach revised a copyist’s set of parts for W. 32, for example, he erased some of the original notes and crowded in others of smaller values.40 Within the autograph score of W. 45 he wrote an embellished melody on a blank staff below each system, without benefit of clef signs, signa¬ tures, or identifying label. When his copyists worked from such a score they could choose the plain version, the ornamented version, or some combination of both. The many permutations possible among the manuscript copies often generate a perplexing multiplicity of versions. For W. 24, for example, there are four ver¬ sions among the eleven sources, none of which are autograph.41 Bach also notated two versions of W. 37 on one copy of this concerto by using symbols such as “NB,” “A,” and “ + ” within the musical text, which correspond to melodic elaborations written on special staff lines at the bottom of the page.42 It is the job of the editor to determine whether two versions are actually present within a single source and indicate this in the most practical way possible. For the reconstruction of performing versions of the concertos it is fortunate that many cadenzas written by Bach have survived. Seventy-five cadenzas were gathered together in a fair copy prepared by Michel, entitled “Cadenzen von C. P.

98

Revised and Alternate Versions

E. Bach.”43 Michel identified the cadenzas written for a specific concerto by the numbers in the Nachlassverzeichnis. For example, his heading on p. 2, Cadenz zum ersten Allegro des Concerts No. 51,” relates the cadenza to the first move¬ ment of W. 45, which is No. 51 in the Nachlassverzeichnis. As expected, the cadenza is in the appropriate key, D major, and even develops the primary theme of this movement. Other cadenzas in the collection are not linked to specific works, but merely labelled in some noncommittal or general way such as Cadenz zum Adagio.” The source contains fifty-seven cadenzas fordwenty-five concer¬ tos, as well as one cadenza for a sonatina and seventeen cadenzas for general use. In addition to the cadenzas copied by Michel, other cadenzas have survived within manuscript copies or on slips of paper pasted into copies of the early editions.45 These cadenzas exemplify performing traditions, but of course were not necessarily written by C. P. E. Bach. Possible Alternate Versions In addition to the many alternate versions available for Bach’s concertos, even more might have existed at some point. Not infrequently one finds a different type of paper for the last movement or the slow movement. Of course, composers, like other people, occasionally ran out of paper, or for some other reason might have switched to a different type of paper while composing. However, in sources of Bach’s concertos the number of times that a change of paper is correlated with the beginning of a new movement cannot be viewed as an accident. Bach revised the slow movement of W. 23 so extensively that he recopied the entire movement on a single bifolio and inserted it into the score. There is consider¬ able evidence that the present slow movement in the autograph score replaced an earlier one.46 First, it is written on paper of a different size and type than the rest of the score. Second, Bach notated this movement not in the normal sequence, but beginning on f. 6v, and continuing through f. 7r, 7v, and finally, 6r. Thus, as pres¬ ently bound, the initial part of the second movement at first appears to be missing, until one realizes that it is simply not presented in the usual order. This unusual—and for a performer, vexing—alteration of the page order probably resulted from Bach’s way of using the North German paper available to him. As previously dis¬ cussed, he constructed his scores of individual sheets, or Bogen, folded once. If he began writing the revision of his second movement on the inside of the sheet with¬ out calculating the length of the movement in advance, by the time he reached the last verso side he realized that in order to complete the movement he would have to begin a whole new Bogen for only one more page of music. To avoid this, he con¬ tinued writing on the outside of the original sheet, with the result that, when the sheet was folded and inserted into the score, the order of the pages became con¬ fused. The existing score thus resulted from Bach’s paper-saving efforts in making a revision. Further evidence of this is found in the way in which Bach had to draw

Revised and Alternate Versions

99

extra staves at the bottom of f. 8r in order to complete the last three measures of the movement; his original calculation had not allowed sufficient space. A portion of the first version of the second movement was accidentally pre¬ served, since the third movement began on the verso of the leaf containing the original ending of the second movement. A piece of this leaf (f. 8) has been snip¬ ped out. By examining f. 8v, on which the last movement begins underneath the snipped-out part, one can guess Bach had written the end of the first slow move¬ ment there, since remnants of note stems and dynamic markings may still be seen on the cut edge. He probably removed these measures so that his copyists would not confuse them with the new version he had written. On the other side of this folio (f. 8r), below the snipped-out part, is an early draft of measures 83-108, which has been crossed out in pencil and in red pencil. This early draft features the same bass line as the final version, but over it is a much simpler and unornamented melody. Furthermore, three measures at the top of the leaf before the snipped-out part probably were the counterpart of measures 74-77, since they occupy the space those measures would have required (Example 19). These measures preserve evi¬ dence of a much more extensive revision, for the cadence in C major entrusted to the violins in the final version appears here in the harpsichord part. Also, the subse¬ quent modulation to B-flat was accomplished by the strings in the first version, but became a brilliant piece of solo passage work in the second version. The final movement of W. 27 appears to have undergone extensive revision some time after its completion. The first signal of this revision is found in the change of paper in the autograph score (compare f. 1-6 with f. 7-10). The presence of different types of paper within an autograph score does not by itself indicate revision, particularly a change in paper at the end, since the composer could simply have exhausted his supply of one type of paper, or he could have completed his work at a different time or place, using whatever paper happened to be available. But for the final movement of W. 27, however, it seems likely that the change of paper occurred due to a large-scale revision Bach made in the primary material, a revision that would have necessitated so many changes throughout the movement that he probably was obliged to recopy everything from the second tutti until the end. This interpretation of events is supported by the neatness and legibility of the last four folios, a sign of a fair copy. The difficulty in incorporating the revision of the opening motive into the movement resulted from Bach’s insertion of two new measures after the opening flourish of scalar activity (Illustration 15, Transcription 15). Bach’s reasons for making this change remain unclear, at least from the extant source material. If a whole movement built around the initial version of the primary theme did exist at one time, the evidence of compositional problems Bach faced with it would have been destroyed when the final sheets originally in this source were presumably discarded. Non-musical considerations may have influenced Bach’s revision of this

100

Revised and Alternate Versions

movement. By chance, its original opening was nearly identical to a concerto by Johann Christian Bach in A major (Appendix B, X6). Only a drastic change in the first few measures could have eliminated the initial similarity between the two con¬ certos. The concerto pattern favored at this time by Johann Christian differed greatly from that used by Philipp Emanuel, so it seems highly likely that the re¬ semblance in the opening material was merely due to chance, or to an unconscious echo of memory, rather than some sort of joint composition. The distribution of paper types within the autograph score of W. 45 (D-brd B P 353) suggests that its first movement might have been written at a different time or in a different place than the two outer movements. Also, some alteration in the beginning of the first movement became large enough to require a new bifolio, judging from the difference in paper types within this movement. Only one other source of this concerto has been preserved, a set of parts in the hand of Michel (B Be 5887). Michel’s copy deviates in several passages from the autograph score and presents a more elaborated melody. However, since these deviations occur throughout the first movement, uncorrelated with the changes in paper in the auto¬ graph score, it is not likely that Michel’s copy preserves the earlier version of the movement. Minor Corrections Although he followed the tradition of extemporaneously ornamenting a melody, C. P. E. Bach jealously guarded his prerogative as a composer to settle even the smallest details of his works. He supervised the entire copying and distribution system, acting as a proofreader to insure that his copyists had not missed anything. Several manuscript copies of Bach’s concertos contain corrections of this proof¬ reading nature. In a manuscript score of W. 41, C. P. E. Bach penned only the last twenty bars, but he also added dynamics (f. 4v, 8r) and occasional interjections within the horn parts (f. 7r), or the string parts (f. 13r), as well as bowing indications and rests that the copyist omitted (f. 11 v).47 Similar proofreading corrections are to be found in sources of W. 46, W. 7, and W. 31.48 Occasionally, however, in proofreading a copyist’s manuscript Bach noticed passages in need of improvement, and his natural urge to revise drew him into further compositional activity. This occurred to some extent because Bach em¬ ployed a kind of shorthand in writing his scores, and this method of writing some¬ times obscured compositional mistakes. For example, in notating the keyboard part Bach did not write out all the notes of the left-hand part during tutti sections, but merely left these measures blank. It was generally understood among his copyists that in measures of the keyboard part containing neither notes nor rests, the notes of the bass part were to be copied into the keyboard part of the new copy. Another common form of shorthand encountered in the autograph scores allowed

Revised and Alternate Versions

101

Bach to avoid writing the last few measures of a movement by the use of the da capo sign, since the final tutti could usually end in the same manner as the first tutti. Bach took this shortcut while writing out the score of the slow movement of W. 27, but in doing so he neglected to notice that the transition between the last notated measure and the first measure of the da capo was an awkward one. Elias Kulukundis, in his edition of this concerto, has surmised that the two measures in question (II, 90-91) were rewritten by Bach at the time that his own parts—now l°st—were prepared from the score.49 This seems quite plausible, for a set of parts in the hand of Michel preserves the smoother transition, and there are even signs of erasure in the autograph score in measures 9-10, showing that Bach probably cons¬ idered revising the first tutti instead of the last at some point. He might have been forced to consider doing so because he had already filled a complete leaf of paper when he wrote the da capo sign, and adding two more measures would have been difficult. In the end he did not bow to considerations of paper economy. Either he copied the parts himself, incorporating the new version, or he might have written only the two new measures of the final tutti on a scrap of paper for his copyists. Added Wind Parts According to the Nachlassverzeichnis, Bach wrote thirty-four of his accompanied keyboard concertos for clavier, two violins, viola, and bass.50 To this basic complement he added two horn parts in seven concertos,51 two flute parts in two concertos,5- and both horns and flutes in eight concertos,53 according to the Nachlassverzeichnis. One work, W. 27, is scored for clavier, two horns, two violins, viola, and bass, with three trumpets, kettledrums, two oboes, and two flutes ad libitum. The Nachlassverzeichnis, generally an accurate source of information, does not necessarily give full details of instrumentation. Discrepancies exist because Bach added wind parts to some of his concertos after they had circulated in a ver¬ sion for soloist and strings. For example, flute parts for the slow movement of W. 38 survive in C. P. E. Bach’s hand,54 even though the Nachlassverzeichnis gives the instrumentation of this concerto as clavier, two violins, viola, and bass. Typically in sources prepared by Bach’s copyists and revised by the compos¬ er, one finds wind parts on a different sort of paper from the rest of the source.55 Quite often the copyist of the wind parts is not the same as for the other parts, or, Bach himself wrote out the wind parts. Title pages of these sources may have nota¬ tions such as “due Comi” squeezed into the listing of the instrumentation.56 Of the many sources for the concertos scored for clavier, strings, and winds, some contain wind parts and others do not. All this evidence points to the addition of winds at a later date in many cases, possibly several years after the original com¬ position of a work. Apparently Bach sometimes composed wind parts on the spot as he wrote

102

Revised and Alternate Versions

them out to be inserted into a preexisting set of parts. The autograph horn parts in a manuscript copy of W. 46 (D-brd B St 362) contain erasures, crossing-out, and explanatory notes (“1 Takt pause”)* which imply that compositional decisions were being made during the preparation of the part. Among the nine parts making up this source, four or possibly five different types of paper are represented, and three copyists in addition to Bach. W. 46, like other of Bach’s most popular con¬ certos, received continued attention over the years as Bach revised certain pas¬ sages and added horn parts. Although it is difficult to say precisely when these alterations and additions occurred, it is possible to formulate a relative chronology by comparing what variants are contained in the available sources. Probably Bach added the horn parts to W. 46 while he was still in Berlin, since the watermark in the paper resembles that found in composing scores of works written there.'7 Multiple versions of C. P. E. Bach’s works resulted from his awareness that certain works could be improved or updated and from his predilection for revealing the many possibilities of a simple melody in ornamented versions. His interest in embellishment extended to his sonatas, chamber music, and other works, where multiple versions are also encountered.58 Bach’s flexibility, which grew out of the contemporary performing tradition of improvisation, was by no means unusual. Mozart expressed a similarly flexible attitude in a letter concerning his Concerto in D Major, K. 175: “I shall send my dear sister the cadenzas and the episodes forth¬ with; I have not yet changed the episodes in the Rondeau, because whenever I play this concerto I just play what comes to my mind.”59 C. P. E. Bach’s revisions and ornamented versions are of particular interest not because such things were un¬ usual in the eighteenth century, but because so many of Bach’s ideas have survived in authentic sources, often with both versions dated in the Nachlassverzeichnis. This fortunate circumstance has made it possible to trace the extent to which C. P. E. Bach’s creative thinking continued even after works had been completed and circulated among performers.

6

Arrangements

C. P. E. Bach, like his father and many of his own contemporaries, frequently quoted, borrowed, or arranged his own works and those of others for reuse on different occasions. This tendency is most pronounced in his sacred vocal works, which often contain a bewildering amalgam of quotations and arrangements of pre¬ existing material. Among Bach’s concertos such relationships also occur, but to a much more limited extent. Identifying arrangements of the concertos presents little difficulty. The main questions which arise concern the authenticity of the various arrangements, the order in which Bach wrote them, and the extent to which Bach continued to revise and improve his works while in the process of arranging them.

Accompanied Concertos Existing in Versions for Flute, Oboe, Cello, or Keyboard Instrument Six of C. P. E. Bach’s concertos exist in versions prepared by the composer for flute, cello, oboe, harpsichord, or organ. The authenticity of these arrangements is confirmed by the Nachlassverzeichnis, in which each is listed under the entry for the keyboard version, as in “No. 29. B-flat Major. B[erlin] 1751. Clavier, 2 Violins, Viola, and Bass; is also arranged for cello and flute.’’1 The organization of the entries in the Nachlassverzeichnis implies that Bach undertook the cello, flute, and oboe arrangements after having written the keyboard version. The auto¬ graph sources, however, provide evidence that Bach sometimes wrote the keyboard version first, but at other times he began with another solo instrument in mind, returning later to fashion a keyboard arrangement. In notating his arrangements Bach adopted a different procedure than when composing a new work. He did not simply recopy the soloist’s part for a different instrument, but rather altered the soloistic material extensively to exploit the possi¬ bilities of the new instrument. These alterations often led to a chain-reaction of changes in the orchestral parts. To cope with the time-consuming task of preparing such arrangements, which actually constitute new versions of the concertos, Bach enlisted the help of his copyists. He appears to have requested the copyist to score the concerto on paper with blank staves reserved for notating the arrangement, a

104

Arrangements

procedure he followed in preparing the flute version of the Concerto in G Major, W. 34 (W. 169). Autograph source material has not survived for all the arrange¬ ments, but Bach may have followed the same procedure while preparing them. The sources of W. 34 are of interest not only for the clues they provide about Bach’s habits in arranging, but also because they offer a means of determining which version—keyboard or flute—came first. This concerto, which appears to have been one of the most popular during Bach’s lifetime, survives in many manu¬ script copies and in an unauthorized edition by Longman, Lukey & Co. The most important sources, the autograph score of the keyboard version (D-brd B P 354) and a partially autograph score of the flute version (D-brd B P 769), show that Bach composed the keyboard version first. Then a copyist prepared a complete score, leaving space for Bach to write the new solo flute part. This resulted in a score that must be considered an intermediate working draft, since it contains both flute and keyboard versions on the same system, notated together but not intended to be played together. As a working draft, P 769 clearly began with the copyist, who determined its gathering structure, layout of staves on each page, and the spacing of measures within each system. P 769 consists of eleven gatherings of two bifolios each, in contrast to Bach’s autograph scores, which he normally constructed as successions of single bifolios. The second gathering of P 769 (f. 5-8) is irregular, consisting of two single leaves within a bifolio with a long stub of paper on f. 6 marking the place once occupied by the remainder of the sheet. Since f. 6v contains some crossing¬ out, most likely Bach continued revising on f. 7r so extensively that he finally tore it out and substituted a new leaf. Had Bach been able to organize this score in his usual fashion, no untidiness would have been evident, since f. 7 would have natur¬ ally begun a new bifolio. Bach probably became aware ot the practical advantages of constructing his scores of single bifolios early in his career, since this gathering structure is found in so many of his concertos. He apparently neglected to mention this preference to his copyist. Each page of P 769 contains two systems of eight staves each except f. 42r, which had nine staves in the first system.2 The copyist wrote the keyboard version with its accompanying parts on staves 2-7, reserving the top staff for the new flute part. The bottom staff remains blank throughout P 769. Bach may originally have planned to use the bottom staff for the new Basso part. Since the Basso part of Bach’s other five concertos underwent revision during the preparation of arrange¬ ments, it seems likely that Bach would have desired a place in the score to enter the new bass part required by redistributions of the solo keyboard material. In concer¬ tos for flute, oboe, or cello, the basso continuo naturally assumed a greater role in solo sections, since both a melodic instrument and the basso continuo were re¬ quired to replace the former keyboard part. In the transformation of a keyboard concerto into a concerto for flute, as in W. 34, notes had to be added to the Basso part during solo sections, but this could be accomplished on the original staff for

Arrangements

105

the Basso part (staff 5). The copyist of P 769 had left the string parts blank during solo passages, instead of inserting rests, so ample space remained within the ori¬ ginal Basso part on staff 5 for the new version to be entered. The presence of the blank eighth staff in P 769 is evidence that Bach also enlisted the help of his copyists in preparing other arrangements. The eighth staff was not strictly necessary when material was to be added to the bass part, as in the transformation of W. 34 from a keyboard to a flute concerto, but it would have been necessary for an arrangement in which material was subtracted from the bass part—i.e. an arrangement of a flute, oboe, or cello concerto for harpsichord. The frequent tutti interjections during solo sections, passages in which the bass part remained the same, would have to be distinguished from the measures in which the new bass part rested. While the subtraction of material could also have been indi¬ cated by crossing-out, this method would have invited copying mistakes, as each time a new set of parts was prepared from the score, the copyist would have been obliged to count the number of crossed-out measures in the bass part in order to indicate the rests. Thus it seems likely that on more than one occasion Bach com¬ posed arrangements working from a specially-made score by one of his copyists, and the resulting working draft was subsequently used for copying the parts of the new arrangement. The existence of a score such as P 769 with autograph and non-autograph sections does not alone constitute proof that Bach used it for composing the arrangement. Conceivably such a score could have represented a fair copy of both the flute and keyboard versions for the purpose of comparison or study by a pupil or interested amateur. However, the occasional irregularities in Bach’s notation of pitches and beams, and particularly the number of crossed-out passages, show clearly that the flute version originated with this score. For example, Bach revised the flute part during the second solo section of the first movement by crossing out several notes, but the initial and corrected readings may still be deciphered (Facsi¬ mile 3, Facsimile 4, Transcription 16).3 The chain of events actually began with the original version of the concerto for organ or harpsichord, for which an auto¬ graph score survives (D-brd B P 354, shown in Facsimile 3). Bach’s copyist first entered the keyboard version on staves 2-7 of P 769, leaving staves 1 and 8 blank (compare Facsimile 3 and Facsimile 4). Then Bach began work on the new flute version. Sometimes he decided that the flute part could be exactly the same as the right-hand part of the keyboard version. In these cases he did not bother to recopy all of the measure or section, but merely indicated the identity of the solo parts by writing out the first few notes of the measure in the flute part (see Facsimile 4, m. 75). Here, the absence of rests served as the clue to subsequent copyists to copy from the keyboard part for the remainder of the measure. When Bach wished to alter the soloist’s part in the flute version, he resumed writing out the part on the top staff (see Facsimile 4, m. 76). Bach changed the notes of soloistic figuration in order to accommodate the

106

Arrangements

range of the new instrument or to exploit its capabilities, but only rarely did he alter the harmonic structure or length of a passage. This general procedure may be observed in P 769, in which Bach first wrote a new figuration for the flute based on the harmonic structure of the keyboard version. Later he returned to cross out a portion of the flute part and add material to the string parts (Facsimile 4, m. 77, staves 1-5). This alteration did not occur immediately, for Bach also had to make a similar change further on in a related passage (m. 81, not shown). In copying six¬ teen measures of sixteenth-notes into the flute part,4 Bach might have become con¬ cerned that the flautist be able to breathe at certain points. Merely inserting rests into the flute part would have resulted in long pauses in the middle of a highly active, driving solo section, so, apparently to fill the gap, in measures 77 and 81 Bach inserted new tutti interjections based on the rhythm of the primary theme. The orchestral parts had originally begun forte in measures 78 and 82, but now the soloist made a new entrance in those measures, and Bach crossed out and reposi¬ tioned tht forte signs his copyist had taken over from the keyboard version (Facsi¬ mile 4, m. 78). This example clearly shows that, for Bach, the preparation of an arrangement was not at all a mechanical process, but rather could set in motion a chain-reaction of alterations affecting all the parts. Complex series of alterations also took place when Bach prepared the arrangements of two concertos composed in 1765, but this time different problems arose, since he had written these concertos originally for oboe and then arranged them for harpsichord. The primacy of the oboe version of W. 40 is evident from the autograph score of it (D-ddr Bds P 356 [W. 165]), since following the last system in the final movement is a sketch for a passage in the keyboard version (Facsimile 5).5 The tentativeness characteristic of a sketch can be seen in the triplet sixteenth notes in the keyboard part, which Bach left unbeamed. He also changed the bass part of the sketch in measures 330-31 by drawing staff lines below the system to enter the new reading. Further evidence that Bach was actually in the process of composing the keyboard arrangement after having written the oboe concerto can be seen in the crossed-out note in the second violin part (m. 321), the crossed-out dynamic indication in the first violin part (m. 325) and the crooked slur in the viola part (mm. 333-34). The sketched passage, some seventeen measures of virtuoso soloistic display accompanied by repeated or held notes in the string parts, was not part of the ori¬ ginal oboe version. In composing the keyboard arrangement Bach inserted these seventeen measures near the end of the last solo section, so this addition of material falls into the large group of revisions Bach made just before the reentrance of the tutti.6 The oboe and keyboard versions of the Concerto in B-flat (W. 39 — W. 164) also differ significantly at the ends of solo sections.7 It appears likely that Bach also wrote the oboe version of this concerto first, although the evidence for this is not as strong as for W. 40 (= W. 165). The most important sources for W. 39 are

Arrangements

107

the autograph parts (D-brd B St 529) and the copy made by Michel (B Be 5887). For the oboe version of this concerto, W. 164, the autograph score survives (D-ddr Bds P 356). Although conceivably Bach also used an intermediate score to com¬ pose the arrangement, as he had with W. 34, he might have formulated the keyboard version on the spot while copying out the set of parts for it. Close com¬ parison of the small details of notation in the autograph score and autograph parts indicates that the parts were written after the score, and consequently, the keyboard version itself probably antedates the oboe version. For example, when Bach wrote out the first violin part of St 529, he originally notated the “trilled turn" {prallender Doppelschlag) in the same way as it appears in the autograph score, with a preceding appoggiatura, for the outline of the initial appoggiatura may still be detected in measure 92 (Facscimile 6a-b). Bach had discussed the per¬ formance of this ornament in the original 1753 edition of his Versuch. For the edi¬ tion of 1787 he added a section explaining another way of performing the trilled turn suitable for moderately fast movements, for which it was better to employ a slightly different notation, writing out the turn.8 Precisely this change in the nota¬ tion of the trilled turn may be seen between the first violin part of the oboe concerto and that of the harpsichord concerto. The notation of this passage provides another clue that Bach probably com¬ posed the keyboard version while writing out the parts. The first violin part in the oboe version comes to a strongly articulated cadence in measure 92, while in the keyboard version the first violin provides a connecting melodic link to the next phrase (Example 20). This alteration could have been caused—or inspired—by the new, ornamented melody Bach had settled on for the keyboard arrangement. In measure 93 the elaboration took the form of a rhythmic alteration, as an eighth rest and five eighth notes replaced the three quarter notes of the oboe solo. If Bach changed the violin part to fill the momentary rest in the new harpsichord part, he would soon have realized that the new violin part could not long remain in the higher octave, since it would have ascended above the solo part in measure 94. Bach had warned against such an obscuring of the solo line in his Versuch: If a piece for a low principal part has ripieno parts, their range must be carefully observed and the keyboard accompaniment placed in the same register. The melody of the principal part must not be obscured by middle parts which lie above it. Hence composers occasionally place the middle parts first in the low register in the interests of a good setting and variation from the norm, and later, in the ritomello, restore them tellingly to their usual upper register.9

Bach’s immediate decision to have the first violin descend an octave in measure 93 is reflected in the crooked slur in St 529 (Facsimile 6b, staff 9, m. 6), which origi¬ nally connected two notes and then had to be expanded to three. Such revealing tiny details that allow some insight into the chronology of the arrangements cannot always be found. Of the three remaining concertos for which Bach prepared arrangements10 the paucity of autograph sources prevents conclu-

108

Arrangements

sions based on the composer’s notational idiosyncracies. The only autograph material available for these three concertos is the autograph score of the cello ver¬ sion of W. 26, D-brd B P 355[W. 170], The rest survive in manuscript sets of parts except for the Library of Congress copy of W. 26, which is a score (Table 2). Comparison of the various solo parts for flute, cello, and harpsichord yields many variant readings. This comparison is facilitated by the Eulenburg editions of the A minor and A major concertos, W. 26 and W. 29, since the various versions appear together on the same system. Wilhelm Altmann edited the A minor concer¬ to (Leipzig: Eulenburg, [1938]) and Hans Maria Kneihs tfie A major concerto (Zurich: Eulenburg, [1967]). The orchestral parts of the various arrangements of these concertos are quite similar, except that the bass part generally rests during solo sections of the keyboard version, but accompanies throughout in the flute and cello versions. Altmann stated in his foreword that he could not locate a copy of the keyboard version, but had to rely on an earlier edition by Georg Amft (Leipzig: C. F. Kahnt, [1905] ). Altmann’s edition does not allow an accurate performance of the keyboard version of the concerto, since it implies that the bass part always accompanies the soloist. Hans Maria Kneihs managed to avoid this problem in his edition of the A major concerto by using brackets over the bass part to indicate when it should rest in performances of the keyboard version. The variant readings among these arrangements are chiefly of two types: melodic elaborations or Auszierungen in the keyboard part, and melodic trans¬ formations traceable to idiomatic writing. The Auszierungen resemble those already noted in W. 39 (Example 20) and in the concertos discussed in chapter 5.11 The other type of alteration resembles Auszierungen in only affecting the shape of the melody, not the harmonic structure. These alterations allow each soloist to play figuration best suited to the range and capabilities of his instrument.12 Example 20 illustrates one alteration probably made with considerations of the instruments in mind: the oboe soloist plays a long held note in measures 89-90, but in the harp¬ sichord version the material in the solo and violin parts is exchanged, since the harpsichordist could not have sustained a single note for two measures. Auszierungen and idiomatic writing also account for many of the differences between the oboe and harpsichord versions of the two concertos from 1765 (W. 39 = W. 164, W. 40 = W. 165). Since these concertos originated as oboe works, it is possible that the keyboard versions of the three earlier concertos13 also antedated the versions for oboe and cello. Composing the elaboration of a simple melody certainly appears to have been more frequent than preparing a simple melody from an elaborate one, although W. 26, W. 28, and W. 29 may still have preceded the flute and cello arrangements, if they originated in simple versions that no longer survive. Again, the lack of autograph material hinders firm conclusions. Even the relatively simple process of ornamenting the melodic line of the keyboard part could trigger subsequent changes in the orchestral parts, it appears. In the slow movement of W. 39, for example, the heavily ornamented first solo

Arrangements

109

Table 2 Manuscript Sources of Arrangements of W. 26, W. 28, and W. 29 Nachlassverzeichnis

Arrangement

Solo Instrument

No. 27 in A minor

W. 26

harpsichord

No. 29 in B-Flat Major

No. 30

Manuscript Sources

B Be 5887 US Wc M 1010.A2B 13 W. 26

W. 166

flute

B Be 5516

W. 170

cello

D-brd B P 355 [W. 170] B Be 5633

W. 28

harpsichord

B Be 5887 D-brd B St 221 D-ddrBdsM. Thul. 21 DK Kmk R 403

W. 167

flute

B Be 5516

W. 171

cello

B Be 5633

W. 29

harpsichord

B Be 5887 US WcM 1010.A2B13 W. 29

W. 168

flute

B Be 5515

W. 172

cello

B Be 5633

in A Major

110

Arrangements

section necessitated changes in all the string parts, as what had formerly been a duet between the oboe soloist and the first violinist now was taken over by the harpsichord soloist (Example 21). This example illustrates a general feature of Bach’s concertos for melodic instruments: they relied to a much greater degree on their partnership with the orchestra than did the keyboard concertos. Duets be¬ tween soloist and first violinist, tutti interjections within the solo part, and orches¬ tral parts providing essential accompaniment characterize Bach’s concertos for oboe, flute, and cello to a much greater extent than his keyboard concertos. Bach occasionally made alterations of a fundamental nature when preparing arrangements. His insertion of seventeen measures in the harpsichord version of the Concerto in E-Flat Major, W. 40, has already been discussed. When he pre¬ pared the keyboard version of the Concerto in B-flat Major, W. 39, he also altered some solo sections significantly, changing the harmonic structure, the chord rhythm, or the length of the passage.14 His natural propensity to revise surfaced, apparently, as he prepared this keyboard arrangement, for the alterations he made were not all necessitated by the new solo instrument. Rather, the revisions in¬ creased the importance of the solo part and the strength of the articulation before the tutti entrance, just as Bach’s revised versions of his keyboard concertos had.15 In addition to the authentic arrangements of six of the concertos, there exists an arrangement of questionable authenticity of W. 22 for flute. No autograph sources survive for this concerto, and only one manuscript copy in the hand of Michel preserves the keyboard version.16 The flute version is represented by two manuscripts, one set of parts that had belonged to Anna Amalia and a score origi¬ nating in the nineteenth century.17 The latter source, P 768,'was copied from the Amalien-Bibliothek manuscript, since it quotes the Amalien-Bibliothek number 101 and the name of Princess Amalia on its title page.18 Consequently, for comparing W. 22 and its arrangement for flute, only two sources are of importance, the copy made by Michel of the keyboard version now in the Brussels Conservatory and the copy of the flute version that had belonged to Princess Amalia. There can be no doubt that Michel’s copy originated within Bach’s establishment, but the same is not necessarily true of the AmalienBibliothek source. Bach enjoyed the support and admiration of Princess Amalia, but there is no evidence that he or his copyists directly assisted in the task of build¬ ing her music collection. Kirnberger received music from Nichelmann’s estate, and from this music had copies prepared for the library of Princess Amalia. But since Nichelmann and C. P. E. Bach became rivals sometime after 1750—certain¬ ly by 1755—one cannot assume that the music in the library of Anna Amalia came directly from C. P. E. Bach.19 Furthermore, even the Amalien-Bibliothek copy itself bears signs of confu¬ sion over the authorship of the concerto, for on its title page someone crossed out the original attribution and wrote “C. F. E. Bach” above it (Facsimile 7). Close inspection of the crossed-out words reveals that the original name was very likely

Arrangements

111

“Benda” (Illustration 17). Visible still are the clear outlines of “B” and “a” at the end, as well as the copyist’s characteristic “d,” with its extended curving stem (compare with the “d” in “Violino Secundo” on the title page, Facsimile 7). The new attribution to C. P. E. Bach appears to be in a different hand. The authenticity of the keyboard version of W. 22 is well documented. If someone else other than Bach undertook an arrangement of it, the resulting man¬ uscript might still identify Bach as the composer, if the keyboard version had achieved recognition as a work of Bach in Berlin musical circles. On the other hand, Bach might have prepared such an arrangement but neglected to enter it in his records, so that no flute version of this concerto appeared in the Nachlassverzeichnis.

The question of the authenticity of the arrangement becomes even more in¬ volved when the flute and keyboard versions are compared, for they differ marked¬ ly from each other. In addition to the usual variants due to melodic elaboration and idiomatic considerations, there are many extensive revisions of the harmonic structure, melody, and rhythm of various passages, and the addition or deletion or several measures at a time, particularly in the first movement. But most unusual is the location of these revisions. In the first movement, not only the solo sections, but also the tutti sections were enlarged by several measures in the flute version (compare the second and third solo and tutti sections of both versions, W. 22, I. 79-228 in the keyboard version). While Bach frequently tinkered with his solo sec¬ tions, particularly the ends of solo sections, he rarely altered the tuttis once the concerto had been finished. The paucity of source material for W. 22 makes it difficult to determine which version might have come first. Since Michel’s copy contains an elaboration of the flute melody, the keyboard arrangement might also have existed in a simple ver¬ sion at one time, from which the flute arrangement was made. In this case the re¬ lated questions of arrangements, actual and hypothetical versions, authorship, and chronology are just too numerous to make firm conclusions possible. One unquestionably unauthentic arrangement has surfaced recently. In 1974 Gerard Billaudot of Paris published a “trumpet concerto” of C. P. E. Bach.20 Although not identified as such by the editor, this “concerto” is actually an arrangement of C. P. E. Bach’s Trio for Cembalo and Flute, W. 87, for trumpet and organ or piano. Transcriptions of Accompanied Concertos for Solo Keyboard Performance In the eighteenth century, the professional harpsichordists and dilettantes who performed in home musical circles often borrowed works originally intended as accompanied keyboard concertos, turning them into solo works by playing the melodic line instead of realizing the figures in tutti sections.21 This practice is re¬ flected in the manuscript copies of C. P. E. Bach’s concertos, which frequently

112

Arrangements

contain the tutti melody written into the keyboard part, so that this part could serve equally well for solo or ensemble performance. Such versatile keyboard parts are common in collections of eighteenth-century concertos.22 Since keyboard parts may have been copied out by someone who only in¬ tended to play the concerto without accompaniment, these parts are indistinguish¬ able from solo keyboard works, and their identity as works originally conceived for harpsichord and orchestra may go unrecognized, unless the original copyist made some note to that effect. Such is the case with a solo keyboard version of the last movement of W. 5, which until now escaped notice, since it occurred as part of a large collection of solo keyboard music owned by the Voss family (D-brd B P 295). This source, which contains keyboard pieces by Hertel, Karl Heinrich Graun, Kimberger, and Marpurg, among others, was evidently compiled as a set by several persons working together, since the same type of paper was used throughout the 171 leaves of the manuscript. One main copyist prepared most of the anthology, but two different handwritings may be distinguished in the list of contents beginning on the verso side of the last folio containing music. The keyboard arrangement of W. 5, III is preserved on p. 64 of P 295,2 and the entry in the list of contents corresponding to this page merely designates the work as “Allegro von C. P. E. Bach.” A similar heading is found on p. 64 over the third system of music, but the word “Allegro” appears in black ink, and the following words “del Sigl. P. E. Bach” in brown ink, implying that originally even the attribution was missing. In evaluating these arrangements for solo keyboard, keeping in mind the per¬ forming tradition of the time, one must not assume that all such transcriptions ori¬ ginated with the composer. Just as performers wrote out ornamented versions of solo parts, so too did they prepare their own unaccompanied versions of concertos originally scored for harpsichord and strings. Bach bowed to the current practice of soloistic performance when he pub¬ lished the six concertos composed in 1771 with the tutti melody written into the keyboard part.25 He also arranged at least one concerto for performance in a solo keyboard version, for this arrangement is listed in the Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 21, under the heading “Clavier Soli,” without any mention of its relationship to the orchestral concerto of the same year, listed on p. 34 (W. 42). It appears that Bach entered the solo version as a distinct entity in his records, for he wrote on the auto¬ graph copy (D-brd B P713) over the first system of music, “No. 158.” The num¬ ber of this piece in the Nachlassverzeichnis, 168, is written in parentheses above 158. The existence of this autograph copy, as well as the listing of the solo arrange¬ ment in the Nachlassverzeichnis, dispel any doubts about the authenticity of the concerto. Breitkopf had included its incipit in his Supplement of 1773 under the heading “Cone, da Lange, a Cemb. cone. 2 Viol. V. e. B.”26 In his study of the sources of Johann Georg Lang’s keyboard concertos, Shelley Davis encountered no sources for such a concerto of Lang.27

Arrangements

113

The question of which version of W. 42 came first cannot easily be answered, since no autograph sources of the orchestral version have survived. J. J. H. Westphal implied that the orchestral version preceded the solo arrangement when he noted in his thematic catalog, “This concerto is also found among the keyboard concertos with instrumental accompaniment, although this copy, which the de¬ ceased composer arranged for keyboard solo, differs markedly from the keyboard part of the other version.’’28 However, if Bach had merely copied out a solo arrangement from an existing accompanied concerto, why did he give this solo arrangement a separate listing in his records? The second movement of W. 42, a playful Larghetto in duple meter, differs so markedly in character from the slow movements of most other concertos that one wonders if it originated as a solo keyboard work. In its light hearted echo motives and simple texture it resembles the short character pieces Bach wrote for friends and acquaintances, W. 117/17-40.29 These attractive miniatures intended to please their dedicatees apparently captured the attention of Mozart, who arranged one of them, La Boehmer W. 117/26, as the final movement of one of his pasticcio con¬ certos, K. 40.30 Bach himself drew on this body of solo keyboard music in writing his sonatinas, which are generally scored for harpsichord, two horns, two flutes, two violins, viola, and bass.31 Not all of Bach’s character pieces were included in the Nachlassverzeichnis; at any rate, at least nine unknown pieces attributed to Bach survive, one with an autograph notation.32 It is possible, then, that the slow movement of W. 42 originated as a solo keyboard work, without the dedicatee being listed on the extant copies of the solo version, but there is little direct evi¬ dence of this. On style-analytical grounds, the two outer movements appear to have been conceived originally for harpsichord and strings. The upper melodic line implies this, for in the solo keyboard arrangement the melody jumps abruptly into higher or lower registers and changes rhythm at just those points in which the tutti instru¬ ments enter in the orchestral version (Example 22).33 If Bach did prepare the solo keyboard arrangement by combining the first violin part and the harpsichord part of the concerto, he must have decided to simplify some passages in the solo arrangement. Several passages in the solo version are omitted, shortened, or sim¬ plified by the substitution of figuration built around notes of longer value, such as triplets instead of sixteenths.34 When the original violin and keyboard parts could not be combined easily into a single line, Bach apparently rewrote the melody slightly.35 The second movement of the orchestral version preserved in the Brussels copy, B Be 5887, is also more detailed than that of the solo version, but here the complexities result from the usual ornamentation of the melody following the con¬ temporary performing tradition. While it is possible that a simplified version could have been fashioned from such a melody, it seems more likely, given the tradition, that the simple form of the melody predated its elaboration.

114

A rrangements

The Concerto in D Minor, BWV 1052a For several decades J. S. Bach’s Concerto in D Minor, BWV 1052, has generated controversy.36 While preparing the Bach-Gesellschaft edition of this work, Wilhelm Rust postulated that it was based on a lost violin concerto, since the solo part contained idiomatic writing for the violin. Over the years the violin concerto has remained lost,37 but several other versions of the concerto, or sections of it, are known. One complete alternate version exists and has been catalogued as BWV 1052a. A partial version is found in the cantata “Wir mussen durch viel Triibsal in das Reich Gottes eingehen,” BWV 146, which utilizes the first movement of the concerto as the cantata introduction and the second movement as the first chorus of the cantata. Another version exists in the introduction to the cantata Ich habe meine Zuversicht,” BWV 188, thought to have consisted of either the third move¬ ment of the concerto, or possibly even the whole concerto. 8 Since Rust’s time, Bach scholars have tried to ascertain how many versions of this concerto were by Johann Sebastian Bach. At one point some doubted that he had even written any version of the concerto, but this view has lost favor, since an autograph score of BWV 1052 survives. Another issue concerns the authorship of the lost violin concerto—did Bach compose it too, or did he merely prepare a keyboard arrangement of a violin concerto by someone else? A further complex of questions arise over the dating of all the versions, which has had to rely to a great extent on watermark evidence. Finally, the degree to which the available sources for all the various versions are dependent on each other has also been extensively researched, with different writers coming to different conclusions.39 A full investigation of this problem lies beyond the scope of the present study. However, since C. P. E. Bach has been proposed as the possible author of the version known as BWV 1052a,40 a few comments on this particular issue are in order. While C. P. E. Bach might have written BWV 1052a, this is not at all certain. The primary evidence cited for his authorship is that a set of parts containing the version BWV 1052a survive in his hand (D-brd B St 350). Also, on a source of the version believed to be by J. S. Bach, BWV 1052, someone other than the copyist added “del Sig: C. P. E. Bach’’ on the title page.41 This attribution was then cros¬ sed out and replaced by “J. Sebastian.’’ Similar attributions toC. P. E. and subse¬ quent corrections were made on all the parts as well. Recently Wilfried Fischer has argued that Sebastian Bach did not consult the set of parts penned by C. P. E. Bach, and since the version in C. P. E. Bach’s hand demonstrates only a rudimentary knowledge of transcription, it was probably not by Sebastian.42 However, other evidence can be cited against C. P. E. Bach’s authorship of BWV 1052a. Although C. P. E. Bach did write out this version in a set of parts (D-brd B St 350), he did not identify the concerto as his work. On the autograph sources of his concertos he often, but not always, wrote his name to clearly label

Arrangements

115

the work as his, in an inscription such as “Concerto a Cemb. cone. 2 Viol. Viola e Basso di C. P. E. Bach," above the first staff or on a separate title page. No such label is found on his copy of the D minor concerto, for the title page is not in his hand, and above the first staff of the keyboard part C. P. E. Bach merely wrote “Concerto.” The separate title page with St 350 is in the hand of Polchau, who wrote, “Clavier Concert/aus Dm/mit Begleitung von 2 Violinen, Viola u[nd] Bass/von/Johann Sebastian Bach./von der Hand/seines Sohnes Carl Phil. Eman. Bach.”43 With this title page Polchau unambiguously named Johann Sebastian Bach as the composer of the concerto and C. P. E. Bach as the copyist of the manu¬ script. However, Polchau’s information appears to have been overlooked by many recent Bach scholars. Since this cover is made from blue paper, the ink does not contrast well with the paper, and consequently does not show at all when micro¬ filmed. Therefore, someone relying exclusively on microfilm to consult this source would have missed the title page information entirely. Although Polchau occasionally erred in his identifications written on covers of the music he owned,44 his information should at least be taken into account. The set of parts written by C. P. E. Bach does not contain the usual evidence that compositional activity was taking place during the writing process. Only the cadenza of the final movement bears signs of alteration, for a piece of paper has been pasted in at the top left corner at the beginning of this improvised section.45 Such alterations, however, could also have been made by a harpsichordist per¬ forming a concerto written by someone else, since the cadenza was the responsibil¬ ity of the performer. Actually, there is evidence that C. P. E. Bach wrote out the keyboard part of St 350 as a performing copy, since the gathering structure of the source is quite unusual and is not found in his composing scores, which generally consist of consecutive bifolios. In the keyboard part of St 350, however, Bach no¬ tated the concerto in a most peculiar way and did not sew or bind the bifolios together (Table 3).46 On one’s first encounter with this source, it seems impossible to put the pages in order. However, if one assumes that C. P. E. Bach intended to perform from this copy and wished to have as few page turns as possible, then the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit into place. This keyboard part would actually serve very well as a per¬ forming copy, if the harpsichordist arranged the separate sheets on his music stand so that

two whole sheets can

be seen at once (Diagram 3).47 Although this arrange¬

ment of the source involves a slight irregularity in that pp. 7-8 and 9-10 occupy reversed positions, this irregularity would not have inconvenienced the performer, if he knew to look towards the right side of the music stand after the second page turn. Of course, C. P. E. Bach may still have composed this version of the concerto and at the same time attempted to reduce the number of page turns in the solo part. The existence of a copy in C. P. E. Bach’s hand, however, does not in this case guarantee that he composed this version, since the source bears little evidence of

116

Arrangements Diagram 3 The Use of C. P. E.

Bach’s Copy of BWV

(D-brd B St 350) for Performance

a. First position of the sheets

1052a

Arrangements

117

compositional activity. In fact, as Hans-Joachim Schulze has pointed out, when one considers the appearance of the various sources, it is tempting to suppose that Nichelmann might have written the version of BWV 1052a, since he penned part of a curiously altered score of it (D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 4).48

Table 3 The Gathering Structure of the Cembalo Part inC. P. E. Bach’s Copy of BWV 1052a (D-brd B St 350)

Page Numbers Written on Source Recto Verso 1

4

1

2

2

3

3

10

5

4

6

9

5

12

7

6

8

11

7

14

15

8

16

13

In his arrangements, as well as his original compositions, C. P. E. Bach did not hesitate to revise frequently in his quest for perfection. The unequivocal evidence in the autograph sources reveals an unusually diligent composer at work, examin¬ ing alternatives and making new choices.

Although the interpretation of his

reasons for erasing, crossing out passages, and gluing in small strips of paper often involves a degree of speculation, the condition of the autograph sources leaves little doubt that he, like his father, composed music in a complex thought process often involving several steps. This process was shaped by his education, the per¬ forming practices of his time, and the transformations in musical style taking place over the long course of his lifetime.

v

.

'

*

\

Notes

Chapter 1 1.

Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen . . . Zweyter Theil (Leipzig:Schwickert, 1780), p. 91; William J. Mitchell, trans., Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments (New York: W.W. Norton, 1949), p. 152. For his 1780 edition of Part Two, Schwickert merely altered the title pages of copies of the first edition of 1762 that he had acquired from Bach, accord¬ ing to Mitchell, p. 3. There is also a facsimile edition of both parts of the Versuch, edited by Lothar Hoffmann-Erbrecht (1753, 1762; facs. rpt. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1969).

2.

“Vorrede,” Herrn Professor Gellerts Geistliche Oden undLieder (Berlin: Winter, 1758).

3.

The “Einfall” was printed in Historisch-Kritische Beytrage zur Aufnahme derMusik, ed. Fried¬ rich Wilhelm Marpurg, III, 1 (Berlin: Lange, 1757), pp. 167-81. See also Eugene Helm, “Six Random Measures of C. P. E. Bach,” Journal of Music Theory 10 (1966): 139-50, and O. E. Deutsch, “Mit Wiirfeln komponieren,” ZeitschriftfurMusikwissenschaft 12 (1929-1930): 595.

4.

See pp. 32-33. A copy of the Anleitung is available in the Bibliotheque Royale Albert Ier, Bel¬ gium (Fetis 6840).

5.

Verzeichniss des musikalischen Nachlasses des verstorbenen CapeUmeisters Carl Philipp Ema¬ nuel Bach (Hamburg: Schniebes, 1790), p. 54. For brevity, this important source will be referred to as the Nachlassverzeichnis from now on. The Nachlassverzeichnis was also published in an article by Heinrich Miesner, “Philipp Emanuel Bachs musikalischer Nachlass,” Bach-Jahrbuch (1938): 101-36; (1939): 81-112, (1940-1948): 161-81. Page numbers cited from here on will refer to the page numbers in the Nachlassverzeichnis.

6.

This letter is published in Ernst Biicken, ed., Musiker-Briefe (Leipzig: Dietrich, 1940), pp. 7-9. See also Eugene Helm, “The Hamlet Fantasy and the Literary Element in C. P. E. Bach’s Music,” The Musical Quarterly 58 (1972): 277-96.

7.

Letter of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach addressed simply to “Bester Freund,” and dated 20 November 1780, the British Library, London, Add. MS 47843. In quoting from eighteenthcentury sources the original spellings and other peculiarities will be preserved, generally without comment or the continual addition of “[sic]” in the text. “So schon Ihre eingesandte Arie ist, so wunschte ich doch, dass sie im ersten Theile gleich mit einem zartlichen Adagio anfange, bey dem ich mich, wie bey alien ersten Theilen einer Arie, ausdehnen konnte.” I am grateful to Stephen L. Clark of Princeton University for informing me that this letter was published by Friedrich Wilhelm in “Briefe an Ramler,’’Vierteljahrschrift fur Litteraturgeschichte 4 (1891): 256-57. The remainder of the letter makes it clear that the aria in question was

120

Notes for Chapter 2 “Wie bang hat dich mein Lied beweint” (W. 240/[7]). Ramler evidently wrote this aria only after C. P. E. Bach had set the text of Die Auferstehung for the first public performance in 1778 (a report on the event appeared in the Hamburg Correspondent of 19 March 1778). The libretto as first published in 1772 had a completely different aria in the place of “Wie bang hat dich mein Lied beweint;” see Karl Wilhelm Ramlers Lyrische Gediehte (Berlin: Christian Friedrich Voss, 1772), p. 367. The original aria, which began “Sey gegriisset, Furst des Lebens! Jauchzet, die sein Tod betriibte!” may still have preceded the text beginning “Wie bang . . .” in the version Ramler sent to Bach, and this text certainly would not have been appropriate for the “tender Adagio” that Bach desired.

8.

Christoph Nichelmann, Die Melodie nach ihrem Wesen sowohl, als nach ihren Eigenschaften (Danzig: J. C. Schuster, 1755).

9.

The Gedanken may be found with Ernst Gottlieb Baron’s Abriss einer Abhandlung von der Melo¬ die (Berlin: A. Haude & J. C. Spener, 1756), pp. 1-16, followed by Nichelmann’s anonymous answer. Die Vortrefflichkeit der Gedanken des Herrn Caspar Dunckelfeindes iiber die Abhand¬ lung von der Melodie ins Licht gesetzt von einem Musick Freunde, pp. 1-16, in which Nichel¬ mann voices the suspicion that Bach wrote the Dunkelfeind essay (p. 1). A copy of these rare pamphlets is available in the Sachsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden. Douglas Allen Lee discus¬ ses the authorship of the treatises in “The Instrumental Works of Christoph Nichelmann,

Diss.

The University of Michigan, 1968, pp. 44-46. 10.

In naming sources the standard abbreviations of the Repertoire international des sources musicales (RISM) will be used throughout. In all subsequent references the sigla “Mus. ms. Bach” employed by D-brd B and D-ddr Bds will be omitted, as all sources to be cited bear that heading, except those of the Thulemeier and Amalien-Bibliothek collections. In naming works ofC. P. E. Bach the numbers in Alfred Wotquenne’ s thematic catalogue will be used, abbreviated “ W. — See Alfred Wotquenne, Catalogue thematique des oeuvres de Charles Philippe Emmanuel Bach (1714-1788) (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hiirtel, 1905), reprinted as Therpatisches Verzeichnis der Werke von Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1972).

11.

The key to abbreviations used in the Nachlassverzeichnis is found on the reverse of its title page.

12.

Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 53. “Variations zur4ten Sonate des 2ten Theils derTrii. H[amburg], In einem Exemplar des lsten Theils der Reprisen-Sonaten sind hin und wieder Verandurungen eigenhandig eingeschrieben. ’ ’

13.

For further discussion of Bach’s practice of writing multiple versions see Erich Beurmann. “Die Klaviersonaten Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs,” Diss. Georg-August Universitat, Gottingen 1952, p. 14, and Allan D. Kellar, “The Hamburg Bach—Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach as Choral Com¬ poser,” Diss. Iowa 1970,1: 106.

14.

Heinrich Miesner, Philipp Emanuel Bach in Hamburg (1929; rpt. Wiesbaden: Sandig, 1969).

15.

Ibid., p. 67.

16.

Hans Uldall, Das Klavierkonzert der Berliner Schule (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1928), pp. 59-66; Ernst Fritz Schmid, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1931), pp. 150-54. Often in the process of arranging his own compositions, Bach also revised heavily, so that many of his “arrangements” also constitute alternate versions.

x Chapter 2

1.

Karl Hermann Bitter, Carl Philipp Emanuel und Wilhelm Friedemann Bach und deren Briider

Notes for Chapter 2

121

(1868; rpt. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1973) I: 339. “Das Concerto aus dem B ist nicht von mir; auch die 3 Fugetten nicht.” 2.

Beurmann, p. 10; Gudrun Busch, C. Ph. E. Bach undseine Lieder, Kolner Beitrage zur Musikforschung, ed. Karl Gustav Fellerer, Bd. XII (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1957), pp. 33-37; Ernst Suchalla, Die Orchestersinfonien Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs, Diss. JohannesGutenberg Universitat zu Mainz 1968 (Augsburg: W. Blasaditsch, 1968), pp. 149—62; Darrell Matthews Berg, “The Keyboard Sonatas of C. P. E. Bach: An Expression of the Mannerist Prin¬ ciple,” Diss. State University of New York at Buffalo 1975, pp. 232-37.

3.

Rachel W. Wade, Communication in JAMS 30 (1977): 163; Darrell M. Berg, “Toward a Cata¬ logue of the Keyboard Sonatas of C. P. E. Bach,” JAMS 32 (1979): 277.

4.

Berg, p. 279.

5.

This letter, along with most of Bach's correspondence with Breitkopf (amounting to over 170 letters) has been preserved in the Hessische Landes-und Hochschulbibliothek, Darmstadt (hereafter cited D-brd DS). “Es lebe die Ordnung u. Betriebsamkeit! Was hilft das beste Herz ohnejene!”

6.

Ibid. “Ich liebe die Ordnung, wie Sie. Wir sind sterbliche Menschen.”

7.

Ibid. Bach did not identify the source of the review, stating only that it dated from two years earlier. The review is included in J. J. H. Westphal’s collection of reviews of Bach’s works: Besammlete Nachrichten von dem Leben und Werken des Herrn Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach .... Brussels. Bibliotheque Royale Albert Ier, Fonds Fetis 4779 (II 4133). According to Westphal (crossed-out page no. 70) the review was published in the Hamburg Correspondent, 1784, No. 109.

8.

C. P. E. Bach, “Vorrede,” Herrn Professor Gellerts Geistliche Oden und Lieder.

9.

Bitter, I: 340. “Meine Arbeiten fiirs Clavier allein enthalten 173 Stucke, theils Sonaten, theils kleine Sammlungen von characterisirten Stricken. Von diesen 173 Stiicken sind just 99 gedruckt.”

10.

Carl Burney’s . . . Tagebuch seiner musikalischen Reisen III (1773; rpt. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1959): 198-209. Bach’s autobiography has been separately published in facsimile, with notes by William S. Newman: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach’s Autobiography, Facsimiles of Early Bio¬ graphies IV (Hilversum: Fritz Knuf, 1967). William S. Newman also has provided an English translation of the autobiography in “Emanuel Bach’s Autobiography,” The Musical Quarterly 51 (1965): 363-72. Ebeling, who had translated Volume I, became ill, so the publisher J. J. C. Bode translated the other volumes, even though he is not listed as the translator on the title page; see Josef Wihan, Johann Joachim Christoph Bode als Vermittler Englischer Geisteswerke in Deutschland, Prager Deutsche Studien, Heft 43 (Prag: Carl Bellmann, 1906), p. 162-70.

11.

This catalog is preserved along with C. P. E. Bach’s letters to Breitkopf in B-brd DS (with letter of 28 July 1786).

12.

Wilhelm A. Bauer, Otto Erich Deutsch, Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum Salzburg, ed., Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen I (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1962): 527—28. “Wenn sie mir eine kleine Nota aller der Werke die von H. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach bey ihnen zu haben sind, beyschlussen wollten NB mit beygefiigtem Preiss; so wiirde es mir sehr angenehm seyn.

13.

Wilhelm Hitzig, Katalog des Archivs von Breitkopf & Hartel (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1925)11:2.

14.

For this information I am grateful to Albi Rosenthal, successor to the Liepmannssohn firm.

122

Notes for Chapter 2

15.

Nachlassverzeichnis, title page.

16.

This letter is printed in Bitter, II: 307—11. It is now in the Bach-Museum, Eisenach, according to Hans-Joachim Schulze, “Marginalien zu einigen Bach-Dokumenten,” Bach-Jahrbuch (1961): 81, note 10.

17.

Joanna Maria Bach’s letter is found among the correspondence of C. P. E. Bach now in D-brd DS. This letter has been partially printed by Hans-Joachim Schulze, ed., Bach-Dokumente III (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1972): 449. Only the signature is in the hand of Johanna Maria Bach. The rest was written by Anna Carolina Philippina; see Schulze, “Marginalien zu einigen BachDokumenten,” pp. 80-81.

18.

Ibid. “Femer biete ich Ew. HochEdelgeb. den Verlag des Catalogus, an dem jetzt gearbeitet wird, an. Es wird dieser Catalogus eigentlich eine Nachricht enthalten von alien Arbeiten meines seel. Mannes, folglich wird darum aufgenommen worden sowol was bey mir zu haben ist, als was ja von ihm verfertigt worden. Alsdann wird das vollstandig von dem seel, ausgearbeitete Verzeichniss seiner Bildersammlung, femer die Anzahl seiner vorhandenen musikalischen Bucher, seine Instrumente, der musikalien, die ich noch von meinem seel. Schwiegervater J. S. Bach, von den Briidem meines Mannes, und von andem theils mehr, theils weniger beriihmten Tonkunstlem besitze, hereingeriickt werden.”

19.

Concerning Westphal and C. P. E. Bach see Miriam Terry, “C. P. E. Bach and J. J. H. Westphal—a Clarification,” JAMS 22 (1969): 106-15; Erwin R. Jacobi, “Five Hitherto Unknown Letters from C. P. E. Bach to J. J. H. Westphal.” JAMS 23 (1970): 119-27, 545, and “Three Additional Letters from C. P. E. Bach to J. J. H. Westphal, JAMS 27 (1974): 119—25.

20.

B Br Fonds Fetis 4779 (II 4133).

21.

Jacobi, JAMS 27 (1974): 122.

22.

This second catalog by Westphal is also now a part of the Besammlete Nachrichten, B Br Fonds Fetis 4779 (II 4133), f. 18r-26r.

23.

B Br Fonds Fetis 5218 (II 4140).

24.

For a sample of Fetis’s handwriting, see Francois-Joseph Fetis, et la vie musicale de son temps (Bruxelles: Bibliotheque Royale Albert Ier, 1972), Plate XL This autograph manuscript was dated c. 1824 by P[aul] H[ooreman], p. 16.

25.

Suchalla, p. 157. To compute the folio number of Westphal’s original catalog, B Br Fetis 5218 (II 4140), from the page numbers in K. 490 appearing on the Berlin manuscripts, use the formula Berlin recto [odd] page no. + 5 = Brussels fol. no.

2 26.

The author of these notations may have been Albert Kopfermann (1846-1915), who prepared a handwritten list of the works of C. P. E. Bach in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, a list on unbound leaves kept with the bound volume K. 490. Although Kopfermann is not identified as the author on these leaves, his list was mentioned by Robert Eitner in his Biographisch-bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon I (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1900): 280, and the identity of this reference and the sheets enclosed in K. 490 is confirmed by library records. Kopfermann was head of the music division from 1878 until his death on Jan. 1, 1915.

27.

“Die Veranderungen sind nur zum Theil von C. P. E. Bach. S. Musikal. Allerlei 1. c.” This refers to the Musikalisehes Allerley von verschiedenen Tonkiinstlern, 7Ie Sammlung (Berlin: Friedrich Wilhelm Bimstiel, 1762): 190-96.

Notes for Chapter 2

123

28.

Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 16. “. . . und einige Veranderungen auf eine italienische Ariette folgen, welche letztem im Musikalischen Allerley und Vielerley der Ariette beygedruckt sind. ”

29.

Bitter, II: 325-44.

30.

Alfred Wotquenne, Catalogue de la Bibliotheque du Conservatoire Royal de Musique (Bruxelles: J. J. Coosemans), 1(1898) and II (1902). Compare, for example, the explanatory note for W. 221 on p. 99 with that in the library catalog, I: 139.

31.

Robert Eitner, Biographisch-bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898-1904).

32.

William S. Newman, ed., Carl Philip Emanuel Bach’s Autobiography, pp. 203-7. There are no missing flute concertos as Newman proposed (see his notes 13 and 22); the passages in question refer to the keyboard concertos W. 25 and W. 14, respectively. A separate sheet noting this cor¬ rection in footnote 22 was enclosed.

33.

Bitter, II: 308.

34.

B BrFonds Fetis 5218 (II4140). f. 39v-45r. Six concertos are listed under his number 5 [W. 43]; his numbers 4,6, and 50 list scores of previously mentioned works; and his final number 51 refers to variant versions of concertos. When the addition and subtraction for these listings are carried out, the total number is fifty-two.

35.

Ernst Fritz Schmid, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik, pp. 76-77.

36.

Paul Kast, Die Bach-Elandschriften der Berliner Staatsbibliothek, Tiibinger Bach-Studien, Heft 2/3, ed. Walter Gerstenberg (Trossingen: Hohner Verlag, 1958), p. 112. Kast listed several works under the heading “Wq. n. v.”—’’Werke, die im Katalog Wotquenne nicht verzeichnet sind” (works not listed in Wotquenne’s catalog).

37.

See Uldall, p. 67; Douglas Lee, The Works of Christoph Nichelmann: A Thematic Index, Detroit Studies in Music Bibliography, 19 (Detroit: Information Coordinators Inc., 1971): 17, 33, 3839; see also Hans-Joachim Schulze, “Der Schreiber ‘Anonymous 400’—ein Schuler Johann Sebastian Bachs,” Bach-Jahrbuch (1972): 110-11.

38.

Charles Humphries and William C. Smith, Music Publishing in the British Isles, 2nd ed. (Ox¬ ford: Basil Blackwell, 1970), p. 308.

39.

Charles Sanford Terry, John Christian Bach, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 297. See also Edith B. Schnapper, ed.. The British Union-Catalogue of Early Music I (Lon¬ don: Butterworths Scientific Publications, 1957): 74, and Charles L. Cudworth, “Ye Olde Spuriosity Shoppe or. Put it in the Anhang,” Notes, Ser. 2, 12 (1954—1955): 534.

40.

C. F[erdinand] P[ohl], “Gerber,” A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A.D. 14501889) . . . ed. Sir George Grove (London: Macmillan and Co., 1890) I: 589. Gerber’s copy of this concerto belonged to Ernst Biicken, who discussed it in his study Die Musik des Rokokos und derKlassik (Wildpark-Potsdam: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion, 1928), p. 168. A film copy of this source is available in the Photogrammarchiv of the Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna; see Agnes Ziffer, Katalog des Archivs fur Photogramme musikalischer Meisterhandschriften (Vienna: Georg Prachner, 1967), p. 35.

41.

Terry, p. 294.

42.

Uldall, pp. 66-67. Another concerto of J. C. Bach was mistakenly attributed to Philipp Emanuel in a source preserved in Kromeriz, Zamecky hudebni archlv (Appendix B, X4), and this collec¬ tion also includes other concertos with questionable or ambiguous attributions (Appendix B,

124

Notes for Chapter 2 X10,X14,X15,X17,X18). Iam grateful to Eugene Helm for calling these sources to my atten¬ tion.

43.

Compare the label on St 482 with the facsimiles of Nichelmann’s autograph reproduced by Doug¬ las Allan Lee, “The Instrumental Works of Christoph Nichelmann,” Diss. University of Michi¬ gan 1968, especially his Plates IV (D-ddr Bds Am. Bib. 587), VI (D-ddr Bds Am. Bib. 586), and VII (D-ddr Bds Am. Bib. 519). See also his discussion of Nichelmann’s handwriting, I: 57-63.

44.

C. P. E. Bach gave 1754 as the year Johann Christian left for Italy, in his copy of the Bach family genealogy; see Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, ed., Bach-Dokumente I (Kassel. Barenreiter, 1963), p. 267. In his biography of J. C. Bach, Charles Sanford Terry argued that 1756 could be the year he actually left, but this was refuted by Heinrich Miesner (as summarized by H. C. Robbins Landon in his “Corrigenda” to the second edition of Terry’s John Christian Bach, pp. xxiv, 13).

45.

For a summary of the information concerning the date of Nichelmann s death, see Douglas A. Lee, The Works of Christoph Nichelmann: A Thematic Index, pp. 24—25.

46.

Concerning Grave, see Ernst Fritz Schmid, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik, p. 65.

47.

Uldall, p. 66.

48.

Hans-Joachim Schulze, Katalog der Sammlung Manfred Gorke, Bibliographische Veroffentlichungen der Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig, 8 ([Leipzig: Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leip¬ zig], 1977), p. 22.1 have not yet seen this source.

49.

Catalogo de Soli, Duetti, Trii, Terzetti, Quartetti e Concerti per il Cembalo e I’Harpa che si trovano in manuscritto nella officina musica di Breitkopf in Lipsia, Parte Ivta 1763. in the fac¬ simile edition of Barry S. Brook, The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue (New York: Dover Publica¬ tions, Inc., 1966), col. 132.

50.

Bitter, I: 338. “Die geschriebenen Sachen, die Breitkopf von mir verkauft, sind theils nicht von mir, wenigstens sind sie alt und falsch geschrieben.”

51.

Verzeichnis von Musicalien welche in der Niederlage bey Johann Christoph Westphal und Compagnie in Hamburg in Commission zu haben sind, Mil (microfilm copy in D-ddr LEm). The two columns giving prices refer to Mark and Schilling; see Schulze, Bach-Dokumente III: 275.

52.

Verzeichnis von Musicalien welche in der Niederlage auf den grossen Bleichen bey Johann Christoph Westphal und Compagnie in Hamburg in Commission zu haben sind. Von 1777 bis 1778, pp. 112-13; see also Westphal’s list In der musikalischen Niederlage sindfolgende Werke angekommen, Hamburg, December 1780, p. 4.

53.

Verzeichniss derer Musicalien, welche in der Niederlage auf den grossen Bleichen bey Johann Christoph Westphal und Comp, in Hamburg in Commission zu haben sirid, 1782, pp. 189-90. (Copy available in D-ddr Bds).

54.

(In the following, M stands for Mark, S for Schilling; most prices have been squeezed in below the line:) “Of the Bach concertos known to you, we now know the following not to be by him: 1 concerto D minor N. 1. (4[M], is by Nichelmann. A [majo]r N. 1. (3 [M]—[S]. 2. (4 [M]). F [majo]r N. 1 (3 [M]—[S] ab. G [majo]r N. 1. 6[M]—[S] [This price has been crossed out and replaced by:] 4 [M]—[S] f minor by J. C. Bach. C minor N. 2, b flat [majo]r N. 3—. There p[ieces]arenotbyhim. . . .” (Von ihnenbekannten Bachs Concerti, sindunsfolgende, alsnicht von demselben, bekannt geworden: 1 Concert D moll N. 1.(4 [M]), ist von Nichelmann. A [du]r N. 1.(3 [M]—[S]),2.(4[M]).F[du]rN. 1 (3 [M]—[S] ab. G [du]r N. 1.6 [M]—[S] [This price

Notes for Chapter 2

125

has been crossed out and replaced by:] 4 [M]—[S] f moll von J. C. Bach. C moll N. 2, b [du]rN. 3—. diese S[tiicke] sind nicht von ihm. . . .) This letter may be found in B Br Fonds Fetis 4779 (II 4133), f. 94r-95r; the quoted section is on f.95r. 55.

Grave also owned a manuscript copy of a Concerto in A Major attributed to “Sig: Jean Chret: Bach” (D-brdB St 487). The names “Jean Chret:” are written in a different hand than the rest of the title page. This concerto numbers among those considered doubtful by H. C. Robbins Landon in his Corrigenda to the second edition of Terry's John Christian Bach, p. liv.

56.

Wilhelmine Szarvady, geb. Clauss, ed.. Concert (F moll) fur Clavier mit obligater Begleitung von zwei Violinen, Viola, und Violoncell, componiert von K. Phil. Em. Bach (Leipzig: Bartholf Senff, n.d.), and Werner Smigelski, ed., Bach, WilhelmFriedemann:Konzertf-mollfiir Cemba¬ lo (Klavier) undStreichorchester (Hamburg: Hans Sikorski, 1959).

57.

Terry, John Christian Bach, liv, 301.

58.

No mention of this concerto is made by Heinrich Peter Schokel in his “Thematischer Katalog der Instrumentalwerke Johann Christian Bachs,” Johann Christian Bach und die Instrumentalmusik seiner Zeit (Wolfenbiittel: Georg Kallmeyer Verlag, 1926), pp. 177-203; nor by Martin Falck, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, rev. ed., ed. Wilibald Gurlitt (Lindau: Kahnt, 1956); nor by Wotquenne. However, Hans Engel confronted the problem squarely and cited style-analytical evi¬ dence for Johann Christian’s authorship in his “Notiz zum Klavierkonzert in f von J. Chr. Bach,” Zeitschrift fur Musikwissenschaft 13 (1930-1931); 154-57. Leon Crickmore argued against C. P. E. Bach’s authorship, also on style-analytiacal grounds, in “C.P.E. Bach’s Harp¬ sichord Concertos,” Music and Letters 39 (1958): 233.

59.

Uldall,p. 83.

60.

Brook, ed., The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue, col. 132.

61.

Uldall, p. 67. This concerto was classified as Wq. n. v. 68 by Kast, p. 90.

62.

I am grateful to Frau Pulz of the Forschungsbibliothek for information concerning the Boyneburg collection.

63.

Herzogliche Bibliothek Gotha: Verzeichnis der Musikalien und der Schriften iiber Musik 1. Aufgestellt in der Zeit von Januar 1937 bis Juli 1938 durch Heinrich Gaensler (in D-ddr GOl). A note on this handwritten catalog gives the date of Gaensler’s death as 27 January 1962 and records that a revision of the catalog was completed on 1 September 1962. The section number in this catalog, when combined with the number next to the individual entry, forms the library sigla of the source.

64.

It is his Op. VII, 2; see Terry, John Christian Bach, p. 293.

65.

Kast, pp. 120-21.

66.

Verzeichniss der von dem verstorbenen Herrn Joh. Christ. Westphal, weil. Organisten an der Hauptkirche St. Nicholai, hinterlassenen Bucher- und Musikaliensammlung, welche am 11. Januar 1830 undfolgendeTage . . . versteigert werden soil. Hamburg, gedruckt in der BorsenHalle bei A. F. M. Kiimpel, p. 45 (copy in D-ddr Bds Ac 1243).

67.

Schulze, ed.. Bach-Dokumente III: 275.

68.

Anhang zum Verzeichniss von Musicalien, welche bey Johann Christoph Westphal & Comp, auf den grosseri Bleichen in Hamburg zu haben sind. Anno 1783, pp. 33 (microfilm copy in D-ddr LEb); see also Schulze, ed., Bach-Dokumente III: 275.

69.

“Wird aus dem ersten Ritomel continuiert”—i.e., the performers are to continue playing from m. 31 to the end of the first tutti in m. 58.

Notes for Chapter 3

126 70.

Kast, p. 94.

71.

Werner Neumann, NBA Kritischer Bericht I: 21 (1959), p. 54.

72.

Ibid., p. 55.

73.

Falck, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, p. 54.

74.

Neumann, NBA Kritischer Bericht I: 21 (1959), p. 56. “. . . hauptsachlich aus dem Heeringschen Nachlass.”

75.

Ibid., p. 57,58.

76.

[Voss], Verzeichnis von den Musicalien. . . , pp. 8-10.

77.

Ibid.

78.

Cudworth, Notes, Ser. 2, 12 (1954-1955): 32, 534.

Chapter 3 1.

For a discussion of immediate versus delayed changes in the cantatas of J. S. Bach see Robert Lewis Marshall, The Compositional Process of J. S. Bach (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 34.

2.

Each bifolio constituted a full sheet of the paper. This paper was not cut in half, but merely folded once, in contrast to the sheets of a slightly larger size encountered in the manuscript sources of other composers, as discussed by Alan Tyson in his “Ground Rules for the Description of Water¬ marks,” at the end of his article “Beethoven’s ‘First’ Leonore Overture,” JAMS 28 (1975): 332-34. Jan LaRue has provided illustrations of the various ways that sheets were gathered together in “Watermarks and Musicology,” Acta Musicologica 33 (1961): 121-22.

3.

List preserved with C. P. E. Bach’s letter to Breitkopf of 28 July 1786 in D-brd DS.

4.

Bitter, II: 296. “Wenn Sie befehlen, so will es Ihnen durch meinen Copisten sauber copiren lassen, es wird die Partitur ohnegefahr 5 Thlr. kosten.

5.

Ibid. “Gleichjetzo verlangt mein Notenschreiber Arbeit. Ich habe ihm einerichtige Copie meiner Passion zum Abschreiben gegeben, weil ich halb und halb einen Abnehmer, ausser Ihnen dafiir habe. Sie sind gar nicht gebunden. ’ ’

6.

D-brd B P 344, at the end of the musical text. “Die Discantstimme hat Herr Michel, Tenorist am Hamburgischen Kirchenchore (Bachs Notist) geschrieben.”

7.

D-brd B P 339, pencilled page 83. “Aria fur H[err] Micheln, nach den Worten: der Kraft Gottes, ohne Hob[oen].”

8.

Georg von Dadelsen, Bemerkungen zur Handschrift Johann Sebastian Bachs, seiner Familie und seines Kreises. In: Tiibinger Bach-Studien, ed. Walter Gerstenberg, Heft 1 (Trossingen: HohnerVerlag, 1957), p. 24.

9.

Walter Blankenburg and Alfred Diirr, NBA Kritischer Bericht II, 6 (1962), p. 188.

10.

Kast, pp. 46, 47, 78, 88, 90, 91, 137.

11.

The following autograph sources of works Bach composed in Hamburg show either no water¬ mark or chain lines alone in the music paper: P 336, P 339, P 340, P 344, P 346, P 349, P 350, P 351.

12.

Kast, pp. X, 139.

Notes for Chapter 3

127

13.

D-brd B St 520.

14.

An304 copied W. 221 (D-brd B P 431) and An305 copied W. 182 (D-brd B St 223, 224, 227, 229, 231; D-ddr Bds St 230); see Kast, pp. 30, 79, 80.

15.

D-brd B P 353, W. 41.

16.

D-brd B St 494.

17.

Georg Schiinemann, Musikerhandschriften von Bach bis Schumann (Berlin, Zurich: Atlantis, 1936), p. 20. A sample of Anna Carolina Philippina’s hand may be seen in the facsimile of this copy of the genealogy edited by Max Schneider, Bach-Urkunden, Veroffentlichungen der Neuen Bachgesellschaft Jg. XVII, Heft 3 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, [1917]).

18.

D-ddr Bds P 1135; Schulze, “Marginalien zu einigen Bach-Dokumenten,” p. 81.

19.

Friedrich Chrysander, ed., “Briefe von Karl Philipp Emanuel Bach und G. M. Telemann,” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, N. F. IV (1869): 187.

20.

Bitter, II: 296. “Ich will Ihnen entweder die Copie geben, oder ein Original, wenn es wieder zu Hause ist, zur Copie leihen.”

21.

Ibid., I: 341. “DiesiebentehierbeygefiigteSonateisteinMscrpt. vonmir, welchesSiemirzum Andenken verwahren konnen, wenn Ihnen beliebt. Sie werden sie kennen, sie steht im musicalischen Vielerley, und folgl. habe ich keine Abschrift davon nothig.”

22.

GbLbmK. 10a. 28.''ErsterTheilmeinerReprisenSonatenmiteinigen Veranderungen.” Philip Barford discusses the variants in this copy in “Some Afterthoughts by C. P. E. Bach,” The Monthly Musical Record 90 (1960): 94—98. An extensive evaluation of the sources of these sona¬ tas is given by Etienne Darbellay in his edition of W. 50: Sechs Sonaten mit veranderten Repris¬ en .. . Wq. 50 (Winterthur/Schweiz: Amadeus Verlag, 1976), which also presents both read¬ ings within the musical text, facilitating comparison.

23.

“In einem Exemplar des lsten Theils der Reprisen-Sonaten sind hin und wieder Varanderungen eigenhandig eingeschrieben.” Another copy with one handwritten alteration is found in the Paris Conservatoire, according to Barford, “Some Afterthoughts,” p. 98.

24.

D-brd B P 355, W. 109 (a manuscript copy with corrections by C. P. E. Bach). “ . . . diese Sonatina hat bios Mme. Zemitz.”

25.

D-brd DS, letter of Johanna Maria Bach to Breitkopf dated “Hamb. d. 4ten Marz 1789.” The Westphal mentioned here was probably the Hamburg music dealer J. C. Westphal. “Es sind . . . verschiedene Sonaten und gl. die ganz unbekannt sind und nicht aus seinen Handen gekommen sind. Theils viele Sonaten, Sinfonien, Trii, und gl. die nur sehr wenige Freunde meinesseel. Mannes von ihm erhalten haben, u. auf daran heilige Versicherung, dass sie aus ihren Handen nicht gekommen sind, von uns desto gewisser verlassen konnen, weil Hr. Westphal sie sonst gewiss in seinem Catalogue haben wiirde. Es versteht sich, dass ich fur ganz unbekannte Sachen mehr Honorarium erwarten kann, als fur die andem. ’ ’

26.

See, for example, the title pages of D-brd B St 510 (W. 30), St524(W.31), St 530 (W. 36), and St 526 (W. 37).

27.

Nachlassverzeichnis, title page; Staats-und Gelehrte Zeitung des Hamburgischen unpartheyischen Correspondenten, Anno 1795, Num. 122 (1 August 1795), as quoted in Schulze, ed,,BachDokumente III: 541.

28.

This letter is published complete by Reinhold Bernhardt, ‘ ‘Aus der Umwelt der Wiener Klassik-

128

Notes for Chapter 3 er, Freiherr Gottfried van Swieten (1734-1803),” Der Bar (1929-1930): 104-5. Der Hauptpunkt ist dieser, dass ich voraus bezahlt werde, denn Bimstiel ist mir durchaus bekannt. Bimstiel had just aroused C. P. E. Bach’s ire by publishing the second part of the chorales without Bach’s assistance, which prompted Bach to publish a notice in the Hamburg Staats-und Gelehrte Zeitung (quoted in Schulze, ed., Bach-Dokumente III: 202).

29.

In D-brd DS.

30.

D-brd DS, letter of 3 December 1773.

31.

D-brd DS, letter of 24 June 1773.

32.

Barry S. Brook, ed., The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue (New York: Dover, 1966), col. 132. Breitkopf quoted incipits for the following concertos: W. 32, W. 8, W. 20, W. 34, W. 29, W. 18, W. 16, W. 19, W. 6, W. 5, and W. 24, as well as an unidentified concerto in F minor.

33.

See pp. 15-17.

34.

Nacherinnung to Parte Ima of 1762; Brook, ed., The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue, cols. 29— 30, xiii.

35.

Willi Kahl, edSelbstbiographien Deutscher Musiker desXVIII. Jahrhunderts (Koln: Staufen, 1948), pp. 59-60,239,242.

36.

Ibid.

37.

Brook, ed., The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue, col. 292. Incipits for the following concertos are quoted: W. 2, W. 10, W. 27, W. 28, W. 26, W. 33, W. 12, W. 17, W. 35, W. 46, and W. 1.

38.

D-brd DS.

39.

Bitter, I: 338.

40.

Verzeichniss der praktischen musikalischen Werke, welche bey Johann Friedrich Hartknoch in Riga urn beygesetzte billige Preise zu haben sind, pp. 22-23 (copy in D-ddr Bds Ab 23/1).

41.

Ibid.

42.

Erste Forsetzung des Verzeichnisses der practischen musicalischen Werke welche bey Johann Friedrich Hartknoch in Riga urn beygesetzte billige Preise zu haben sind, p. 7 (copy in D-ddr Bds Ab 23/1). This first supplement probably dates from around 1782 since that date occurs by two items on p. 11.

43.

Bitter, I: 53-54.

44.

Verzeichniss derer Musicalien, welche in der Niederlage aufden grossen Bleichen bey Johann Christoph Westphal und Comp, in Hamburg in Commission zu haben sind. 1782 . . . Hamburg. Gedruckt bey Joh. Philipp Christian Reuss, pp. 189-90 (copy in D-ddr Bds Ab 1412). A collec¬ tion of Westphal’s catalogs from 1770 to 1796 is available on microfilm in the Bach-Archiv, Leipzig.

45.

‘‘1 Concerto per l’Organo, dur;” “ 1 doppelt Clav. Cone, a 8. 2 Cembal [!], 2 Viol. 2 Cors. Alt & Bass, F dur. No. 4.”

46.

Verzeichniss der von dem verstorbenen Herrn Joh. Christ. Westphal. weil. Organisten an der Hauptkirche St. Nicholai, hinterlassenen Bucher- und Musikaliensammlung, welche am 11. Januar 1830 und folgende Tage . . . durch den Auctionarius J. J. Berndes . . . versteigert werden soil. (Hamburg, gedruckt in der Borsen-Halle bei A. F. M. Kiimpel), p. 45. A copy of this catalog is in D-ddr Bds, Ac 1243.

Notes for Chapter 3 47.

129

Ibid. On the page after the title page these names are printed under the heading “The following gentlemen are willing to accept commissions” (Folgende Herren sind erbotig, Commissionen anzunehmen).

48.

Seep. 20.

49.

Adolf Layer, “Katalogdes Augsburger Verlegers Lotter von 1753,” Catalogus Musicus, ed. H. Heckmann and H. Heussner (Kassel: Internationale Vereinigung der Musikbibliotheken, 1964) II: 17.

50.

C. P. E. Bach, Versuch, ErsterTheil, pp. 44-45; Mitchell, p. 86.

51.

Oskar Guttmann, Johann Karl Friedrich Rellstab, Diss. Leipzig 1910 (Berlin: Ebering, 1910), pp. 20-21.

52.

Ibid.

53.

The opus numbers in Rellstab's publications are not those of the composer, but of Rellstab’s publishing house, according to Carl Friedrich Ledebur, Tonkiinstler-Lexicon Berlin’s von den altesten Zeiten bis aufdie Gegenwart (Berlin: Ludwig Rauh, 1861), p. 451. Thus Rellstab’s opus numbers are similar in practice to other publishers’s plate numbers.

54.

D-brd DS. “Genug, ich verliere nun kein Wort mehr wegen des schlechten Menschen. Ich bin zu stolz, mich im geringsten weitermit ihm abzugeben. Indessen muss ernight ingestraft bleiben.’’

55.

Rellstab made these remarks in the foreword to his Op. 125, an edition of sonatas by C. P. E. Bach titled Trois Sonatespour le Clav. ou P.-F. Oeuvresposthumes (listed as W. 266); the fore¬ word is quoted by Guttmann, p. 161. “Es ist wohl eigentlich nicht die Periode, worin ein Musikhandler Werke aus der unnachahmlichen Feder des grossen C. P. E. Bach an das musikalische Publikum spedieren sollte, und besonders, wenn ihn betrachtlicher Verlust bei der Herausgabe der Sonaten mit veranderten Reprisen und der Orgelsonaten sollten vorsichtiger gemacht haben; aber man verzeihe dem Herausgeber die Schwacheit, wenn er sich ein Verdienst daraus macht, C.P.E. Bachs Werke verstehen und schatzen zu konnen, wie sie es verdienen, and dass er manchen wiinscht, auf seine Bahn zu bringen. . . . Der Herausgeber besitzt fast alle noch ungedruckten Sachen aus dem Nachlass des grossen Mannes und verspricht, wenn er nur einigermassen zu seinen Auslagen kommt, den Verehem Bachs, wenigstens die Claviersonaten mit der Zeit zu liefem. J.S. Bachs Werke hat er aufgeben miissen, da sich nur 20 Interessenten dazu gemeldet.” Rellstab’s Op. 125 probably dates from 1792 or 1793; see R. Elvers, “Datierte Verlagsnummem Berliner Musikverleger,” Festschrift Otto Erich Deutsch zum 80. Geburtstag (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1963), p. 293.

56.

Vollstandiges Verzeichniss alter gedruckten, gestochenen u. geschriebenen Musikalien . . . welche zu Berlin beym Musik- und Instrumentenhandler J. C. F. Rellstab . . . zu haben sind (copy in D-ddr Bds Mus. Ab. 1044). This undated catalog stems from September 1790, accord¬ ing to Rudolf Elvers, “Die bei J. F. K. Rellstab in Berlin bis 1800 erschienenen MozartDrucke,” Mozart-Jahrbuch 1957 (Salzburg, 1958): 156.

57.

B Be Litt. 12.217.

58.

Ibid. ‘‘Se trouve en Manuscript, dans Ie Magazin de Musique de Rellstab in Berlin, rue de Gamison.”

59.

Also listed as W. 259.

60.

C. P. E. Bach’s Anfangstiicke mit einer Anleitung den Gebrauch dieser Stiicke, die Bachsche Fingersetzung, die Manieren und den Vortrag betreffend, von Johann Carl Friedrich Rellstab. Dritte Auflage . . . Op. LXI . . . (Berlin: Relstab, [n. d.]), p. I.

130

Notes for Chapter 3

61.

Ibid., pp. Ill—IV.

62.

D-brdB St 516, title page.

63.

Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 26.

64.

The source in question had the sigla St 495; see Kast, p. 89.

65.

D-brd B P 239. “ZumTheil von Kimberger’s Hand.” In listing the contents of this volume con¬ taining W. 1, which included three works of J. S. Bach as well, Pdlchau originally put the A minor concerto down as the last item in the group; he marked its subsequent shift to the second position by two matching signs (#) in the left margin.

66.

Georg von Dadelsen, “Kimberger,” MGG 7 (1958), cols. 950-51.

67.

Iam grateful to P. Krause, Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter of the Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leip¬ zig, for this information (letter of 24 July 1974).

68.

C. F[erdinand] P[ohl], “Gerber,” A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A.D. 1450-1889), ed. Sir George Grove (London: Macmillan and Co., 1890), I: 589.

69.

I thank Dr. Hedwig Mitringer of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde for this information (letter of 27 May 1975).

70.

Richard Schaal, Quellen und Forschungen zur Wiener Musiksammlung von Aloys Fuchs (Vien¬ na: Bohlau, 1966), p. 36.

71.

D-brd B P 438. “1st von Emanuel B. anno 1733 in Leipzig componiert, anno 1744 in Berlin emeuert. Siehe Eman. Bach’s Nachlass pag. 26 Nro. 1. Hochst wahrscheinlich ist das erste Stuck von Sebastian. Auch in Hartels [x/'c] Catalog als Seb. angefuhrt.

72.

See, for example, Breitkopf s Supplement II of 1767 to his thematic catalog, in facsimile in Brook, ed., The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue, col. 292.

73.

Ibid., xiv-xv.

74.

“Aus der Musikhandlung von Breitkopf Hartel abschriftlich erhalten 1829.”

75.

B Be 5887 and D-brd B P 239.

76.

To this was added above in brown ink the initials “J. S.,” and below, someone else inserted ‘ ‘Carl Philipp Emanuel. ’ ’

77.

Wolfgang Schmieder, ed., Thematisch-Systematisches Verzeichnis der musikalischen Werke von Johann Sebastian Bach, 5th ed., 1950. (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1973), pp. 635, 648.

78.

For general information on the history, contents, and finding tools for the rich holdings now in East and West Berlin see Karl-Heinz Kohler, “Die Musikabteilung,” Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, 1661-1961 (Leipzig: Verlag fur Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, 1961). I: 241-74; Willi Unger, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek Berlin: Benutzungsfiihrer, 4th ed. (Berlin: [n. p.], 1959); P. Gehring and W. Gebhardt, “Signaturen-verzeichnis abendliindischer und Musikhandschriftenderehem. Preuss. Staatsbibliothek,” Scriptorium 13 (1959): 127-30; R. Elvers, “Neuerwerbungen fur die Musikabteilung der Staatsbibliothek,” Jahrbuch der Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (1966): 240-46; (1968): 223-25.

79.

Kast, pp. 24—25.

80.

Alfred Durr, NBA Kritischer Bericht II, 3 (1955), p. 9.

81.

Ibid., p. 25; Bernhardt, p. 163.

Notes for Chapter 3 82.

131

Erwin Kemmler, Johann Gottfried Miithel (1728-1788) und das Norddeutsche Musiklehen seiner Zeit, Diss. Marburg (Lahn) 1970 (Wissenschaftliche Beitrage zur Geschichte und Land-

eskunde Ost-Mitteleuropas, ed. Ernst Bahr. Nr. 88, [1970]), p. 286. 83.

Georg Schunemann, Die Singakademie zu Berlin 1791-1941 (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse 1941), p. 70.

84.

Telemann's side of the correspondence is quoted by Chrysander, pp. 177-81, 185-87.

85.

Ibid., p. 186.

86.

Schunemann, Die Singakademie, p. 69.

87.

Ibid.

88.

Ibid., pp. 69-70. This letter did not contain the name of the recipient. Schunemann believed it to be addressed to Mendelssohn.

89.

D-ddr Bds Db 312. According to Schunemann, p. 70, this was the copy of the catalog that had belonged to Zelter.

90.

Verzeichniss von auserlesenen, gut conditionirten, zum Theil sauber gebundenen, meistens Neuen Biichern und Kostbaren Werken aus alien Theilen der Kiinste und Wissenschaften und in mehreren Sprachen welche nebst den Musikalien aus dem Nachlass des seel. Kapellmeisters C. P. E. Bach wie auch einer Sammlung von Kupferstichen Montags, den 4ten Marz 1805 in Hamburg im Eimbeckischen House offentlich verkauft werden sollen (Hamburg, gedruckt in der

Borsen-Halle von Conrad Muller, [1805]). A copy is available in D-ddr Bds Db 313. 91.

Ibid., pp. 31-32, in the section beginning on p. 27, “Drifter Anhang. Verzeichniss von Musikalien aus dem Nachlass des seel. Hm. Kapellmeisters C. P. E. Bach, grossentheils ungedruckte Manuscripte von C. P. Emanuel Bach und J. Sebastian Bach.” “88.Ein starker Stoss mit Simphonien, Sonaten, Trios, Arien etc. 89. -mit 20 Concerten. 90. -mit 10 Concerten. 105.

Ein starker Stoss mit 16 Concerten.

106.

Ein Stoss mit vielen kleinen Handstiicken, Sonatinen, Concerten, Motetten Etc.”

92.

Ibid., p. 28.

93.

D-ddr Bds P 352.

94.

D-ddr Bds. Mus. ms. theor. K. 41, Katalog der Sammlung Polehau, Bd. IV: Handschriften (praktische Musik), p. 28. Items 4—7 list what is now P 352, P 353, P 354, and P 356, respectively. Item 8 is probably P 356, judging from Polchau’s notation that it comprised 32 Bo gen, although the works are referred to as sonatas (“8. Vier noch ungedruckte Clavier u.

Violoncell-Sonate in zum theil. eigenhand. Partitur32 Bfogen].”) 95.

Ibid. ‘‘Ein Convolut von 17 Clavierconzerten, zum theil von der Hand des Komponisten, sowie von der Buckeburgischen Bachs und Miithels Hand. No. 2. 5. 6. 7. 9. 13. 15. 19. 20. 21.25. 29. 33. 35. 36. 38. 43. 226 Bg. In Stimmen.” The seventeen concertos listed in Polchau’s last entry by theirNachlassverzeichnis numbers ate: W. 2, W. 5, W. 6, W. 8, W. 12, W. 14, W. 18, W. 19, W. 20, W. 24, W. 28, W. 32, W. 34, W. 35, W. 37, W. 42, W. 46.

96.

Alfred Durr and Werner Neumann, ABA Kritischer Bericht I, 1 (1955), p. 7.

97.

D-brd B St 493.

132

Notes for Chapter 3

98.

See notes 94 and 95 above.

99.

D-ddrBds Kat. mus. ms. 317 (B 3), Namensverzeichniss jener Tonsetzer . . . MSofA.Fuchs, 1853, as cited by R. Schaal, “Die Autographen der Wiener Musiksammlung von Aloys Fuchs,” The Haydn Yearbook 6 (1969): 25.

100.

As quoted in Angelini-Rossi, Katalog der bedeutenden und werthvollen Autographen, 2ter Theil: . . Collection Aloys Fuchs: Musik-Manuscripte und Briefe von Musikern, Versteigerung zu Wien: Mdrz 11-16. 1901 (Vienna: Gilhofer & Rauschburg, 1901), “Bach, J. S.”

“Diese kostbare Autograph stammt aus der beriihmten Sammlung meines in J. 1836 verstorbenen Freundes Georg Polchau in Berlin, welcher einen grossen Theil des musikal. Nachlasses von C.Ph. Emanuel Bach in Hamburg an sichbrachte . . . welche musikal. Sammlung gegenwartig eine der grossten Zierden der k. Hofbibliothek in Berlin bildet. Wien, im November 1846.” 101.

Schaal, Quellen und Forschungen zur Wiener Musiksammlung von Aloys Fuchs, pp. 79-80.

102.

Ibid.

103.

Miesner, Philipp Emanuel Bach in Hamburg, p. 7. The documents concerning the matter are printed in Miesner, pp. 117-18.

104.

Carl Philip [!] Emanuel Bach. ed.,Musikalisches Vielerley (Hamburg: Michael Christian Bock, 1770).

105.

Bitter, II: 116-17.

106.

[F. W. Marpurg], Legende einiger Musikheiligen von Simeon Metaphrastes demjungern (Colin am Rhein: Hammer, 1786), pp. 184-86.

107.

Bitter, II: 323.

. . sein Herr Bruder in Hamburg will auch von ihm nichts wissen . . .'

108.

Schneider, ed., Bach-Urkunden, fol. 8v. “War Music Director u. Organist in Halle; legte sein Amt nieder, u. lebt ohne engagement.”

109.

D-brd B St 534, cembalo part.

110.

Eva Renate Blechschmidt, Die Amalien-Bibliothek, Berliner Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, Bd. 8 (Berlin: Merseburger, 1965), p. 14.

111.

Siefried Borris Zuckermann [also known as Siegfried Borris], Kirnbergers Leben und Werk, Diss. Friedrich Wilhelms Universitat zu Berlin 1933 (Ohlau in Schliesien: H. Eschenhagen. 1933), p. 23.

112.

As quoted by Blechschmidt, pp. 323-25.

113.

D-ddr Bds Am. Bib. 485. keyboard part, f. Iv, as quoted by Blechschmidt. p. 280. “Ce livre apartient a Anna Amelie. le 3. de Juilliet Berlin 1737— .

114.

Blechschmidt, pp. 24—32.

115.

Dadelsen, Bemerkungen zur Handschrifl Johann Sebastian Bachs, seiner Familie und seines Kreises, p. 22.

116.

Letter to Breitkopf of 7 April 1774 in D-brd DS.

117.

D-brd B St 213 (W. 34) and D-brd B St 581 (W. 35), title pages.

118.

Letter ofC. P. E. Bach to Breitkopf dated 4 October 1773 in D-brd DS.

Notes for Chapter 3

133

119.

Johann Nicholaus Forkel, Musikalisch-kritische Bibliothek (Gotha: Carl Wilhelm Ettinger, 1778 [Vols. I and II], 1779 [Vol. Ill],

120.

Ibid., II: 275-300. The first editions of these sonatas had just been published in 1776 and 1777.

121.

Letter of C. P. E. Bach to Forkel dated “Hamburg, d. 25 Jul 78” now in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.

122.

Ibid.

123.

Verzeiehniss der von dem verstorbenen Doctor und Musikdirector Forkel in Gottingen nachgelassenen Bucher und Musikalien welche den lOten May 1819 . . . in Gottingen meistbietend verkauft werden (Gottingen: F. E. Huth, 1819), pp. 140-42. A copy is available in D-ddr Bds

Mus. Df 132/1. 124.

Ibid., p. 141.

125.

Ibid.

126.

Ibid.

127.

A facsimile and transcription of this letter, which begins ‘ ‘ Ein klein Flusssieber, ’ ’ may be found in Schneider, ed., Bach Urkunden (unpaginated); it is also quoted by Ernst Biichen, Musikerbriefe (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1940), p. 12.

128.

Ibid. “Ausser dem beikommenden Konzerte aus dem f habe ich noch zwei Sonatinen fur zwei Fliigel gemacht.”

129.

H. Bellermann, “Briefe von Kimberger an Forkel,” Allgemeine Musik-Zeitung 6 (1871); col. 645, letter of 15 January 1780.

130.

Johann-Wolfgang Schottlander, “Carl Friedrich Zelters Beziehungen zu Breitkopf & Hartel,” Zeitschriftfur Musikwissenschaft 15 (1932-1933): 105.

131.

Percy A. Scholes, ed.. Dr. Burney's Musical Tours in Europe, II: An Eighteenth-Century Musical Tour in Central Europe and the Netherlands (London: Oxford University Press, 1959),

p. 212. 132.

Ibid., p. 153.

133.

Ibid., p. 214.

134.

D-brd B St 365, title page.

135.

Schmid, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik, p. 65.

136.

Bitter, II: 303-4.

137.

Ibid.

138.

D-brd B St 498 (W. 4) and D-brd B St 541 (W. 12).

139.

Carl Burney’s . . . Tagebuch seiner musikalischen Reisen, Bd. Ill: Durch Bohmen, Sachsen, Brandenburg, Hamburg, und Holland (Hamburg, 1773; rpt. Documenta Musicologica, Erste

Reihe, XIX, ed. Richard Schaal, Kassel: Barenreiter, 1959), pp. 268-73. 140.

Ibid., Ill: 271.

141.

This document is quoted by Kemmler, p. 20.

142.

Carl Burney’s . . . Tagebuch III: 271. Robert Gordon Campbell has suggested that the letter by

134

Notes for Chapter 3 Miithel which Bode printed (p. 273) had been addressed to C. P. E. Bach; see Campbell, “Johann-Gottfried Miithel, 1728-1788,” Diss. Indiana University 1966,1: 27.

143.

D-brd B St 218 (W. 8), St 210 (W. 12), St 514 (W. 19) and St 216 (W. 32).

144.

Miithel’s entire will is quoted by Campbell, Appendix C, 1: 242-48.

145.

Ibid., I: 68-69.

146.

D-brd B St 514. “Von J. G. Muthel’s Hand/Schuler von J. Seb. Bach, t in Riga 1788.”

147.

As reported by Matthias Claudius in a letter to Heinrich Wilhelm von,Gerstenberg of 4 Novem¬ ber 1768, quoted in Schulze, edBach-Dokumente III; 200-201.

148.

For a discussion of the Voss family collection, see pp. 19-21 and Facsimile 1, which shows the

characteristic features of title pages in the Voss collection. 149.

For an extensive analysis and catalog of this collection, see Joachim Jaenecke, Die Musikbibliothek des Ludwig Freiherrn von Pretlack (1716-1781), Neue Musikgeschichtliche Forschungen, Bd. 8, ed. Lothar Hoffmann-Erbrecht (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1973).

150.

Ibid., p. 20.

151.

Ibid , pp. 13,28,30.

152.

Ibid , pp. 32, 125, 126. Jaenecke named this copyist “Kopist 1.”

153.

Ibid., pp. 6,23-24.

154.

Concerning Thulemeier, see R. Jacobs, Thematischer Katalog der von Thulemeir schen Musikalien-Sammlung in der Bibliothek des Joachimsthal'schen Gymnasiums, ed. R. Eitner, Monatshefte fiir Musikgeschichte, Beilage, XXX-XXXI (Leipzig; Breitkopf & Hartel, 1899),

pp. 6-9. 155.

Ibid., remarks by R. Eitner on the reverse of the title page.

156.

Blechschmidt, pp. 33-34.

157.

D-brd B St 496 (W. 3), St 532 (W. 6), St 533 (W. 6), St 515 (W. 7), St 544 (W. 17). St 520 (W. 35).

158.

Ludwig Erk, ed. Johann Sebastian Bach’s mehrstimmige Choral-gesange und geistliche Arien (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, [1850], [1865]).

159.

Friedrich Welter, “Die Musikbibliothek der Sing-Adademie zu Berlin,” Sing-Akademie zu Berlin, Festschrift zum 175 jahrigen Bestehen, ed. Werner Bollert (Berlin: Rembrandt, 1966),

pp. 37-38. 160.

Ibid., p. 38.

161.

Uldall, p. 25. In the Singakademie Uldall was able to see scores, autographs, and parts for thir¬ ty-seven concertos.

162.

Sing-Akademie zu Berlin, ed. Werner Bollert (Berlin: Rembrandt, 1966), p. 134.

163.

Ibid., p. 20. r x Werner Neumann, “Welche Handschriften J. S. Bachscher Werke besass die Berliner Sing¬ akademie?” Hans Albrecht in Memoriam, ed. Wilfried Brennecke and Hans Haase (Kassel:

164.

Barenreiter, 1962), 136-42. 165.

Letter of Joachim Jaenecke of 13 October 1976.

Notes for Chapter 3 166.

135

Miesner, Philipp Emanuel Bach in Hamburg, pp. 61-62. “Die Ritomelle seiner Berliner und Potsdamer Concerte sind und bleiben das Erhabenste was jemals in der Art geschrieben worden welche jedoch kaum zu erkennen sind, da sie einen Vortrag erfordem der ganz eigen ist und ein Orchester erfordert dass ganz in seinen Genius eingeweiht seyn muss.’’

167.

Schiinemann, Die Singakademie, p. 68.

168.

Ibid., p. 71.

169.

Ibid., p. 28.

170.

Ibid.

171.

See pp. 9-12.

172.

Eitner. Quellen-Lexikon I: 16; Miesner, Bach-Jahrbuch 1938, p. 103.

173.

See Terry, p. 114—15. There is no direct evidence that the concerto manuscripts ever belonged to Fetis, although certain other things in Westphal’s collection, notably the catalogs of C. P. E. Bach’s works he prepared, were part of Fetis’s collection, which is now in the Bibliotheque Royale Albert Icr, Brussels.

174.

Albert Vander Linden, “Wotquenne,” MGG 14(1968),col. 877. The auction of 1913 was held by C. G. Boemer of Leipzig, according to Vander Linden; see Katalog einer wertvollen Bibliothek von Musikbuchern des XV. bis XVIII. Jahrhunderts, Versteigerung . . . den 3 April 1913 . . . durch C. G. Boerner Leipzig, pp. 8-10.

175.

The C. P. E. Bach manuscripts, as well as the other most precious holdings of the Conserva¬ toire, were transferred to the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris in 1964; see Francois Lesure, “Les Bibliotheques des Conservatoires en France,” Ponies artis musicae 22 (1975); 119.

176.

See US Wc W. 32 and W. 35, and F Pc W. 14.

177.

Rudolf Czach, ed., Friedrich Wilhelm Rust (1739—1796), Werke fur Klavier und Streichinstrumente. Das Erbe deutscher Musik. Zweite Reihe, Bd. 1 (Wolfenbuttel, Berlin; Georg Kall-

meyer, 1939), p. VI. 178.

Ibid., p. VIII. Bach’s Lied An den Schlaf, 202H, was published in this collection.

179.

Rudolf Czach, Friedrich Wilhelm Rust, Diss. Berlin 1927 (Essen: Kauermann, 1927), p. 47.

180.

Concerning the controversy see Ernst Neufeldt, “Der Fall Rust,” DieMusik 12, 1 (1912-1913): 339-44; and various articles and letters by Neufeldt and Vincent d’lndy in Revue de la Societe internationale de Musique [SIM], 9 Nr. 4 (15 April 1913): 47-50; 9 Nr. 5 (15 May 1913): 65; 9 Nr. 11(1 Nov. 1913): 8-26; 9 Nr. 12(lDec. 1913): 14-21,21-24; 10 Nr. 1 (1 Jan. 1914): 70; 10 Nr. 2 (15 Ian. 1914): 45.

181.

Czach, p. 10.

182.

Erich Prieger, “Rustiana,” Die Musik 12 (1912/1913), Heft 11, p. 269.

183.

The only exception to this occurs with the sources of W. 34 and W. 35. W. 35 has no title page or cover, while W. 34 has both a blue cover with Rust’s name written on it, as well as a general title page on the cover of the cembalo part. It seems likely that the blue cover of Rust really belongs with W. 35, for its title mentions a concerto in E-flat major (“Concerto Es t) /per il/Cembalo Concert:/a 2 Violini/Viola/e/Basso”), but W. 34 is in G major. In line with the other Rust sources, the blue cover contains the date Aug. 26 1906 on the back, while the cembalo part of W. 34 is stamped “JUN 26 1907” on the back.

136 184.

Notes for Chapter 3 I am grateful to Albi Rosenthal, London, successor to the firm of Liepmannssohn, for informa¬ tion on the firm's practices and the dates of the relevant catalogs.

185.

Albi Rosenthal possesses a copy of this catalog; on p. 3 is the reference to "zeitgenoss., sorgfalt. Kopien.”

186.

“N.B. il est parfois difficile de discemeravec exactitude ce qui appartient a l’un ou 1 autre des fils de J ,-S., chacun des freres ayant parfois copie ou adapte des oeuvres de ses freres ou de leurs peres. Plusieurs des autographs douteux ou des copies contemporains peuvent etre de la main d’un des freres de 1’auteur.” s

187.

\

Harald Kummerling, Franz Commers Abschriften dlterer Musikwerke, Beitrage zur Rheinischen Musikgeschichte, Heft 100 (Cologne: Amo Volk-Verlag, 1973), pp. 7-8.

188.

Yoshieke Kobayashi, Franz Hauser undseine Bach-Handschriftensammlung (Diss. Gottingen 1973).

189.

AuktionLXXX. SammlungHauser-Karlsruhe. I. Musik . . . VersteigerungzuLeipzigbeiC.G. Boernervom 1. bis3. Mai 1905, item 8. The Darmstadt copy ofW. 32 lacks the first violin part.

It was missing when this catalog was compiled as well, according to the catalog description ot item 8 (“Violine I fehlf’). 190.

Fritz Kaiser, “Zur Geschichte der Darmstadter Musiksammlung,” Durch der Jahrhunderte Strom. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1967), p. 132; Oswald Bill, Unbekannte MendelssohnHandschriften in der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt,” Die Musikforschung 26 (1973): 345.

191.

D-brdDS Mus. ms. 970. W. 5, title page. “Von der Hand des BuckeburgerBach/bestatigtv. d. Musikabteilungd. Berliner Staatsbibliothek/Brief v. Prof. Altmann v. 11 Juni 1924/DU.”

192.

Kaiser, p. 131.

193.

Liselotte Willi, “Die Musikabteilung,” Sachsische Landesbibliothek Dresden 1556-1956, ed. Karl Assman et al. (Leipzig: VEB Otto Harrassowitz, 1956), p. 156.

194.

Ludwig Schmidt, Katalog der Handschriften der Konigl. Offentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden, Bd. 3 (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1906), p. V.

195.

Robert Eitner and Otto Kade, Katalog der Musik-Sammlung der Kgl. offentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden. Monatshefte fiir Musikgeschichte Beilage XXI-XXII (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel,

1890). 196.

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/4 (W. 2), Mus 3029/0/5 (W. 4), outer covers.

197.

Richard Miinnich, “Aus der Musikaliensammlung der Weimarer Landesbibliothek, besonders dem Nachlass der Anna Amalia,” Aus der Geschichte der Landesbibliothek zu Weimar, ed. Hermann Blumenthal (Jena: Fischer, 1941), p. 169.

198.

Ibid., pp. 171, 178. The handwritten catalog of Anna Amalia’s collection mentioned by Miinnich as the “brown catalog” (Musikalien-Sammlung Ihro der frau Herzogin ANNA AMALIA Durchlaucht, Signatur A 19) probably would have clarified the provenance of these sources, but

it was not available when I requested it in the Weimar Zentralbibliothek on 16 September 1974.1 am grateful to Frau Kratzsche there for attempting to find it. 199.

Wilhelm Bode, Amalie. Herzogin von Weimar II: Der Musenhof der Herzogin Amalie, 2nd ed. (Berlin: E. S. Mittler& Sohn, 1909), pp. 161-69.

Notes for Chapter 3

137

200.

Otto Heuschele, Herzogin Anna Amalia, 2nd ed. (Munich: BisherF. Bkanl9 lp. 75.

201.

Otto Kade, Die Musikalien-Sammlung des Grossherzoglichen Mecklenburg-Schweriner Fiirstenhauses aus den letzten zwei Jahrhunderten (Schwerin, 1893; rpt. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1974), Bd. 1. p. 126.

202.

For this information I am grateful to Dr. Dempe of the Wissenschaftliche Allgemeinbibliothek (letter of 28 August 1974).

203.

See chapter 2.

204.

Concerning Brahm's library, now in the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, see Kurt Hofmann, Die Bibliothek von Johannes Brahms: Bucher und Musikalienverzeichnis (Hamburg: Verlag der

Musikhandlung Karl Dieter Wagner, 1974). 205.

Alfred Orel, “Johannes Brahms’ Musikbibliothek” (originally published in Simrock Jahrbuch III; reprinted by Hofmann in Die Bibliothek von Johannes Brahms), p. 146. Even more works of C. P. E. Bach were found in Brahms’s collection after he died, according to Orel, p. 166.

206.

Kurt Hofmann, Die Erstdrucke der Werke von Johannes Brahms. Musikbibliographische Arbeiten, ed. Rudolf Elvers, Bd. 2 (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1975), pp. 314-16. Copies of the first two concertos of the set (W. 43/4 and W. 43/5) are available in the University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville, Virginia, in Cranz’s edition.

207.

Ibid.

208.

Ibid.

209.

I thank Dr. Hedwig Mitringer of the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde for this information (letter of 27 May 1975). This copy of W. 19 was unfortunately not available to be seen then. For further details concerning Fanny Amstein, see the Jahrbuch derTonkunst von Wien undPrag (Vienna, 1796; facs. ed., ed. Otto Biba, Munich: Musikverlag E. Katzbichler, 1976), p. 5.

210.

C. F[erdinand] P[ohl], “Gerber,” A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A. D. 14501889) . . . (London: Macmillan and Co., 1890), I. 589.

211.

Dr. Hedwig Mitringer (letter of 27 May 1975).

212.

GBLbm MS Add. 31 679.

213.

A. Hyatt King, Some British Collectors of Music, c. 1600-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni¬ versity Press, 1963), p. 65.

214.

C[harles] W[elch], “Marshall, Julian,” The Dictionary ofNational Biography, Second Supple¬ ment, 1901-1911, ed. Sir Sidney Lee (London: Oxford University Press, 1912), p. 574.

215.

GB Lbm MS Add. 29 907, inside cover.

216.

Versteigerungs-Katalog der von dem verstorbenen Herrn J. G. Schicht, Cantor an der Thomasschule zu Leipzig hinterlassenen Musikaliensammlung, welche als Anhang der Biicherauction vom 19ten November zu Leipzig den Meistbietenden gegen baare Zahlung iiberlassen werdensoll (Leipzig: [n. p.] [1832]), p. 29. A copy of this catalog is available in D-ddr Bds Ac 931.

217.

J. G. Schicht, Grundregeln der Harmonie nach dem Verwechslungs-System entworfen und mit Beispielen erlautert (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel [1812]).

218.

Hermann Killer, “Zur Musik des deutschen Ostens im 18. Jahrhundert (Aus der Sammlung Gotthold . . . ),” Konigsberger Beitrage. Festgabe zur400jahrigenJubelfeier der Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek zu Konigsberg in Prussia (Konigsberg: Grafe und Unzer, 1929), p. 229;

138

Notes for Chapter 3 Musiksammlung aus dem Nachtasse Dr. Erich Prieger . . . Beschreibendes Verzeichnis von Georg Kinsky . . . Versteigerung . . . den 15 Juli 1924 . . . durchM. Lempertz Buchhandlung und Antiquariat, item 195; Schulze, Bach-Dokumente III: 169; Kast, p. 147.

219.

Scholes, Dr. Burney’s Musical Tours . . . 11:220.

220.

Catalogue of the Music Library of Charles Burney, sold in London. 8 August 1814 ([London,

1814]; rpt. in Auction Catalogs of Music, Vol. 2, intro, by A. Hyatt King; Amsterdam, Fritz Knuf, 1973), lots 630, 681,682, 690. 221.

Iam grateful to Dr. Vincent Duckies, Head of the Music Library at Berkeley, for this informa¬ tion (letter of 25 April 1975).

222.

Charles H. Buck, “Revisions in Early Clavier Concertos of C. P. E. Bach: Revelations from a New Source,” JAMS 29 (1976): 127-32.

223.

Rachel W. Wade, Communication in JAMS 30 (1977): 162-64.

224.

For further details concerning the various versions available for Bach's concertos, see chapter 5.

225.

See Brook, cols. 132, 292.

226.

USWc M 1010. A2B13 L.C. 1 and L.C. 2.

227.

I am grateful to Dr. Tyson for providing information concerning this source. On Dr. Tyson s copy the name of the owner before Uarell was followed by the date 1781, but this owner s name was obliterated by that of Uarell.

228.

CS Pnm XVII F20 (W. 43/1); MEIr B1 14 (W. 4); US NYp *MW (W. 43/4).

229.

Alfred Durr and Leo Treitler, NBA Kritischer Bericht I, 18 (1967),p. 12.

230.

Ibid.

231.

These sources were not available for me to examine when I visited the Bach-Archiv in Septem¬ ber, 1974.1 am grateful to the staff of the Bach-Archiv for providing some information about the makeup and watermarks of the manuscripts.

232.

Ibid.

233.

Hans Klotz, NBA Kritischer Bericht IV, 2 (1957), pp. 43, 109.

234.

Verzeichniss der von dem verstorbenen Doctor und Musikdirector Lorkel in Gottingen nachgelassenen Bucher undMusikalien, p. 141.

235.

I am indebted to Nancy Reich for pointing out the significance of the ownership stamp. See also her article “The Rudorff Collection," Notes 31 (1974): 247-61.

236.

I am grateful to Dr. Gertraut Haberkamp of the R1SM office in Munich for supplying this in¬ formation (July, 1974). I was not able to travel to Langenburg to see this source.

237.

Karl Fischer, “Das Freundschaftsbuch des Apothekers Friedrich Thomas Bach. Eine Quelle zur Geschichte der Musikerfamilie Bach,” Bach-Jahrbuch (1938), 95-96.

238.

Rita Benton, ed., Directory of Music Research Libraries II (Iowa City: The University of Iowa, 1970), p. 93.

239.

I thank Cari Johansson of the RISM committee in Sweden for this information (letter of 10 Janu¬ ary 1975).

240. Ibid. I have not seen this source in Lund.

Notes for Chapter 3

139

241.

Bathia Churgin, The Symphonies ofG.B. Sammartini, Vol. I, Harvard Publications in Music 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968): 29.

242.

I am indebted to Nanna Schi0dt of the RISM center in Denmark for this information (letter of 2 January 1975). See also her article “Checklist for Cataloguing Music Manuscripts and Prints,” Fontes artis musicae 19(1972): 172, for more details on the Copenhagen source of W. 25.

243. 244.

Brook, col. 132, 292. GB Lbm MS Add. 32 070, J. Haydn s/Verzeichniss musikalischer Werke/theils eigner, theils fremderIComposition, f. 29r. The item is listed as “Concerto furs Pianoforte in der Partitur” and W. 47 is one of the double concertos; probably this was merely an oversight, since the source lacks a title page.

245.

Ibid., f. 13v, 14r, 16r, 17r, 29r, 29v, 35r.

246.

See E. F. Schmid, “Joseph Haydn und Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.” ZeitschriftfiirMusikwissenschaft 14(1932): 299-312.

247.

Wotquenne listed W. 93 and W. 94 as trios, but all three are called quartets in the Nachlassverzeichnis, pp. 51-52.

248.

J. Haydn’s/Verzeichniss . . . , f. 29v.

249.

Schmid, “Joseph Haydn und Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach,” pp. 309-10.

250.

D-brd DS, Bach’s list of his representatives with his letter of 28 July 1779; Reinhold Bernhardt, “Aus der Umwelt der Wiener Klassiker Freiherr Gottfried van Swieten,” p. 105.

251.

See Henry Cutler Fall, “A Critical-Bibliographical Study of the Rinck Collection,” M. A. Thesis Yale University, 1958, pp. 1-2.

252.

Ibid., p. 18.

253.

Verzeichniss derjenigen Musikalien und musikalischen Schriften aus dem Nachlasse des verstorbenen Hrn. Organist Kittle in Erfurt welche Dienstags den 24ten October ... an die Meistbietenden . . . versteigert werdensollen (Erfurt, 1809), p. 14. A copy of this catalog may be seen on microfilm in the Yale University Music Library.

254.

I thank S. V. Zhitomirskaia, Head of the Manuscript Department, Gosudarstvennaja biblioteka SSR im V. I. Lenina, Moscow, for this information (letter of 10 January 1975).

255.

J. Miiller-Blattau, “Die musikalischen Schatze der Staats— und Universitatsbibliothek zu Konigsberg i. Pr,,”[Anhang in the 1924 Leipzig edition of:] Jos. Mueller, Die Musikalischen Schatze der Koniglicheng- und Universitatsbibliothek zu Konigsberg in Preussen (Bonn, 1870; rpt. of the 1924 edition of Georg Olms, Hildesheim, New York, 1971), p. 215.

256.

Ibid., p. 98; Hermann Killer, “Zur Musik des deutschen Ostens im 18. Jahrhundert,” Konigsberger Beitrdge; Festgabe zur 400jahrigen Jubelfeier der Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek in Prussia (Konigsberg; Grafe und Unzer, 1929), p. 243.

257.

Mueller, p. 98; Killer, pp. 234-35, 242. The “unknown” concertos of C. P. E. Bach for which Killer provided musical incipits (pp. 234-35, 242) are actually W. 29, W. 19, and W. 46.

258.

Killer, pp. 232-35. A letter of Bach to Grotthuss is published in L. Nohl, Musiker-Briefe (Leip¬ zig: Duncker & Humblot, 1967), p. 71.

259.

Wolffheim possessed manuscript copies of W. 20, W. 26, W. 28, and W. 31, according to the extremely valuable two-volume auction catalog, Versteigerung der Musikbibliothek des Herrn

140

Notes for Chapter 3 Dr. Werner Wolffheim . . . durch die FirmenM. Breslauer & L. Leipmannssohn . . . (Berlin:

1928-1929), II: 216. The Wolffheim collection was widely dispersed in the two auctions of 1928 and 1929; see Albi Rosenthal, “Wolffheim, Werner,” MGG 14 (1968), cols 823-24. 260.

Otto John’s musikalische Bibliothek und Musikalien-Sammlung, Versteigerung in Bonn am 4. April 1870 . . . unter Leitung der Herrn Joseph Bauer, Max Cohen & Sohn, M. Lempertz. ([n.

p. ]: [ 1870]), p. 48. Jahn owned a copy of the Schmid edition of W. 25 with a manuscript copy of the slow movement in an ornamented version, according to Leon Crickmore, “C. P. E. Bach s Harpsichord Concertos,” p. 238. After Jahn’s death in 1870 this source passed to F. Gehring in Berlin, and in 1880, to the British Museum, according to Crickmore. N

261.

Prieger possessed manuscript copies of W. 3, W. 4, W. 7, W. 8, W. 9, W. 11, W. 12, W. 17, W. 20, W. 24, W. 25, W. 28 (two), W. 32 (two), W. 34 (three), W. 43/2, and W. 43/4, accord¬ ing to the auction catalog of his estate by Georg Kinsky, Musiksammlung aus dem Nachlasse Dr. Erich Preiger-Bonn nebst einigen Beitragen aus anderem Besitz, III. Theil. Musikerbriefe, Handschriften, Musikalien . . . Versteigerung . . . den 15 Juli 1924 . . . durch M. Lempertz Buchhandlung undAntiquariat, items 195-97.

262.

See notes 174 and 175 above.

263.

Carl Burney’s . . . Tagebuch III: 203, 204.

264.

Ibid.

265.

The entire letter is printed by O. G. Sonneck, “Zwei Briefe C. Ph. Em. Bach’s an Alexander Reinagle,” Sammelbande der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft 8 (1906-1907): 114.

266.

Ibid. “Hier in Deutschland hat mirnoch niemand etwas nachgedruckt: ich wiirde auch so gleich in den Zeitungen einen solchen Nachdrucker offentlich als einen Betriiger erklart haben. Dafiir halt man hier durchgehends einen solchen Menschen, und das will Keiner wagen. Meine offentliche Erlaubnis zu Ihrem Drucke und die neuen eingemischten Rondos wiirden ganz gewiss einen Nachdruck zu Ihrem Schaden abhalten.”

267.

C. P. E. Bach, letter of 31 August 1784, printed in La Mara [Ida Marie Lipsius], Musikerbriefe ausfunfJahrhunderten (Leipzig: Breitkopf Hartel, 1886) I: 208-9. “Erlauben Sie mir, dass ich Ihnen, aus wahrem guten Henzen, eine Lehre fur Kiinftig geben darf. Bey Sachen, die zum Druck, also fiir Jedermann, bestimmt sind, seyn Sie weniger kiinstlich und geben mehr Zucker. Ein reiner Satz, den Sie haben, ist hinlanglich. Man muss denen Ignoranten ihr falsches Vorurtheil nehmen, indem sie glauben, derregelmassige Satz hindere das Angenehme. In Sachen, die nicht sollen gedruckt werden, lassen Sie Ihrem Fleisse den vollkommenen Lauf. Fiir eine vortheilhafte Recension werde ich sorgen. ...”

268.

CarlBurney’s . . . Tagebuch III: 203; CONCERTO/per/il Cembaloconcertato/accompagnato/

da/2 Violini/Violetta/e/Basso/composto/da/CARLO FILIPPO EMANUELE BACH/Musico di Camera di S. M. il Re di Prussia/alle spese di Balthas. Schmid Norimb./N. XXVII. 269.

Ibid.; CONCERTO/per IL CEMBALO CONCERTATO/accompagnato/da/2 Violini/Violetta/ e/Basso/composto/da/CARLO FILIPPO EMANUELE BACH/Musico di Camera di S. M. il RE di Prussia/alle spese della vedova di Balthas. Schmid Norimb./XXVII.

270.

Horst Heussner, “Der Musikdrucker Balthasar Schmid in Niimberg,” Die Musikforschung 16 (1963): 353, 356, 358.

271.

CONCERTO III./PER/IL CEMBALO/CONCERTATO./ACCOMPAGNATO/DA/IL VIOLINI, VIOLETTA/E BASSO,/COMPOSTO/DA/CARL FILIPPO EMANUELE BACH./IN BERLINO/ALLE SPESE DI G. L. WINTER/MDCCLX.

Notes for Chapter 3

141

272.

“No. 12. D dur ... hat Schmidt[!] in Niimberg in Kupfer gestochen . . . .No. 14. E dur . . . hat Winter in Berlin gedruckt," Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 28.

273.

Hans Ulrich Lenz, Der Berliner Musikdruck von seinenAnfangen bis zurMitte des 18. Jahrhunderts (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1933), p. 8.

274.

SEI CONCERTI/PER IL CEMBALO CONCERTATO/da due Violini. Violetta e Basso;/con due Comi e due Flauti per rinforza;/DEDICATI/ALL’ ALTEZZA SERENISSIMA/DI/PIETRO/DUCA REGNANTE DI CURLANDIA &c. &c./e composti/da/CARLO FILIPPO EMANUELEBACH/ . . . /in Hamburgo,/Alle spese dell’autore./1772.

275.

Forkel, Musikalischer Almanach fur Deutschland auf das Jahr 1782, p. 170.

276.

The name of “Herr Buchdrucker Bock in Hamburg” appears on the list of subscribers to the edition.

277.

D-brdDS, letter of 9 April 1772.

278.

Quoted by Bitter, I: 206.

279.

Rudolf Elvers, “Winter, George Ludeqig,” MGG 14 (1968). col. 713.

280.

D-brd DS, letter of 15 September 1772.

281.

Bach’s letter to Breitkopf of 14 November 1772, quoted by Bitter, I: 335-36.

282.

D-brd DS, letter of 5 April 1773.

283.

SEI CONCERTI [W. 43], dedication. “Altezza Serenissima, II Sovvenir clemente, del quale Vostra Altezza Serenissima m’ha favorito, mi spinge di consacrarle quest’ Opera; tanto per esser il Frutto d'una Scienza, alia quale devo il di Lei Patrocinio, quanto per palesar i miei rispettuosi Sentimenti di Gratitudine. Condoni V. A. S. che di tante altre Dedicazioni segua lo Stilo ordinario e l’unico Tenore. Ho stimato giusto di rinviare alia Verita quel che tante altre volte ha servito all’ Andulazione degli Autori. Per questo bramo che sij accettae l’Opera e l’lntenzione; e consacrandole insieme col Libro tutto me stesso, con umil Inchino rimango DI V. A. S. Devotismo osseqmo ed umilismo Servitore Carl Filippo Emanuel Bach.”

284.

As quoted by Westphal in his Besammlete Nachrichten, f. 36r.

285.

From a notice in the Hamburg Staats- und Gelehrte Zeitung, as quoted by Bitter, I: 206.

286.

Letter of 4 September 1772, as quoted by Schmid, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik, p. 49.

287. 288.

Ibid. For a detailed bibliography, see D. W. Krummel, complier, Guide for Dating Early Published Music (Hackensack: Joseph Boonin, Inc., 1974).

289.

See Cari Johansson, French Music Publishers’ Catalogues of the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell, 1955) II, Facs. 25, 1762. Huberty continued to adver¬

tise the concerto after his move to Vienna; see Alexander Weinmann, Kataloge Anton Huberty (Wien) und Christoph Torricella, Beitrage zur Geschichte des altwiener Musikverlages, Reihe 2, Folge 7 (Vienna: Universal, 1962), p. 41.

Notes for Chapter 4

142 290.

Ibid., Facs. 24, 1761 (?).

291.

CONCERTO POUR LE CLAVECIN,/Avec accompagnement de deux Violons,/Alto Viola et Basse,/ COMPOSES/PAR Mr CHARLES PHILIPPE/EMANUEL BACH,/Premier M.,re de Clavecin de la Chambre de S. M. le Roy de Prusse,/ Mis au Jour par Mr HUBERTY,/de l’Academie Royale de Musique./No. 2./Graves par Ceron. . . .

292.

Sigtr BACH/(of Berlin)/CONCERTOS/for the/Harpsicord, or Organ./ with Accompanyments/ for/Violins etc./Op: 3za/London. Printed for I Walsh in Catherine Street Strand. . . .

293.

William C. Smith and Charles Humphries, A Bibliography of the Musical Works Published by the Firm of John Walsh during the years 1721-1766 (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1968), p. 29.

294.

A Second Sett of/Three/CONCERTOS/for the/ORGAN OR HARPSICORD/with Instrumental Parts/Composed by/Bach of Berlin./London. Printed and Sold by Longman, Lukey & Co. N. 26 Cheapside.

295.

Charles Humphries, “Longman & Broderip,” MGG 8 (1960), col. 1188.

Chapter 4 1.

Hans Engel, The Solo Concerto, Anthology of Music, ed. Karl Gustav Fellerer, Vol. 25 (Cologne: Amo Volk Verlag, Hans Gerig KG, 1974), p. 22; in the German edition, Das Solokonzert, in Das Musikwert. Bd.25 (1964), p. 22.

2.

Jane R. Stevens, “The Keyboard Concertos of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach,” Diss. Yale Uni¬ versity 1965, p. 13.

3.

C. P. E. Bach, Autobiography, ed. William S. Newman, p. 199.

4.

“ Einige hochst nothige Regeln vom General B asso. di J. S. B., ” Bach-Dokumente I, ed. Wemer Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, pp. 252-54; English translation in The Bach Reader, ed. HansT. David and Arthur Mendel, rev. ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1966), pp. 390-91. See also Georg von Dadelsen, NBA Kritischer Bericht V, 4 (1957): 45, 59, 67, 72, 120-21. Von Dadelsen listed the copyists of these thoroughbass rules as Anonymous IV and Anna Magdalena Bach (p. 45); Neumann and Schulze in Bach-Dokumente I, name Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach and Anna Magdalena Bach as the copyists (p. 253).

5.

B Be, Des/ Koniglichen Hoff-Compositeurs und Capellmeisters ingleichen/ Directoris Musices wie auch Cantoris der Thomas-Schule/ Herm Johann Sebastian Bach/ zu Leipzig/ Vorschriften und Grundsatze zum vierstimmigen/ spielen des General-Bass oder Accompagnel ment. fur/ seine Scholaren in der Music./ 1738. Printed complete in Philipp Spitta, Johann Sebastian Bach (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1873-1880) II: 913-50; English trans. by Clara Bell and J. A. Fuller-Maitland (1883-1885; rpt. New York: Dover Publications, 1951) III: 315-47.

6.

For debate on the authenticity of the treatise, see J. Schreyer, Bach-Jahrbuch (1906), 136; (1909), 153-56, 160-61 and F. Arnold, Bach-Jahrbuch (1909), 156-57. Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze quoted the title page only in Bach-Dokumente II: 333-34, and remarked that it was not certain how many of the alterations and additions to Niedt’s text were the work of Bach.

7.

Friedrich Erhard Niedtensl Musici, Musicalische Handleitungl Oder Grundlicher Unterricht

.... Erster Theil. . . . Hamburg, Bey Benjamin Schillem, ANNO 1710 (copy in the Yale Music Library, New Haven; mutilated). For a summary of this rare treatise, see F. T. Arnold, The

Notes for Chapter 4

143

Art of Accompaniment from a Thorough-Bass as Practised in the XVllth & XVIIIth Centuries (1931; rpt. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1965), pp. 213-36. 8.

Philipp Spitta, “DerTractat uberden Generalbass und F. Niedts ‘Musikalische Handleitung,’” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 17 (1882), cols. 241-45.

9.

English translation of Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel, ed.. The Bach Reader, p. 279; the original is printed in Schulze, ed., Bach-Dokumente III: 289. “Da er selbst die lehrreichsten Claviersachen gemacht hat, so fiihrte er seine Schuler dazu an. In der Composition gieng ergleich an das Niitzliche mit seinen Scholaren, mit Hinweglassung alter der trockenen Arten von Contrapuncten, wie sie in Fuxen u. andem stehen. Den Anfang musten seine Schuler mit der Erlemung des reinen 4stimmigen Generalbasses machen. Hemach gieng er mit ihnen an die Chorale; setzte erstlich selbst den Bass dazu, u. den Alt u. den Tenor musten sie selbst erfinden. Alsdenn lehrte er sie selbst Basse machen. Besonders drang er sehr starck auf das Aussetzen der Stimmen im General-Basse. Bey der Lehrart in Fugen fieng er mit ihnen die zweystimmigen an, u. s. w. Das Aussetzen des Generalbasses u. die Anfuhrung zu den Choriilen ist ohne Streit die beste Methode zur Erlemung der Composition, qvoad Harmoniam. Was die Erfindung der Gedancken betrifft, so forderte er gleich anfangs die Fahigkeit darzu, u. wer sie nicht hatte, dem riethe er, gar von der Composition wegzubleiben. Mit seinen Kindem u. auch anderen Schulem fieng erdas Compositionsstudium nicht eher an, als bis er vorher Arbeiten von ihnen gesehen hatte, woraus er ein Genie entdeckte.”

10.

Georg Friedrich Lingke acknowledged the high status enjoyed by theoreticians when he said, * ‘With this essay I am seeking nothing less than to make a name for myself in the musical world, ’ ’ in the foreword of his treatise, Einige zum allegemeinen Nutzen deutlicher gemachte Musikal¬ ische Erwegungs- und andere leichter eingerichtete Uibungs-Wahrheiten (Leipzig: Michael Blochberger, n.d.), p. VI. “Ich suche nichts wenigerals mireinen Namenbey dermusikalischen Welt damit zu machen. ”

11.

Friedrich Wilhelm Riedt, Versuch iiber die Musikalische Intervallen (Berlin: A. Haude and J. C. Spener, 1753), GB Lbm 556.b. 18. This copy is identified as containing manuscript notes by C. P. E. Bach in the British Museum’s General Catalogue of Printed Books, Photolithographic edition to 1955 (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1965), Vol. 9, col. 638.

12.

GB Lbm 556.b.18, f. lv.

13.

Francois Lesure, Ecrits imprimes concernant la musique, RISM B VI, 1 (Miinchen-Duisburg: G. Henle Verlag, 1971), pp. 109-10, 156,206,460-61,504.

14.

Georg Philipp Telemann, “Neues musikalisches System,” Musikalische Bibliothek, oder Grilndliche Nachricht nebst unpartheyischem Urtheil von alten und neuen musikalischen Schriften und Biichern . . . [L. C. Mizler’s Neu eroffnete Musikalische Bibliothek, Band 3, Theil 4 (Leipzig, 1752; rpt. Hilversum: Frits Knuf, 1966), pp. 713-19, Tabellen I-VII].

15.

Scholes, II: 220. Two of the books Bumey acquired on that occasion are now in the Cambridge University Library and the Glasgow University Library, Euing Collection; see Schulze, BachDokumente III: 239-40.

16.

GB Lbm 556.b. 18, f. lr.

17.

Lingke, Einige.. .Uibungs-Wahrheiten.

18.

Concerning Bodenburg, see Carl Friedrich Ledebur, Tonkiinstler-Lexicon Berlin’s von den altestenZeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, pp. 65-66.

144 19.

Notes for Chapter 4 La Mara [Ida Marie Lipsius], Musikerbriefe ausfiinf Jahrhunderten, Bd. 1 (Leipzig: Breitkopf& Hartel, 1886), p. 210. “Recht ist Ihre Vertheidigung der None gegen Hr. Faschen...Meine Vertheidigung steht in meinem 2ten Versuch, im Capitel von der None."

20.

Schulze, ed., Bach-Dokumente III: 280. “Eben so vollstandig, als Hr. J. S. Bach, lehret auch sein Sohn Hr. C. P. E. Bach, den Generalbass im zweyten Theil'e seines Versuches iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen: und setzet das, was Geschmack, und wenn man will, auch Mode, fur Veranderung in neuem Zeiten dabey erfodem, noch iiberall reichlich dazu.

21.

Otto Vrieslander, ‘‘Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach als Theoretiker,” Von neuer Musik, Bd. 1 (1925): 222-79.

22.

William J. Mitchell, “Modulation in C. P. E. Bach’s Versuch,” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Music, A Tribute to Karl Geiringer on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. H. C. Robbins Landon and Roger Chapman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 335.

23.

Peter Cohen, Theorie und Praxis der Clavierdsthetik Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs, Hamburger Beitrage zur Musikwissenschaft, Bd. 13 (Hamburg: K. D. Wagner, 1974).

24.

Philip Gossett gave a brief overview of Rameau’s thought and indebtedness to earlier writers, in the introduction to his translation of Rameau’s Treatise on Harmony (New York: Dover Publica¬ tions, Inc., 1971).

25.

B Be 5895.

26.

Except for the brief listings of this source in the catalogs, as discussed in the next paragraph, I know of no mention of it in the literature.

27.

Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 54. “Miscelanea Musica, bestehend in Uebungen fur den Generalbass, etc., etc.”

28.

B Br Fonds Fetis 5218 (II 4140), f. 25v. “Miscellanea Musica, bestehend in Uebungen fur den Generalbass, in verschiedenen Ausweichungen, harmonischen Satzen und Auflosungen, verchiedenen Canons und Evolution’s u. s. w. von C. P. E. Bach.

29.

Rachel W. Wade, “Beethoven’s Eroica Sketchbook,” Fontes Artis Musicae 24 (1977): 288.

30.

Marshall, I, pp. 3-6.

31.

D-ddr Bds P 352, W. 18, f. 14r. Bach’s own plans for publication of this concerto apparently fell through, for no authorized edition of it appeared during his lifetime. The concerto did make its way into print as one of the set of three published by Longman, Lukey sometime between 1771 and 1775 (see chapter 3). “alle Ziffem gehoren in der Clav. stime/t bedeutet til die# sind mehrentheils undeutlich/ und klein, aber von den b sehr/ gut zu unterscheiden/ alle Da Capo werden/ausgeschrieben. ’ ’

32.

Alan Tyson, “A Reconstruction of the Pastoral Symphony Sketchbook,” Beethoven Studies, ed. Alan Tyson (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1973), pp. 82-83; Marshall, I, pp. 44-61.

33.

The grid of dots was produced by using dry transfer lettering sheets (Letraset Instantex 12), which are available in art supply stores.

34.

See Transcription 1.

35.

See Transcription 2.

36.

In recent years there has been an outpouring of articles on the compositional process of various composers, a process that has been shown to vary with the individual and with the task. For a

Notes for Chapter 4

145

small sample of investigations documenting this diversity, see Robert Bailey, “The Structure of the Ring and its Evolution,” 19th Century Music I (1977): 48-61; Philip Gossett, “Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony: Sketches for the First Movement,” JAMS 27 (1974): 248-84; Rufus Hallmark, “The Sketches for Dichterliebe,” 19th Century Music I (1977): 110-36; J. Merrill Knapp, “The Instrumentation Draft of Wagner’s Das Rheingold,” JAMS 30 (1977): 272-95; Lewis Lockwood, ‘On Beethoven’s Sketches and Autographs: Some Problems of Definition and Interpreta¬ tion,” Acta musicologica 42 (1970): 32-47; and Alan Tyson, “The Problem of Beethoven’s ‘First’ Leonore Overture,” JAMS 28 (1975): 292-334. 37.

There is a modem edition of this concerto by Helmut Winter, Konzert G-durfur Orgel (Cembalo, Klavier), Stretcher undB. c. Wq. 34 (Hamburg: Musikverlag Hans Sikorski, 1963).

38.

Marshall has termed these categories of change as slips of the pen, “grammatical” changes, and changes showing the exercise of artistic freedom, in which one gramatically correct version re¬ places another equally correct one (I: 34-35).

39.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen.. .Zwevter Theil (Leipzig: Schwickert, 1780), pp. 113, 114-15, 121, 124; English translation by Mitchell, pp. 265, 266,272, 274. “Die Septime isteine Dissonanz, welche mit (a), undohne Vorbereitung (b) gesetzet wird, und nachher herunter gehet...Das vomehmste, worauf man bey der Einrichtung des Septimenaccordes zu sehen hat, ist dieses: dass die vorbereitete Septime da, wo sie ist, liegen bleiben, und in derselben Stimme aufgeloset werden muss...Wenn die Quinte nicht rein ist, so muss sie ebenfalls in der Folge aufgeloset werden... Wenn der Bass eine Stufe in die Hohe steiget, so ist bey dem letzten Dreyklange zuweilen eine Verdoppelung ndthig (c).”

40.

Johann Philipp Kimberger, “Harmonie,” Allgemeine Theorie der Schonen Kunst von Johann George Sulzer, Erster Theil, Bd. 2 (Biel: In der Heilmannischen Buchhandlung, 1777): “Demnach hat die Musik durch Einfiihrung der Harmonie unstreitig sehr viel gewonnen. Indessen treiben die jenigen freylich die Sache zu weit, die mit Rameau behaupten wollen, dass die ganze Kunst bios auf die Harmonie gegrundet sey, und dass so gar die Melodie selbst ihren Ursprung in der Harmonie habe. Diese hat nichts, das auf Bewegung und Rhythmus fiihren konnte, die doch in der Musik das Wesentlichste sind.”

41.

Jan LaRue, Guidelines for Style Analysis (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970), pp. 75, 110-11.

42.

Judith Leah Schwartz, Phrase Morphology in the Early Classic Symphony (ca. 1720-ca. 1765) (Diss. New York University 1973).

43.

W. 27 is available in a modem edition by Elias N. Kulukundis (Madison, Wisconsin: A. R. Edi¬ tions, 1970).

44.

Marshall, I: 34-35.

45.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, Zweyter Theil, p. 53; Mitchell, p. 216. “Die iibermassige Sexte ist eine Dissonanz, welche mit (a) und ohne Vorbereitung (b) vorkommt, allezeit aber in die Hohe gehet.”

46.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, Zweyter Theil, p. 91; Mitchell, p. 152. “Indent ein Musikus nicht anders riihren kann, er sey dann selbst geriihrt; so muss er nothwendig sich selbst in alle Affecten setzen konnen, welche er bey seinen Zuhorem erregen will; er giebt ihnen seine Empfindungen zu verstehen und bewegt sie solchergestalt am besten zur Mit-Empfindung. ’’

47.

Lingke, p. 13. Francois Lesure and his co-workers in the RISM volume on theoretical treatises date this treatise c. 1750; Lesure, Ecrits imprimes...RISM B VI, 1, p. 504. “Warum nun die sonst in einer Tonart so deutlich und angenehm ins Gehor fallende Consonanzen, in einer andem

146

Notes for Chapter 5 Tonart zu sehr undeutlichen und unangenehm Dissonanzen werden, oder uberhaupt, warum einerley und eben dieselben Tone oder Satze z. E.

d gis f B

wenn es der Septimensatz auf der Quinte von Dis dur oder moll ist, in dieser Tonart munter und freudig, hingegen in D moll, wenn er die Quintensatz mit der vergrosserten Sexte auf der 6 b darinne, oder genauer auf der b 7, der von D moll abstammenden Cis Leiter ist, niedergeschlagen und traurig klingen, solches verdiente billig griindlicher untersucht zu \Verden.”

Chapter 5 1.

C. P. E. Bach wrote these short revisions on the reverse side of a scrap of paper that contains a copy in his hand of the G-Major Prelude from Das Wohltemperierte Klavier II (BWV 884).

2.

D-ddrBds P 1135 (W. 68). The title page is in the hand of Anna Carolina Philippina Bach, accord¬ ing to Schulze, “Marginalien zu einigen Bach-Dokumenten,” pp. 79-80.

3.

GBLbmK. 10 a. 28.

4.

Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 26.

5.

St 495; Kast, p. 89.

6.

B Be 5887 and D-brd B P 239.

7.

Hans Engel drew attention to the existence of two versions of W. 1 in his review of Hans Uldall’s Das Klavierkonzert der Berliner Schule, Zeitschrift fur Musikwissenschaft 12 (1929-1930): 241, but he did not say which manuscript sources he had seen. Presumably he could have seen the auto¬ graph, which at that time was in the Berlin Staatsbibliothek, but which disappeared during World War II (see Kast, p. 89).

8.

For further discussion of W. 1, see pp. 34-36.

9.

A Wgm VII 23442, D-brd B P 235, D-brd B P 438, D-ddr LEm Poel. mus. Ms. 41.

10.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, Erster Theil, pp. 56-57; Mitchell, p. 106. ‘‘Es kommen uberhaupt bey der Musik viele Dinge vor, welche man sich einbilden muss, ohne dass man sie wiirklich horet. Z. E. bey Concerten mit einer starken Begleitung, verliert der Concertist allezeit die Noten, welche fortissimo accompagnirt werden miissen, und die, wobey das Tutti einfallt. Verstandige Zuhorer ersetzen diesen Verlust durch ihre Vorstellungs-Kraft. Diese Zuhorer sind es, denen wir hauptsachlich zu gefallen suchen miissen.”

11.

See in particular W. 7, W. 8, W. 12, and W. 16-18, as well as the discussion of these works by Stevens, pp. 50-70.

12.

Suchalla, p. 169.

13.

This version is also preserved in the manuscript copy D-brd B St 203, which, according to Kast, was prepared by an unknown copyist around 1800 (Kast, p. 79). This copy does not derive from the Huberty print, nor does the print appear to be dependent on it, since both sources preserve dynamic markings and other notations present in the autograph but omitted from either the Huber¬ ty print or St 203.

14.

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 18 and D-brd B St 618.

Notes for Chapter 5

147

15.

See, for example, the erasures, crowded notes, and curved beams in the cembalo part of St 618, II: 1,4,6, 10, 13, etc.

16.

D-brd B St 618.1: 49, 50, 169, 171:11:31-36,43,49,50.

17.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, Zweyter Theil, p. 257; Mitchell, pp. 377-78.

18.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, Zweyter Theil, p. 298; Mitchell, p. 410.

19.

US Wc M 1010.A2B13 W. 5 (An302) and D-brd B St 523 (Michel).

20.

D-brd B St 197, which presents the same version as US Wc.

21.

The early version is represented in D-brd B St 197, D-brd B Am. Bib. 99, USWcM 1010.A2B13 W. 5. D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/6, and D-ddr WRtl Mus. IV c:8. The late version is found in D-brd B St 523, B Be 5887, D-brd DS Mus. ms. 970, US BEu Ms. 727, and D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 10.

22.

The parts of St 523 were copied by the same copyist as the score of Am. Bib. 99; another copyist wrote out both D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/6 and D-ddr WRtl Mus. IV c:8.

23.

The same layout of the keyboard part is found in St 523, B Be 5887, and D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 10.

24.

Compare the following corresponding passages: St 197 I: 78-85 I: 129-34 I: 244-50 III: 179-89

St 523 I: 78-79 I: 123-29 I: 243-50 III: 179-99

25.

See also the discussion of overlapping articulation by LaRue, pp. 45-48.

26.

Ibid.,pp. 126-28. See also Floyd Kersey Grave, “The Process of Articulation in Mozart’s Piano Concertos,” Diss. New York University 1973.

27.

Nachlassverzeichnis, p. 30.

28.

US Wc M 1010.A2B13 W. 21 and B Be 5887.

29.

Compare measure 48 of the second movement of both sources.

30.

“Man wird wohlthun, wenn man dieses erste Trio ohne Zusatz aller willkiirlichen Auszierungen, so wie es geschrieben ist, spielt.” As quoted by Bitter, I: 61.

31.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, Erster Theil, p. 103; Mitchell, p. 165. “Das Probe-Stiicke aus dem F dur ist ein Abriss, wie man heute zu Tage die Allegros mit 2 Reprisen das andremal zu verandem pflegt. SoloblichdieseErfindungist, sosehrwirdsie gemissbrauchet. MeineGedanken hiervon sind diese: Man muss nicht alles verandem, weil es sonst ein neu Stuck seyn wiirde. Viele, besonders die affectuosen oder sprechenden Stellen eines Stiickes lassen sich nicht wohl verandem. Hierher gehort auch diejenige Schrieb-Art in galanten Stucken, welche so beschaffen ist, dass man sie wegen gewisser neuen Ausdrucke und Wendungen selten das erstemal vollkommen einsieht. Alle Veranderungen miissen dem Affect des Stiickes gemass seyn. Sie miissen allezeit, wo nicht besser, doch wenigstens eben so gut, als das Original seyn. ’’

32.

Ibid. “Denn man wahlt bey der Verfertigung eines Stiickes, unter andem Gedanken, oft mit Fleiss denjenigen, welchen man hingeschrieben hat und des wegen fur den besten in dieser Art halt, ohngeacht einem die Veranderungen dieses Gedanken, welche mancher Ausfiihrer anbringt und dadurch dem Stiicke viele Ehre anzuthun glaubt, zugleich bey der Erfindung desselben mit beygefallen sind.”

148 33.

Notes for Chapter 5 Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, ZweiterTheil, pp. 242-43; Mitchell, p. 367. Dieser letztere kann vielleicht lange Zeit zugebracht haben, um sein Stuck, welches er nach jetziger Mode selbst verfertiget haben muss, gut heraus zu bringen.

34.

Leon Crickmore, “C. P. E. Bach’s Harpsichord Concertos," p. 238; Douglas A. Lee, Some Embellished Versions of Sonatas by Franz Benda,” The Musical-Quarterly 62 (1976): 58-71; Christoph Schaffrath, Concerto in B-Flat for Cembalo and Strings, ed. Karyl Louwenaar, Col¬ legium Musicum: Yale University, Second Series, Vol. VII (Madison: A-R Editions, Inc.,[1977] ). In the source of Benda’s sonatas for violin and bass discussed by Lee (D-brd B Mus. ms. 1315/15) the embellished version is written below the original. In the source of Schaffrath’s concerto discussed by Louwenaar in her preface (D-ddr Bds Am. Bib. 492) there are two ornamented versions of the slow movement included as separate parts, one in the hand of the composer and the other by an unknown copyist. Louwenaar includes the ornamented versions as Appendices I and II. Rita Benton commented on embellished versions of Pleyel ’ s music in lgnace Pleyel. A Thematic Catalogue of His Compositions (New York: Pendragon Press, 1977), pp. xiv-xv. David D. Boyden also has discussed the practice in “Corelli’s Solo Violin Sonatas ‘Grac’d’ by Dubourg ” Festskrift Jens Peter Larsen, 1902-1972, ed. Nils Schiorring and Henrik Glahn (Copenhagen: Wilhelm Hansen Musik-Forlag,[1972] ), pp. 113-25.

35.

D-brd B P 352, W. 31 (autograph score, simple version), D-brd B P 711 (autograph score, ornamented version), D-brd B St 524 (autograph cembalo part, ornamented version; cembalo part in the hand of Schlichting, revised by Bach, simple version).

36.

From a letter of 28 April 1784, printed in Bitter, II: 303. “Das Concerto C-mol war vor diesem eines meiner Paradors. Das Rezit. ist so ausgesetzt, wie ich es ohngefahr gespielt habe.

37.

As quoted in Bitter, I: 69.

38.

“Veranderungen und Auszierungen iiber einige seiner gedruckten Sonaten fur Scholaren,” as quoted by J. J. H. Westphal in his thematic catalog, B Br Fonds Fetis 5218 (II 4140), f. 34v. Westphal’s copy of W. 68 is B Be 5885.

39.

See also Louis S. Bagger’s comments on this subject in his review of the edition of W. 31 by Gyorgy Balia, Notes 34 (1978): 970-72.

40.

D-brd B St 524, II: 31-33, 35, 39-43, 63-66, 71, 82, 85-86, 98. Erasure was not necessary in order to add notes in measures 29, 50, 60-62, 69, 70, 81, 87-99, 91,95-97.

41.

Wade, JAMS 30 (1977): 163.

42.

See D-brd B St 526, a copy of W. 37 revised by Bach, f. 2v, 3r, and6r.

43.

B Be 5871, catalogued by Wotquenne as W. 120.

44.

For details of the concerto movements represented in this source, see Appendix E.

45.

See, for example, the manuscript copies D-brd B St 523 (W. 5), D-brd B St 499 (W. 16), A Wgm VII 3871 (W. 43/1), and A Wgm VII 1407 (W. 43/6). The copy of the Schmid print of W. 25 in the British edition in the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin, has a handwritten cadenza pasted in.

46.

D-brd BP 354.

47.

D-brd BP 353.

48.

D-brd B St 209 (W. 46); D-brd B St 515 (W. 7); D-brd St 524 (W. 31).

49.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Harpsichord Concerto in D Major, W. 27, ed. Elias N. Kulukundis (Madison: A. R. Editions, Inc., 1970), p. x. Compare the version of the autograph score (quoted

Notes for Chapter 6

149

by Kulukundis in his preface, p. x) with that preserved in the parts (printed by Kulukundis as the main text, p. 53). 50.

W. 1-21, W. 24-26, W. 28-31, W. 33, W. 34, W. 36, W. 38. W. 39, W. 40. W. 34 is scored for organ or clavier; see the Nachtassverzeichnis, pp. 26-35.

51.

W. 46. W. 22, W. 35, W. 37, W. 42, W. 44. and W. 45. W. 46 is scored for two claviers (listed as No. 6 in the Nachtassverzeichnis, p. 27).

52.

W. 23 and W. 32.

53.

W. 41, W. 43/1-6, W. 47. W. 47 is scored for clavier and fortepiano (listed as No. 52 in the Nachtassverzeichnis, p. 35).

54.

D-brd B St 540. Michel's copy of W. 38 (B Be 5887) labels the flute parts “ad libitum” on the title page.

55.

Some examples of this are D-brd B St 534 (W. 32), D-brd B St 519 (W. 35), D-brd B St 212 (W. 42), and D-brd B St 362 (W. 46).

56.

See, for example. D-brd B St 519 (W. 35) and B Be 5887 (W. 35).

57.

Dating by means of watermark evidence has pitfalls, of course, although it can be useful in conjunction with other types of evidence. Jan LaRue discusses both the pitfalls and the promise offered by watermarks for dating purposes in ‘ ‘Watermarks and Musicology, ’ ’ Acta Musicologica 33 (1961): 120-46.

58.

Schmid, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik, p. 124; Beurmann, pp. 14, 99-105; Bitter, 1:72.

59.

From a letter of 22 January 1783, printed in Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen III: 251. “die Cadenzen und Eingange werde meiner lieben schwester mit nachsten schicken; ich habe die Eingange in Rondeau noch nicht verandert, denn wenn ich dieses Concert spielle, so mache ich allzeit was mir einfallt. ’ ’

Chapter 6 1.

Nachtassverzeichnis, p. 31. “No. 29. B. dur. 1751. Clavier, 2 Violinen, Bratsche und Bass; ist auch fur das Violoncell und die Flote gesezt.”[W. 28].

2.

This may have been a copyist’s error, since the scoring did not change. Or, the lack of space above the sixth staff caused the copyist to move down one staff so that the high notes of the keyboard part could be accommodated, resulting in staff 6 remaining blank and staff 9 being added at the bottom.

3.

Since it has been possible to reproduce P 769 fairly well in facsimile, Facsimile 4 takes the place of an illustration for Transcription 16.

4.

Mm. 74-89; see the edition of W. 34 by Helmut Winter (Hamburg: Musikverlag Hans Sikorski,[ 1963]).

5.

The oboe version, W. 165, is available in a modem edition by Hermann Tottcher and Karl Grebe (Hamburg: Hans Sikorski,[1959] ).

6.

See chapter 4.

7.

The oboe version, W. 164, is available in a modem edition by Oskar Kaul, in Alte Musik fiir verschiedene Instrumente, Nr. 9 (Munich: F. E. Leuckart,[1954]).

150 8.

Notes for Chapter 6

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, Erster Theil, p. 69; Mitchell, pp. 121-22. “Indessen istes etwas leichtes, statt des Zeichens der Manier, lieber die Ausfiihrung von (a) auszuschreiben, wenn man sie haben will.”

9.

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Versuch, Zweiter Theil, p. 256; Mitchell, p. 377 "Sind Ripienstimmen zu einem Stiicke mit einer tiefen Hauptstimme gesetzet, so muss man auf die Hohe und Tiefe der erstem genau horen, und die Begleitung des Claviers in derselben Weite nehmen. Der Gesang der Hauptstimme muss durch iibersteigende Mittelstimmen alsdenn nicht undeutlich gemacht werden. Aus dieser Ursache setzen zuweilen die Componisten, derguten Ausnahme und Veranderung wegen, die Mittelstimmen in die Tiefe, wenn der Hauptgesang sich daselbst aufhalt, und wechseln nachher gliicklich wieder mit der Hohe bey den Rittomellen ab.”

10.

W. 26 = W. 166 = W. 170; W. 28 = W. 167= W. 171; W. 29 = W. 168 = W. 172.

11.

Auszierungen can be found in W. 26,1: 63 and II: 13, 35-37,58-59,63,65,68,78. In W. 29 these elaborations occur in I: 28-43, and II: 31-38, 53-78, 84-89, 96-99.

12.

Alterations apparently due to idiomatic considerations occur in W. 26,1: 77-100, 168-72, and III: 101-11. In W. 29 examples may be seen in I: 153-61, and III: 61-68, 156-95, 264-71.

13.

W. 26, W. 28, and W. 29.

14.

Compare D-ddr Bds P 356 [W. 164] and D-brd B St 529 [W. 39] in the following passages: I: 128-29, 152, 168-76, and III: 70-73, 194-97, 230-32.

15.

See pp. 72-76.

16.

B Be 5887. See Appendix B, X28.

17.

D-brd B Am. Bib. 101 and D-brd B P 768. Although P 768 contains no dates by copyists or owners, its machine-ruled staves make it likely that it stems from no earlier than the nineteenth century. Kurt Redel consulted this source as well as the Brussels copy of the keyboard version, B Be 5887, in preparing his edition of the flute version, which he accepted as authentic. However, Redel may not have seen the Amalien-Bibliothek source with its crossed-out attribution, since he does not mention it. Ernst Suchalla remained unconvinced that the flute version was unquestion¬ ably authentic and listed it under ‘‘Incerta und Werke, die Bach falschlicherweise zugeschrieben werden” in his thematic catalog of Bach’s orchestral works in his published dissertation Die Orchestersinfonien Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs, pp. 279-280.

18.

D-brdB P768: “Concerto/a/FlautaTraversa/Violino Primo/Violino Secundo/Viola/et/Basso/di/ Sigl. C. Ph. E. Bach./(Gymnasio Reg. Joachim Legat./Ab Illustriss. Principe Amalia)/(N°: 101 .)/20443.”

19.

See Hans-Joachim Schulze, “Der Schreiber ‘Anonymous 400’—ein Schuler Johan Sebastian Bachs,” Bach-Jahrbuch (1972), p. 109.

20.

Concert en ut pour trompette et orgue ou piano, Collection Maurice Andre, Revision Instru¬ mentation: JeanThilde (Paris: Gerard Billaudot, 1974).

21.

Horst Heussner, “Zur Musizierpraxis der Klavierkonzerte im 18. Jahrhundert,” MozartJahrbuch (1967), pp. 171-73.

22.

In his investigations of the Pretlack collection Joachim Jaenecke found many such parts in the manuscript copies of concertos by Agrell, Foerster, Graun, Greber, Miithel, Richter, and Wagenseil; see his study, Die Musikbibliothek des Ludwig Freiherrn von Pretlack (1716-1781), pp. 44-45.

Notes for Chapter 6

151

23.

A few pencilled identifications were also added later in another hand.

24.

Kast, p. 20, catalogued this piece as Wq. n. v. 40.

25.

Concerning the 1772 edition of W. 43, see pp. 50, 56-57.

26.

Brook, ed.. The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue, col. 518.

27.

Shelley G. Davis, “The Keyboard Concertos of Johann Georg Lang (1722-1798),“ Diss. New York University, 1972, II: 408.

28.

[J. J. H. Westphal], Catalogue thematique des oeuvresde Ch. Ph. Emm. Bach[Fetis's title], B Br Fonds Fetis 5218 (II 4140), f. 34v. “Unter den Clavier-Concerten findet man dieses Concert auch mit Begleitung von Instrumenten; doch weichet dieses Ex[emplar], welches der selig. Verfasser fur das Clavier allein eingerichtet hat, von der Clavierpartie dasselbst merklich ab.”

29.

Heinrich Miesner discussed some of Bach’s friends in “Portrats aus dem Kriese Philipp Emanuel und Wilhelm Friedemann Bachs,” Musik und Bild; Festschrift Max Seijfert zum siebzigsten Geburtstag...ed. Heinrich Besseler (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1938). pp. 101-12.

30.

Erwin Bodky noted Mozart’s borrowing from C. P. E. Bach and informed Alfred Einstein, who reported it in the third edition of the Kochel thematic catalog in 1937; see Eduard Reeser’ s prefac¬ tory remarks in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Neue Ausgabe samtlicher Werke, Ser. X, Werkgruppe 28, Abteilung 2, ed. Walter Gerstenberg and Eduard Reeser (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1964), pp. VII-XVI.

31.

Schmid, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik, p. 152.

32.

Eugene Helm discovered these works and listed them in “The ‘Hamlet’ Fantasy and the Literary Element in C. P. E. Bach’s Music,” The Musical Quarterly 68 (1972): 293.

33.

Other examples of abrupt changes of register occur in the solo version, B Be 5887, I: 45-46, 52-53, 62-63, and III: 103-4, 193-94. 217-18.

34.

Compare the following corresponding passages in the orchestral and solo versions (B Be 5887 and D-brd BP 713, respectively): I: 122-30 with I: 122-24; I: 157-66 with I: 151-60; III: 107-32 with III: 107-15; III: 228-66 with III: 210-18.

35.

See I: 54-57 in both versions.

36.

Ulrich Siegele provides a summary of this literature in Kompositionsweise und Bearbeitungstechnik in der Instrumentalmusik Johan Sebastian Bachs, Tubinger Beitrage zur Musikwissenschaft, ed. Georg von Dadelsen, Bd. 3 (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hanssler-Verlag, 1975), pp. 101-3.

37.

There have been several attempts to reconstruct the lost violin concerto, the most recent, that of Wilfried Fischer, NBA, VII, 7 (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1971).

38.

Werner Neumann, Handbuch der Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs, 4th ed. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1971), p. 198. Neumann lists the third movement as the cantata introduction. No introducion based on BWV 1052 was included in the Bach-Gesellschaft edition of BWV 188 by Alfred Dorffel in 1891 (BGA, Jahrgang 37, pp. 193-212). In his foreward Dorffel quoted from the title page of P 455 (now D-brd B P 455), which provides the information that the cantata was to be introduced by the concerto (BGA, Jahrgang 37, p. xxxix). Earlier, Spitta had concluded that the entire concerto was to serve as the introduction to the cantata in Johann Sebastian Bach (18721880,. rpt. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1970), II: 802-3. In a seven-page lettei^to the Library of Congress dated 18 February 1940 Paul Hirsch expressed his agreement with Spitta on this point. In this letter Hirsch summarized information from an unpublished and unfinished article of

152

Notes for Chapter 6 his, “Die Originalpartitur von J. S. Bach’s Kantate 188.’’The letter may be consulted on micro¬ film in the New York Public Library at Lincoln Center (*ZBT-5 no. 8).

39.

See Siegele, pp. 101-3.

40.

Ibid., p. 108.

41.

D-brd B St 125.

42.

Wilfried Fischer, NBA Kritischer Bericht, VII, 7 (1971): 36.

43.

D-brd B St 350.

44.

Schulze has cited two mistakes Polchau made when he named copyists of sources of BWV 148 and BWV 167. See Schulze, “Der Schreiber ‘Anonymous 400,’ ” p. 106.

45.

Such pasted-on pieces also cannot be seen on microfilm, since generally there is not enough con¬ trast between the colors of the papers to make the borders show on high-contrast film. In the cembalo part the two crossed-out measures at the bottom of page 14 resulted not from a compositional decision, but from practical considerations of where the page turn should come. These measures are thus repeated at the top of the next page.

46.

On microfilm copies of St 350 there is no hint of its unusual gathering structure, since the photo¬ grapher arranged the pages in consecutive order. However, the information in Table 3 can be verified by anyone with access to a microfilm copy, since each leaf of St 350 has a characteristi¬ cally uneven outer edge, which allows the matching of recto and verso pages.

47.

In this source, as in many others of C. P. E. Bach, a sheet consists of a single bifolio.

48.

Schulze, “Der Schreiber‘Anonymous 400,’ ” p. 116.

■v

Facsimiles

Facs. 1. Title pages of manuscript copies of three concertos. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach St 619 (Wq. n. v. 67 = App. B, X23; W. 3; W. 43/1).

Facs. 1 (corn.)

*kf

> ***• **>&**' "f

•'*

Facs. 1 (cont.)

.

-V

J.JJ So,zs-

G fr n

pUhl.Re»la ) \j8erolin J/

trnmi

Facs. 2. Title page in the hand of Grave. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek PreussischerKulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach St 505.

Facs. 3. The autograph score of the Concerto for Organ or Harpsichord in G Major, W. 34. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach P 354, f. 2v: I, 67-81.

Facs. 4. The partially-autograph score of the Concerto for Flute in G Ma¬ jor, W. 169. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach P 769, f. 6v: I, 75-79.

Facs. 5. The autograph score of the Concerto for Oboe in E-Flat Major, W. 165, third movement, followed by a sketch of measures 320-336 in the keyboard version, W. 40. Berlin/DDR, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Mus. ms. Bach P 356 [W. 165], f. 12r: III, 334-348.

Facs. 6a. The autograph score of the Concerto for Oboe in B-Flat Major, W. 164. Berlin/DDR. Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Mus. ms. Bach P356 [W. 164], f. 7v: 11,65-96.

Facs. 6b. The autograph set of parts for the Concerto for Harpsichord in 13Flat Major, W. 39, first violin part, second movement. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Mus. ms. Bach St 529, VI. I.

Facs. 7. The title page of a manuscript copy of the arrangement for flute of W. 22 (App. B. X28). Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung. Am. Bib. 101.

*

Transcriptions and Illustrations

Trans. 1. D-brd B P 354 [W. 34], f. 14r: III, 263-267.

Illus. 1. D-brd B P 354 [W. 34], f. 14r: III, 263-267.

. ffcv

^9-4=

^r /rJj^P rft 1| fCrfflg ffft fCf *VI '7*0

^

r r *s—r* w'-i wfPvA,

Mff

ifc=pfc=^

f^

1

~H 1

]

-

gr

f(ff7

rr> Tfj=

JfMr f

11 If) I f3

=^F —■4*'^ f f =±7 tf

rf-. :

if

-t eJ

Illus. 2. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 15], f. 2r: I, 52-55.

£rit?

Illus. 3. D-brd B P 355 [W. 44], f. 3v-4r: I, 77-81.

Trans. 3. D-brd B P 355 [W. 44], f. 3v-4r: I, 77-81.

Illus. 4. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 15], f. lOv: III, 102-106.

Trans. 4. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 15], f. lOv: III, 102-106.

Illus. 5. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 32], f. 5v: II, 21-24.

Trans. 5. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 32], f. 5v: II, 21-24.

Illus. 6. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 46], f. 8v: I, 187-190.

Trans. 6. D-ddrBds P 352 [W. 46], f. 8v: I, 187-190.

Illus. 7. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 15], f. 1 lv: III, 163-167.

Trans. 7. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 15], f. 1 lv: III, 163-165.

Illus. 8. D-brd B P 713 [W. 42], f. 3v: II, 8-12.

Trans. 8. D-brd B P 713 [W. 42], f. 3v: II, 8-12.

Illus. 9. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 12], f. 5r: I, 140-152.

Trans. 9. D-ddrBdsP352 [W. 12], f. 5r: I, 141-149.

Trans. 9 (cont.)

Trans. 9 (cont.)

Illus. 10. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 7], f. 8r: III, 94-102.

Trans. 10. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 7], f. 8r: III, 94-102.

Illus. 11. D-brd P 355 [W. 27], f. 3r: I, 236-242.

Ill. 11. (cont.)

Illus. 12. D-brd B P 354 [W. 23], f. 2v: I, 48-50.

Trans. 12. D-brd B P 354 [W.23], f. 2v: I, 48-50.

Illus. 13. D-brd B P 355 [W. 25], f. 6v: II, 1-6.

Illus. 14. D-brd B P 354 [W. 2], f. 4r: I, 103-106.

Trans. 13. D-brd B P 355 [W. 25], f. 6v: II, 1-4.

Trans. 15. D-brd B P355 [W. 27], f. 6r: III, 1-5.

.

i

•

t

Jm ^

Hr

» A13

-r-J

J.

= #

-J-

-4

3

.

i

—

t. /14r j (o) •< \ v7 r

-

1-

“I----I

' T tftifrrrr—z — r-1■ —■ r—t-—7- —j L 3 !

p

-fOt'ti, 2--r-»-

-—-J—.—-=—L o:

i

—-j

_

-

i

g—


v-:~P - —J- —♦--

r

J

4

1

F^H-fepn

#

uJr

^

Ex. 3 (cont.)

Ex. 4. W. 15, III, 163-172, keyboard part (first version, D-ddr Bds P 352).

iru Lna.JSa n ru

...

J.-H^* 7717

9

9

9

*

^---*7 / ^-A ■s -S

iw. 7^rv T? v:7

r

fl£Dija1 ^ T

9

>

1’

Z

9

% *

*

H

nn

, I

9

-

-

9

f

!

9~9-f-f-

99

-p-.p.

i

i

*“K

*

*

—-

ri r

-7—y

\

r

r-

— i—i—i—i

=

tr

,\\* 7 f.F5y V— SHE ] 1 f-* f 0:4^ t~=

^4

2 r-ECEZI • » —» i»

e^f

~i~l # * • i» • --p

ww

^-3

^ff=i p

\

-fl pgr

—

Uf, r r r-r->j[~T7n |

11 # w

—-

^i

.

SJfJ' 1 J J “ *

iv. r ■-|" f P-P - mmP? Pffj

J-

-

4=J

kyt-0-*-* *T-€ p-p—=• J J *‘C> -=

^—== -» w m m * —

—

■' >

J'uDlL

'E.,71fj#\==\ t==i .£ gl

Ex. 7. Revision of a modulatory passage in W. 1,1. a. D-brd B P 239,1, 22-26 (early version) b. B Be 5887,1, 22-27 (revised version)

Ex. 7 (cont.)

Ex. 7 (cont.)

Ex. 8. Revision of the section before the third tutti entrance in W. 1,1. a. D-brd B P 239,1, 36-40 (early version) b. B Be 5887,1, 37-42 (revised version) a.

Ex. 9. The closing material in the first tutti of W. 1, III. a. D-brd B P 239, III, 4-9 (early version) b. B Be 5887, III, 12-17 (revised version)

a.

Ex. 10. The closing material in the retransition to the final tutti of W. 1, III. a. D-brd B P 239, III, 132-137 (early version) b. B Be 5887, III, 140-145 (revised version) a.

Ex. 10(cont.)

Ex. 11. Simplification of the string parts in W. 2,1. a. Copy of Huberty print in GB Lbm, I: 103-107 (early version) b. D-brd B P 354 [W. 2], f. 4r-4v, I: 103-106 (revised version)

Ex. 11 (cont.)

Ex. 12. Original reading (incomplete) found underneath pasted-on scraps of paper in the autograph score of W. 2, D-brd B P 354, f. 5v: I, 156-159.

Ex. 13. Simple and ornamented versions of the keyboard part of W. 4, II. a. D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 18, II, 10-16 (early version) b. D-brd B St 618, II, 10-16 (revised version)

Ex. 13 (cont.)

Ex.

14.

Bach’s

revision

of

W.

4,

II

to

provide

an

opportunity

for

a

cadenza.

a. D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 18, II, 56-57 (early version) b. D-brd B St 618, II, 56-57 (revised version)

v

Ex. 15. Revisions in the phrase structure of W. 5, III. a. D-brd B St 197, III, 7-15 (early version) b. D-brd B St 523, III, 7-20 (revised version) a.

Ex. 15 (cont.)

r)^-

Up*! -iV-*— --—

Ldi^ I

i

PPfPMlW J71L2EEZ3

3E

is

:W § i j

£3

Pip*

Ex. 16. Revisions in the phrase structure of the solo part of W. 5,1. a. D-brd B St 197,1, 157-161 (early version) b. D-brd B St 523,1, 152-160 (revised version) a.

T-L%±.-i ^ l \J\\ 3 J

JjJV

'-1 = -iJ r: t

"rTr [tip*--M-

[Iff ^

tl

:*—* f f '

Uh4-i—1

iayu

-

L1-=xj==£==

—

—

PMih4.

j q- b 2

■

- —

L

-4-

-4-

-4-

-f.

Ex. 16(cont.)

X-—

(tote

r

P

V

— [ -/-N,-

i-*

„

►-•—

u&=-m--•-*—•• [JW—

J~

* »— -•*•-

H

~~~=-==--J— ^J---^

—=?-»-]*--m-

i I I

r~:

F™" - =| r - — /-*#=—

H

> M

itjTi

j^)H,-

A

^ ’t£j-

:■

-

-^-r r-f- fad

Ex. 17. Textural and rhythmical alterations in W. 5. II. a. D-brd B St 197, II, 1-7 (early version) b. D-brd B St 523, II, 1-7 (revised version) a. VI. I, VI. II

Ex. 18. Bach’s simple and ornamented versions of W. 31, II, first solo section. a. D-brd B P 711, II, 15-37 (ornamented version on top six staves) b. D-ddr Bds P 352 [W. 31], II, 15-37 (simple version, Cemb. only)

Ex. 18 (cont.)

Ex. 19. Different versions of W. 23, II. a. D-brd B P 354 [W. 23], II, 74-77 (early version, f. 8r) b. D-brd B P 354 [W. 23], II. 74-77 (revised version, f. 7v)

r * T- ^ .~y ck.3P

Jr h w.err —1-

-vu-A

^

N

-

i. >

J-1—t-

l rr * \ y i A 1 ’ V7\ bm-—-—c *=-. -m v a7 7 U - —r-* t/; —I--17

-

rr

17

^

r - 1/)

c

_ z

—1

_ r

T --> — 0-

^ ?

7• f

h '

—7-(•—

*

—

—r-N— rs

•

y L a

--X ■ I

w

i>- -1 -2-W y. —fJH—H IrV'kyT 7 7 ^ A LL A l_V

/

i--

From here on the remainder of the system has been cut out.

Ex. 20. Clues to the chronology of the oboe and keyboard versions of W. 39 ( = W. 164). a. Oboe version. D-ddr Bds P 356 [W. 164], f. 7v: II. 88-94 b. Keyboard version, D-brd B St 529, W. 39, II, 88-94

Ex. 21. Comparison of the oboe and keyboard versions of W. 39 (= W. 164). a. D-ddr Bds P 356 [W. 164], f. 7r: II, 25-28, the oboe version b. D-brd B St 529, W. 39, II, 25-28, the keyboard version

i

Ex. 22. Arrangements of W. 42. a. B Be 5887,1, 95-98 (orchestral version) b. D-brd B P 713,1, 95-98 (solo keyboard version)

Appendix A Manuscript and Early Printed Sources of the Keyboard Concertos of C. P. E. Bach

Appendix A provides a list of the early sources of the keyboard concertos in the order in which these works appear in the Nachlassverzeichnis (NV). Each manu¬ script source is identified by the RISM abbreviation for the library in which it is located (see the list of abbreviations), followed by the shelf number. For manu¬ scripts in Berlin (D-brd B and D-ddr Bds) full citations such as “Mus. ms. Bach St 203” and “Mus. ms. Bach P 713” have been abbreviated to “St 203” and “P 713.” The names of previous owners are frequently written on the title page of the source, or are obvious from the library’s ordering system, as with the manuscripts of the Amalien-Bibliothek. Often when the owner’s name does not appear on the source, it can still be deduced from handwritten notes or other clues. This deduced information appears in brackets. In listing the copyists, numbers refer to the va¬ rious parts available, following the general custom of the Berlin sources: 1: Cem¬ balo, 2: Violin I, 3: Violin II, 4: Viola, 5: Basso. The names of many copyists are not written on the sources, but their identity may be discerned by comparisons of handwriting; in these cases the copyist’s name appears in brackets. Multiple un¬ known copyists within a source are named “Un 1,” “Un 2,” “Un 3,” etc. If the same unknown copyist is encountered in more than one source, this copyist is arbitrarily named by a letter of the alphabet (copyist A, copyist B, copyist C, etc.). The heading “Provenance Group” classifies the sources in seven categories: 1. 2.

autograph or partially autograph sources sources known to have come from the composer and very likely seen by

5.

him sources in the hand of Bach’s copyists sources copied or owned by Bach’s students, friends, acquaintances, and family sources for which there is only incomplete information concerning

6. 7.

provenance sources about which little or nothing is known unreliable or unimportant sources

3. 4.

234

Appendix A

For further discussion of “provenance group, see pp. 33-34. Sources in manuscript are listed first, and the few early prints at the end of the entry. The title page information for the prints may be found on pp. 140-42, notes 268, 269, 271, 274, 291, 292, and 294. Locations of copies are listed in Ernst Suchalla, Die Orchestersinfonien Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs, Diss. Mainz 1968 (Augsburg: W. Blasaditsch, 1968), 168-220, or in Einzeldrucke vor 1800, ed. Karlheinz Schlager, RISM, A I, 1 (Kassel: Barenreiter, 1971), p. 162 (also com¬ piled by Ernst Suchalla).

Appendix A

Concerto

Source

NV 1, W. 1

D-ddr Bds St 495 (missing)

Owner(s)

Copyists(s) (AUTOGRAPH)

A Wgm VII 23442

235

Provenance Group 1

6

B Be 5887

Westphal

D-brd B P 235

Breitkopf & Hartel, Otto and Karl v. Voss

D-brd B P 239

Palschau, Polchau

D-brd B P 438

[Fischhof ]

D-ddr LEm Poel. mus. Ms. 41

Poelitz

[Michel]

Forkel,

3 7

Kirnberger, in part

4

[Fischhof]

7 5

CS KRa II F 4

NV 2, W. 2

D-brd B P 354

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B St 203

[Polchau?]

6

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/4

Dresden, royal private music collection; Tunerstein

5

D-ddr G01 Mus. pag. 5/3

Boyneburg

AA

6

US Wc M 1010. A2B13 W. 2

F. W. Rust

t.p.: II parts: Un 1

4

Huberty print

NV 3, W. 3

4

D-ddr Bds P 352

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

236

Appendix A

Owner(s)

Concerto

Source

NV3 W. 3

D-brd B P 708

NV4, W. 4

NV 5, W. 5

Copyists(s)

Provenance Group

T

6

D-brd B St 214

Otto and Karl v. Voss

E

5

D-brd B St 496

L. Erk

*

5

D-brd B St 497

Grave

[Grave]

4

US Wc W.

[Lasserre?]

t.p.: K 1: Un 1 2-4: Un 2 5: JJ

5

Un, [rev. CPEB]

1

3

D-brd B St 618

1: LL Beilage:

1

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 18

Thulemeier

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

D-brd B St 498

[Grave]

1:[Grave] 4 2-5: Un 1 Violono:[Grave?]

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/5

Dresden, royal prl1, 3-5: Un 1 vate music collection; 2: Un 2 Tunerstein

6

D-ddr MEIr B1 14

Hof Capelle zu Meiningen

5

US Wc W.

Lasserre

t.p.: Un 1 1: Un 2 2-5: Un 3

5

B Be 5887

Westphal

Q

4

D-brd B Am. Bib. 99

Kirnberger, Anna Amalia of Prussia

t.p. : [Kirnberger] score: Z outer label: X

4

4

[CPEB] 3

Appendix A

237

Provenance Group

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV5, W. 5

D-brd B St 197

[Polchau?], Ebeling

Z

4

D-brd B St 523

Grave

1-5: [Michel] cadenza: [Grave]

3

D-brd DS Mus. ms. 970

Breitkopf & Hartel

t.p. , 1, A, JCF Bach 2, 3: Un

4

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 10

Thulemeier

t.p. : X 1-5: LL

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/6

Dresden, royal private music collection; Tunerstein

4

6

BB

6

Uarell, Koldofsky

t.p. : Un M

6

[Lasserre?]

t.p. : J 1-5: An 302

3

D-ddr Bds P 352

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

D-brd B St 209

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

D-brd B St 362

[Otto and Karl

D-ddr WRtl (now WRz) Mus. IV c:8 US BEu Ms.

US Wc W.

NV 6, W. 46

5:

727

5

v. Voss]

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 16

Thulemeier

1: Un 1 2: Un 2 3-5: Un 3 6: [Un 3, rev. - CPEB] 7, 8: Un 4

1

1 1: An 301, rev. CPEB 2: Un , rev. CPEB 3-7: An 701 8: [CPEB] t.p. : [CPEBl Cemb. I, II: Un 1 VI. I, II, Violono: Z Via.: Un 2 Horns: Un 2

1

238

Appendix A Provenance

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 6, W. 46

B Be 5889

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B Am. Bib. 100

Anna Amalia of Prussia

Score:

4

US Wc W.

Lasserre

t.p., VI. I (1st mvmt.), B. :v JJ Cemb. I, f. lr8v: Un Cemb. I, f. 9r10, Cemb. II, VI. I (2nd, 3rd mvmts.), Via., Horns: GG

5

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B P 712

T

6

D-brd B St 217

An 305

3

NV 7,

46

B Be 5887

Group

[Agri-

cola] cover: X cadenza: LAgri¬ cola]

W. 6

Martini, Erk

D-brd St 533

Erk

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 19

Thulemeier

GB Lbm Add. Ms. 31679

Marshall

US BEu Ms.

Koldofsky

N

6

[Lasserre?]

t.p.: J 1: FF 2-5: An 302

3

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

US Wc W.

NV 8 W. 7

5

D-brd B St 532

728

6

D-ddr Bds P 352

1: Un 1 2-4: Un 2 '

6

4

5

Appendix A

239

Provenance Group

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 8, W. 7

D-brd B St 515

Erk

t. p.n.: [JCF Bach] 1-5: Un, [rev. CPEB]

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B St 219

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

C

5

US Wc W.

Lasserre

t. p., 1, 5: JJ 2, A: Un 1 3: GG

5

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

NV 9,

7

D-ddr Bds P 352

Wahler,

Polchau

B Be 5887

Westphal

D-brd B St 218

[Polchau?]

D-brd BFb B-ach 20

Furstlich Bentheimische Musiksammlung (Burgensteinfurt)

W. 8 A 1-5:

[Muthel]

5

6

D-ddr WRtl (now WRz) Mus. Ill c: 113 US BEu Ms.

US Wc W.

US

NV 10, W.

729

8

(private)

A

Koldofsky

t.p.: Un 1: N

6

Rust

t.p.: Un 1 1-5: Un 2

A

6

Kulukundis

D-ddr Bds P 352

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

n.:

A

D-ddr G01 Hus.

Boyneburg

AA

9

pag.

5/5

[Westphal]

6

240

Appendix A Provenance Owner(s)

Concerto

Source

NV 10, W. 9

PL Wu Mf 1700 nr. inw. 5710

US Wc W.

NV 11, W.

Copyist(s)

B Be 5887

5

[Mosewius, Akademische Institut fur Kirschenmusik]

•

t.p. : J 1: Un 1, n. by J •2-5 L An 302 Violono: Un 2, n. by J and K

[Lasserre?]

9

Group

Westphal

3

[Michel]

10 D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg.

NV 12, W. 11

Gorke 354

D-brd B P 354

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

B Be 5891

Poussin [?], Westphal

1-5: a copy of the Schmid ed. and 3 ms. parts Tromba I, Tromba II, Tympani: Un

B Be Litt.

12.217 Rellstab,

[Wagener?]

t.p., 1-5: V t .p.rt. : H

7

t.p.: E 1-8: Un

5

D-brd B St 202

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 2/0/3,4

Dresden, royal private music collection; Lebermann [?]

6

D-ddr GOl Mu's. pag. 5/2

Boyneburg

6

NS

Dk Kmk R 443 F Pc Ms.

1552

PL Wu Mf. 1700 nr. inw. 8172

Lasserre

1: Un 1 2-5: Un 2

5

[Mosewius, Akademische Institut fur Kirchenmusik]

Weiss

5

Appendix A

Concerto

Source

NV 12, W. 11

US BEu Ms.

730

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

Koldofsky

1, 2: Un 3-5: 0

Provenance Group

D-ddr Bds P 352

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

An 305

3

D-brd B St 210

[Polchau?]

1-5: Un 6: [Muthel]

4

1-5: Un t.p.n.: H

6

D-brd B St 361

4

D-brd B St 541

[Grave]

F Pc Ms.

Lasserre

t.p. : J 1-5: Un

5

Koldofsky

t.p.: Un 1: N

6

Rust

11

4

Westphal

[Michel]

3

1-3: Un 1 4: Un 2

3

1553

US BEu Ms.

US Wc W.

NV 14, W. 13

6

2

Schmid print

NV 13, W. 12

241

731

12

B Be 5887 D-brd B St 200

5: B 6: Un 3 US Wc W.

NV 15, W. 14

13

D-brd B Am. Bib. 93

Lasserre

t.p.: J 1-5: An 302

3

Anna Amalia of Prussia

score: Un label: [Kirn-

4

berger?] D-brd B St 207

[Otto and Karl v. voss]

5

242

Appendix A Provenance

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

NV 15, W. 14

D-brd B St 365

Ebeling

D-brd B St 516

Grave

D-brd B St 517

Grave

D-brd B St 627

G. J. v.

D-brd B N. Mus. BP 146

Pretlack

Copyist(s)

Group

4 a copy of the Winter ed. with ms. addition of the VI. I part in the cembalo part 4

S.

[Grave]

4

G

6

W

5

NS

DK Kmk R 444 D

4

Berlin: Winter

(PRINT)

2

London: Walsh

(PRINT)

6

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

F Pc Ms.

NV 16, W. 15

1550

D-ddr Bds P 352

Rust

Wahler, Polchau

6

B Be Litt. 26.656 US Wc W.

NV 17, W. 16

t Uarell, Lasserre

15

Westphal

B Be 5887 D-brd B St 360 D-brd B St 499

US BEu Ms.

NV 18, W. 17

732

D-ddr Bds P 352

Grave

5

U

[Michel]

3

[JCF Bach]

4

1-5: Un cadenzas:

4 [Grave ]

Koldofsky

0

6

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

Appendix A

243

Provenance Group

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 18, W. 17

B Be 5887

Westphal

R

4

T

6

D-brd B P 714 D-brd B St 542

Hallen

An 302

3

D-brd B St 543

Otto and Karl v. Voss

E

5

D-brd B St 544

Erk

[Schlichting]

5

t. p. : H 1: Un

6

D-brd B St 545

NV 19, W. 18

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 12

Thuletneier

LL

4

D-ddr SW1 Hus. 859/4

T. G. and J. F. Besser, Giistrower Domschule

EE

5

F Pc Ms.

1551

Lasserre

t.P.: J 1, 5: Un 1 2-4: Un 2

5

US Wc W.

17

Rust

t.p., 1: L 2-5: II

4

D-ddr Bds P 352

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

D-brd B St 199

4 [Borsch]

6

D-brd B St 271

[Polchau?]

JCF Bach

4

D-brd B St 366

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

E

5

D-brd B St 508

Grave

S

3

An 303

3

W

5

D-brd B St 576 D-brd B N. BP 145

Mus.

Pretlack

244

Appendix A Provenance Copyist(s)

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

NV 19, W. 18

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 20

Thulemeier

D-ddr G01 Mus. pag. 4/1

Boyneburg

US Wc W.

733

W.

4

AA

6

'

NS

1,2: N

KoIdofsky

6 5

18

London: Longman Lukey & Co.

NV 20,

1-5:

KK t.p.n.: X

DK Kmk R 401 US BEu Ms.

t.p.,

Group

(PRINT)

6

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

D-ddr Bds P 352

Wahler, Polchau

A Wgm VII 18 933

Arnstein

B Be 5887

Westphal

S

4

D-brd B Am. Bib. 97

Anna Amalia of Prussia

t.p.: Un score: Un cover label: X

4

1-5: Un cover label: [Nichelmann]

4

19 NS

D-brd B St 220

D-brd B St 512

Johannes

A

3

D-brd B St 513

Grave

1, 3-6: [Michel] 2: [Grave]

3

D-brd B St 514

Polchau

1-5: Muthel 4 t.p.n.: [Polchau]

D-brd B St 628

G. J. v.

D-ddr G01 Mus. pag- 5/8 US Wc W.

19

G

6

Boyneburg

AA

6

[Lasserre?]

t. p. : J 1: FF 2-5: An 302

3

S.

Appendix A

245

Provenance Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 21, W. 20

D-brd B P 354

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

D-brd B St 493

Polchau, Fuchs

1: CPEB 2,3: Un 1 and CPEB1 4,5: B and CPEB; 5 (2nd mvmt.): Un 2 t.p.n.: [Fuchs, Polchau]

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B Am. Bib. 96

Anna Amalia of Prussia

DD

4

JCF Bach

4

DD

4

D-brd B St 193 US Wc W. US

NV 22, W.

(private)

B Be 5887

NV 23,

[Forkel?]

5

Kulukundis, [Mme. Roesgin-Campion?]

Westphal

[Michel]

Lasserre

t.p.: J 1: An 302 2,3: FF 4,5: Un

B Br 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

D-brd B P 354

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

21

22

NV 24, W.

Commer,

21 US Wc W.

W.

20

Group

23

'''Note on the t.p.: "Ich vermuthe, dass die Violin etc. Stimmen von der Hand des Londoner Bach sind, der die Composition bei seinem Bruder Emanuel studiert."

246

Appendix A Provenance Copyist(s) [Michel]

3

t.p.: Un 1 score: Un 2

6

Lasserre

K

5

B Be 5887

Westphal

Q

4

D-brd B Am. Bib. 94

Anna Amalia of Prussia

4

D-brd B P 709

Miithel

4

D-brd B St 208

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

Cmic_er_t°

Source

Owner (s_)_

NV 24, W. 23

B Be 5887

Westphal

D-brd B P 715

US Wc W.

NV 25, W. 24

23

D-brd B St 363

Group

1-5: C t.p.n.: E

5

1-4: An 303 5: Un and H f. 1, n.: H

3

6

D-brd B St 504 D-brd B St 505

Grave

1-5: Un and Grave]

4

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 13

Thulemeier

KK

4

D-ddr WRtl (now WRz) Mus. IV c:9

6

DK Kmk

NS

US BEu Ms. US Wc W.

734

24

London: Longman, Lukey & Co.

6

Koldofsky [Lasserre?]

t. p.: J 1: FF 2-5: Un

5

(PRINT)

6

Appendix A

247

Provenance Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 26, W. 25

D-brd B P 355

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

B Be U 14,885

Polchau, Wagener, [Strahl]

1: Un occasional n., :

Group 1 5 H

Penzel

5

Pretlack

W

5

Pretlack

W

5

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 15

Thulemeier

4 t.p., 1: LL t. p. n. : X 2-5: the printed parts of the Schmid ed.

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/9

Dresden: royal private music collection

BB

D-ddr G01 Mus.

Boyneburg

D-brd B St 531 D-brd B N. Mus. BP 149 D-brd B N. Mus. BP 150

pag.

6

6

4/2

D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. 38

Gorke, J. V.

D-ddr SW1 Mus. 847

Herzog Friedrich von Mecklenburg (or his

NS

Bach

4

family) NS

DK Kmk R 421 F Pc Ms.

1549

GB Lbm: copy of Schmid ed.,

Areck,

5

Sorensen

Grave, Jahn, Gehring

handwritten alt. version of 11: Un

K 7i 10.

NS

S L Sami. Kraus 188 Numberg:

4

Schmid

London: Walsh

(PRINT)

2

(PRINT)

6

248

Appendix A Provenance Group

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist (s)

NV 27, W. 26

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

Lasserre

K

5

D-brd B P 355

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Bering, Westphal

[Michel]

3

GB Lbm Add. Ms.

Schicht, Albu

t.p., 1: An303 2-5: Un 1 Additional Basso: Un 2 Corr. I, II, FI. I, II, Ob. I, II: FF

3

US Wc W.

NV 28, W.

26

27

29907 US Wc W.

NV 29, W.

27

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B St 221

LLB

1-5: Un t.p.n.: H

6

D-ddr Bds M.

Thulemeier

28

Thul.

NS

21 NS

DK Kmk R 403 US

NV 30, W.

(private)

B Be 5887

5

Kulukundis, [Mme. Roesgin-Campion?]

Westphal

[Michel]

3

Lasserre

t.p.: K 1: J 2-5: Un

5

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

29 US Wc, W.

NV 31 W. 30

29

D-brd B P 354

Appendix A

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

NV 31, W. 30

D-brd B St 510

Petersen

B Be 5887

Westphal

Copyist(s)

249

Provenance Group

t.p.: [CPEB] 1-5: An 304

1

Q

4

D-brd B St 511

1: Un

6

D-brd B P 711

(AUTOGRAPH)

D-ddr Bds P 352

[?]

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH) 1: [CPEB] 2-5: Un, rev. [CPEB] 6-10: [Schlicht-

D-brd B St 524

ing, rev. CPEB]

NV 33, W.

[Michel]

B Be 5887

Westphal

US (private)

Kulukundis, [Mme. Roesgin-Campion?], Hiihne

D-ddr Bds P 352

Wahler, Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

D-brd B St 534

[Polchau?]

t.p.: [CPEB] 1: [JC Bach, rev. CPEB] 2-4: [Schlich-

1

32

ting] 5: Un, [rev. CPEB] 6-7: [CPEB] D-brd B DS Mus. ms. 522

Hauser, Anton

t.p.: [CPEB] 1-5: un

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

An 305

3

D-brd B Am. Bib. 95

Anna Amalie of Prussia

Y

4

D-brd B St 216

Muthe 1

[Miithel]

3

1-3: [Borsch] 4: An 305 T.p.n.: H

3

D-brd B St 535

250

Appendix A Provenance Owner(s)

Concerto

Source

NV 33, W. 32

D-brd B St 536

Copyist(s)

3

1: An 305 2-5: Un

D-brd B St 619

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

t. p. : F 1: Un 2-5: An 701

5

D-brd B N. Mus. BP 148

Pretlack

W

5

D-brd Bhm

[Rudorff]

Y

5 NS

D-brd Hs D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 14

Thulemeier

LL

US BEu Ms.

Koldofsky

cembalo, N

735

US Wc W.

NV 34,

4

t. p. :

32

D-brd B P 354

Rust

t.p., 1: L 2,3: Un 4,5: II

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

33 D-brd B St 538

1: Un 1 [and CPEB, rev. CPEB] 2-5: Un 1

D-brd B St 539

t.p.: [CPEB] 1: An 403 2-5: An 303 t. p. n. : H

B Be 5888

Westphal

[Michel]

D-brd B St 211

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

C

D-ddr WRtl (now WRz) Mus. Ill c: 111

6

5

Rinck, Mason

US NHu

W.

Group

4

Appendix A

251

Provenance Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 34, W. 33

GB Lbm Add. Ms. 29907

Albu,

CC

NV 35, W. 34

D-brd B P 354

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

D-brd B N. Mus. ms. 42

Grave

t.p.: CPEB 1-5: [Grave]

Schicht

1: [Michel] 1 Beilage: [CPEB] 2-5: An 303

D-ddr Bds St 500

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 17

Thulemeier

B Be 5887

Westphal

1: Un inserted page: [CPEB?]

An 303?

D-brd B P 1211 D-brd B St 213

Hering

Hering 1-5: [Borsch] t. p. n. : H

D-brd B St 359

D-brd B St 501 1: An 305 2-5: [Borsch] t.p.n. : H

D-brd B St 502

D-brd B N. Mus.

Pretlack

W

BP 147 D-ddr GOl Mus. pag. 5/4

Boyneburg

US Wc W.

Lasserre

34

London: Longman, Lukey & Co.

Group

t.p.: J? 1: Un 1 2-5: Un 2 (PRINT)

5

252

Appendix A Provenance Group

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist (s)

NV 36, W. 35

D-ddr Bds P 356

Polchau

score: An 300 1 Corr. I, II (sep¬ arate parts): CPEB

D-brd B St 519

B Be 5887

Westphal

B Be Litt. 12.217

[Wagener,

1

R

4 5

Strahl]

D-brd B P 710

score: V t.p.n. : H

6

D-brd B St 206

An 303

3

D-brd B St 518

1-5: Un t.p.n.: H

6

D-brd B St 520

Erk

An 302

3

D-brd B St 581

[Grave]

1: [Grave] 2-5: Hering

4

D-ddr WRtl (now WRz) Mus. Ill c:

NV 37, W. 36

t.p., 1: Un 1 [and CPEB] 2-5: 'Un 2 6,7: Un 3

6 18

GB Lbm Add. Ms. 29907

Albu,

US Wc W. 35

D-ddr Bds P 356 D-brd B St 530

Schicht

CC

5

[Rust]

D

4

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

t.p.: [CPEB] 1: [Michel] 2: Un

1

3: An 301 4: A 5: A, [rev. CPEB]

Appendix A

253

Provenance Group

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 37,

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-ddr Bds P 356

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

t.p.: [CPEB] 1: [Michel, rev. CPEB] 2,3: An 305 4,5: [Michel]

1

[Michel]

3

1,2:

3

W.

36

NV 38, W. 37

D-brd B St 526

B Be 5887

Westphal

D-brd B St 198

[Michel?]

3-5: Un

NV 39, W.

D-ddr Bds P 356

Polchau

D-brd B St 540

NV 40, W.

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

t.p.: [CPEB] 1: An 304 2,3: [CPEB] 4,5,7: An 304 (I and III) and Un 1 (II) 6: An 304 (I and III) and Un 2 (II)

1

38

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B St 529

Hissman [?]

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

1-5: V t.p.n. : H

6

39

D-brd B St 528

US BEu Ms. US We W. 39

736

Koldofsky

6

Lasserre

5

254

Appendix A Provenance Group

Concerto

Source

Owne r(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 41,

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B P 353

Polchau

score: A [and CPEB]

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B St 212

[Polchau?]

1-5: JCF Bach

4

W.

40

NV 42, W.

41

NV 43, W.

42

6-7: A t.p.n. : H

NV 44, W.

A Wgm VII 3871

43/1 CS Pmn XVIII F 20 D-brd B St 537

Grave

t .p., 1,2,6: [Grave] 3-5,7,8: U

6

D-brd B St 575 D-brd B St 619

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

t. p. : F 1,6,7: An 702 2-5: An 701

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/3

Dresden, Royal private music collection

BB

D-ddr G01 Mus.

Boyneburg

pag.

4

5

o

4/13

F Pc Ms.

1555

Hamburg:

CPEB

Lasserre

t.p.: K 1-7: HH

5

(PRINT)

2

Appendix A

255

Provenance Group

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

NV 45, W. 43/2

D-brd B St 201

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

F

5

D-brd B St 509

[Grave]

1,3-7: U 2: [Grave]

4

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/3

Dresden, royal pri¬ vate music collection

BB

6

D-ddr G01 Mus. pag. 4/11

Boyneburg

Hamburg: CPEB

NV 46, W. 43/3

6

(PRINT)

2

D-brd B St 205

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

t. p. : F 1,6,7: An 702 2-5: An 701

5

D-brd B St 521

Grave

1,2,6,7: [Grave] 3-5,10,11: U 8,9: Un 1

4

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/3

Dresden, royal private music collection

BB

6

D-ddr G01 Mus.

Boyneburg

pag.

6

4/12

D-ddr SW1 Mus. 859,2

T. G. and J. F. Besser, Giistrower

EE

5

(PRINT)

2

Domschule Hamburg: CPEB

NV 47, W. 43/4

D-brd B St 196

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

1,6,7: An 702 2-5: An 701

5

D-brd B St 527

Grave

1,2,6: [Grave] 3-5,7,8: U

4

D-ddr Dlb Mus. 3029/0/3

Dresden, royal private music collection

BB

256

Appendix A Provenance

Concerto

Source

Owner(s)

NV 47, W. 43/4

D-ddr G01 Mus. pag. 4/14

Boyneburg

D-ddr SW1 Mus. 859/3

T. G. and J. F. Besser, Giistrower Domschule

NV 48, W. 43/5

Group 6

• 5

EE

6

US NYp

'

Hamburg: CPEB

(PRINT)

2

V

D-brd B St 215

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

1,6,7: An 702 2-5: An 701

5

D-brd B St 503

Grave

t. p., n. on 1 : [Grave] 1-7: U

4

D-ddr Dlb Mus.

Dresden, royal private music collection

BB

6

(PRINT)

2

3029/0/3 Hamburg: CPEB

NV 49, W. 43/6

Copyist(s)

6

A Wgm VII 1407 D-brd B St 194

[Otto and Karl v. Voss]

t. p.D 1: Un 2-5: An 701 6-8: An 702

5

D-ddr Dlb Mus.

Dresden, royal private music collection

BB

6

3029/0/3 D-brd B St 494

Grave

1,3-7: U 2: [Grave]

4

D-brd LB gel ie Mappe IX/10

Charles Louis Prince de Hohenlohe

NS

D-ddr G01 Mus. pag. 5/1

Boyneburg

6

F Pc Ms.

Lasserre

1554

t.p. : K 1-8: HH

5

Appendix A

Concerto

Source

NV 49, W. 43/6

Hamburg: CPEB

NV 50, W, 44

D-brd B P 353

NV 51, W. 45

NV 52, W. 47

NV p. 53,

W. 120

Owner(s)

Copyist(s)

257

Provenance Group

(PRINT)

2

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B P 353

Polchau

(AUTOGRAPH)

1

B Be 5887

Westphal

[Michel]

3

D-brd B N,. Mus. SA 4

Levy

t.p.: Un score: [CPEB]

1

B Be 5890

Westphal

[Michel]

3

H Bn Mus. ms. IV.694

Haydn

[Michel]

3

B Be 5871

Westphal

[Michel]

3

‘

.

Appendix B Concertos Falsely Attributed to C. P. E. Bach and Concertos of Questionable Authenticity

Appendix B lists spurious works, as well as concertos of uncertain authorship, in¬ cluding both those specifically attributed to C. P. E. Bach and those attributed only to “Bach,” orfor some reason believed to be possibly a work of C. P. E. Bach. At the head of each entry are bibliographic citations to discussions of these works; for the full citation, see the List of Abbreviations. Sources I have not examined, either directly or on microfilm, are marked “NS”—“not seen.”

Concertos Falsely Attributed to C. P. E. Bach XI.

Concerto in D Minor (by Christoph Nichelmann) Kast, Wq. n. v. 33; Lee, Concerto XIV; Suchalla, Incerta. . .Nr. 4; Uldall, p. 67.

X2.

Concerto in B-Flat Major (by Christoph Nichelmann) Kast, Wq. n. v. 36; Lee, Concerto X; Suchalla, Incerta. . .Nr. 5; Uldall, p. 67.

X3.

Concerto in E-Flat Major (by Johann Christian Bach, Op. VII, 5) Schokel 190, 5; Ty 294,5

X4.

Concerto in C Major (by Johann Christian Bach, Op. XIII, 1) Schokel 190,1; Ty 295,1

X5.

Concerto in E-Flat Major (by Johann Christian Bach) Schokel 188,7; Ty 297,1; Uldall, p. 66.

X6.

Concerto in A Major (by Johann Christian Bach) Kast, p. 93; Schokel 189,1; Ty 297,2; Cudworth, p. 534.

X7.

Concerto in F Minor (by Johann Christian Bach) Kast, p. 89; Ty 301,17; Uldall, pp. 66, 89-91.

260

Appendix B

X8.

Concerto in F Minor (by Georg Benda) Uldall, pp. 83, 108.

X9.

Concerto in D Major for Viols (by Henri Casadesus?) Cudworth, pp. 32, 534.

Concertos Attributed to C. P. E. Bach, of Questionable Authenticity X10.

Concerto in F Major

XI1.

Concerto in E-Flat Major; Kast, Wq. n. v. 68; Uldall, p. 67.

X12.

Concerto in G Minor

X13.

Concerto in D Major

Concertos with Ambiguous Attributions (Not, or Probably not, by C. P. E. Bach) X14.

Concerto in B-Flat Major (by Johann Christian Bach, Op. I, 1) Schokel 189,1; Ty 292,1.

X15.

Concerto in G Major (by Johann Christian Bach, Op. I, 4) Kast, p. 89; Schokel 189,4; Ty 292,4.

X16.

Concerto in B-Flat Major (by Johann Christian Bach, Op. VII, 4) Schokel 190,4; Ty 294,4.

X17.

Concerto in C Major

X18.

Concerto in D Major

X19.

Concerto in E Minor

X20.

Concerto in B-Flat Major; Kast, Bach-Incerta 35; Daffner, pp. 39^10.

X21.

Concerto in G Major; Kast, Bach-Incerta 36

X22.

Concerto in D Major (by Johann Gabriel Seifert) Kast, Bach-Incerta 37: Uldall, pp. 80-82.

X23.

Concerto in B-Flat Major; Kast, Wq. n. v. 67

Appendix B

261

X24.

Concerto in C Minor

X25.

Concerto in F Major (by Johann Christian Bach, Op. VII, 2) Kast, p. 93; Ty 293,2.

X26.

Concerto in B-Flat Major (by Johann Nikolaus Tischer) Uldall, p. 94.

Arrangements of Questionable Authenticity X27.

Concerto in C Minor (W. 5, III, arranged for solo keyboard) Kast, Wq. n. v. 40.

X28.

Concerto in D. Minor (W. 22, arranged for flute) Blechschmidt, p. 87; Kast, p. 45; Suchalla, Incerta. . .Nr. 2

X29.

Concerto in B-Flat Major (W. 25, arranged for two harpsichords)

X30.

Concerto in D Minor, BWV 1052a (a different version of the Concerto in D Minor by J. S. Bach, BWV 1052)

262

Appendix B

Concertosq Falsely Attributed to C. XI.

P.

E.

Bach

Concerto in D Minor (by Christoph Nichelmann) Kast, Wq. n. v. 33; Lee, Concerto XIV; Suchalla, Uldall, p.

Incerta...Nr.

4;

67.

Adagio

Allegro

rfr—sE to*c -

«-• p-

T1 rf rUfli-rn n i£

-P-

-t,- -

r h __H_____LJ_ < *

p

-J-

—1--i—1—

J

—i Li-14-L

RONDEAU Allegretto

Manuscript Sources a.

CS KRa II F 6:

"Concerto per il Clavi Cambalo Violino Primo Violino

Second Alto Viola non oblig. Bass Del Sig. Carlo Pach" NS b.

D-ddr Dlb 3374/0/15: "Concerto 1™°/ Cembalo im°/ Concertante Cembalo II^° di Ripieno)/ di J. C.

(bzw.

Bach" NS

Early Edit ions Johann Christian Bach's six concertos. Op. XIII, were published in many early editions and reprints by Welcker, Dale, and others; see RISM A I,

1, B 282-B 297.

Sieber, Hummel,

269

270

Appendix B

X5.

Concerto in E-Flat Major

(by Johann Christian Bach)

Schokel 188,7; Ty 297,1; Uldall, p.

66.

Allegro di molto

Hartknoch edition

3-~

$= ■

-

—&

N

=

1 •

n

Adagio con sordini

-ft-A-o-hZ2 VP h7 4 ^ 77 r r v t # Ty r

1

In

s~\ • 1 -7k>

rTA

/

^ 1

r. tu r-p-r— L J— W v 7W m .

1

7

m

IV

k

A

iti y / 1

~

T^h

Tr

1

r-

i J w „

LL I

u *L

u 1T 0

-T~

6 ^7

I 9

- -

L

(o

Allegro con spirito

d— * i I '1 —l^fTTlT^: -——#«*-•—r-d—— —dt-----v

p— w m- M

h—r—s,—£—£-

_W

w.:

-0 » — r 0-

3^' Manuscript a.

D-brd Primo/

E.

Source B

St

522:

Violino

Bach."

"Concerto Secondo.

in Dis.

Viola

a

y./

Cembalo

e/ Violono/

Obligato/

da/

Sigre

Violino

Carl Philipp

Appendix B Xll.

285

(cont.)

Manuscript

Source

copyist:

(cont.)

One

cello parts

copyist

(J.

E.

wrote

Oppel,

the

title

according

page,

to

cembalo,

Kast,

p.

viola,

90).

and

Another wrote

the violin parts.

owner:

J.

note:

There

Since

the

whether

E.

Oppel

has

title

or not

been page

the

from an authentic series

of

(written on

dots and

some

cover became concerto. short

the paper used

staves.

Occasionally

onto

cover,

there. last

For

page

exactly.

example, the

at

for the

if

erasure

This

is not the

in

ran

cover

the

one wonders

case,

however.

show that the

rastral

the

lines

of

the

it

off

the

the page and lines

is placed staves

A

lay

ruling of

the pattern of dots and

the Violoncello part

cover,

the attribution.

some point with one

the

the parts during scribe

of

loose cover,

exchanged at

lines on

resulting

is over

attempt

title page).

is written on a

beneath

the

the

so

seen that

correspond

its

286

Appendix B

X12.

Concerto in G Minor

US Wc M 1010.A2B13 L.

Allegro

p

I

'-Mrw--*=i

-

), « £ 71* 5

f rltA= y 9 a—r -*1^'rrrbSj-

*-

-f-

0

P

1

C.

1

‘

ffrl

$=

f-— &

Largo con sordino

Presto di molto

~z 1

p=p=ffl V.A, D V A

P

rrffi LJ- CJ-f'

r—H 4 /

..

E» f— -1L

Manuscript Source a.

US Wc M 1010.A2B13 L. C.

1:

"N.

39/ Concerto Cembalo/ Violino Primo/

Violino Secondo/ Viola/ e/ Basso/ C. P. E. copyist: unknown

Bach."

Appendix B X12

287

(cont.)

Manuscript Source

(cont.)

owner:

Uarell

note:

The Library of Congress acquired this manuscript on 26 June

1907,

the date stamped

on the Inside back cover.

among the sources acquired from Liepmannssohn.

This places it

288

Appendix B

X13.

Concerto in D Major

^=4 r-r-

=f Rondo

Manuscript Source a.

US (private):

"Concerto/ Per il Clavicembalo/ Con Due Violini,

Violetta, e Basso/ Del SigT Carlo Filippo Emanuel Bach." copyist: unknown owner: Kulukundis note:

In a letter to Grave of 28 April 1784 C. P.

E.

Bach wrote,

"I have not yet attempted to bring in a rondo in a concerto."

(In

einem Concerte ein Rondeau anzubringen habe ich nocht nicht versucht; quoted by Bitter,

II, 305).

It

is improbable

that this two-movement

work with its concluding rondo was composed by C. P. E. Bach.

Appendix B

289

Concertos with Ambiguous Attributions (Not, or Probably not, X14.

by C.

P.

E.

Bach)

Concerto in B-Flat Major (by Johann Christian Bach, Op. Schokel 189,1; Ty 292,1

Allegretto

I,

1)

Welcker edition

Menuetto

~~FT—Z 7 / TP-j

^ ^-

m

i

r

's

3 —r-pr— . ^ ^ ‘f

► iii

^ IIP

o ., * i • t zt:

o — "C— 2—

’

w-4.--h £ 1 1^1 ILJ -4---:-—-:-

~

I 1

Manuscript Sources a.

CS KRa II F 2:

"Concerto Del Sigre Bach." NS

b.

D-ddr G01 Mus. p.

4/5:

Violoncello./ da/ Giov. c.

D-ddr Dlb 3374/0/4:

"CONCERTO. C.

I./ Cembalo cone:/ 2 Violini/ et/

Bach."

"Six Concerts./ Pour le/ Clavecin./ deux Violons,/

et Violoncelle,/ Composes/ par/ J. C. d.

D-ddr Dlb 3374/0/5,

1:

Bach" NS

[arranged for two harpsichords]

im°/ a/ Due Cembali/ Cembalo im°, Concertante/ Ripieno)/ di J.

C.

Bach" NS

(bzw.

"Concerto

Cembalo II^°

290

Appendix B

X14

(cont.)

e.

D-ddr Bds St.

Landsberg 313/3:

"Concerto/ Per Cimbalo/ Del Sigr:

Giovanni Bach." f.

F Pn Vm.7 5968: NS

g.

D-ddr SW1:

"Concerto per/ Cembalo Obligato/ Violino Primo/ Violino

Secondo/ Del Sig°r/ Bach." NS note:

See Otto Kade, Die Musikalien-Sammlung des Grossherzoglichen

Mecklenburg-Schweriner Furstenhauses aus den letzten zwei Jahrhunderten (1893, I,

128.

1899; rpt.

Georg 01ms, Hildesheim, New York, 1974),

Apparently this source only includes parts for VI.

I, VI.

II, and "Clavezino." Early Editions Johann Christian Bach's six concertos, Op.

I, were published in many

early editions and reprints by Welcker, Hummel, Bremner, see RISM A I,

1,

B 264-B 274.

and others;

I am grateful to Elias Kulukundis for

informing me that the earliest edition was the composer's own, pub¬ lished first in London and then in Paris, and that the jilates of this edition were later used by Welcker and Bremner (letter of 17 July 1979).

Appendix B X15.

Concerto in G Major (by Johann Christian Bach, Kast, p. 89; Schokel 189,4; Ty 292,4.

All

asai

I, 4)

Welcker edition

F=p£=F=|•— 9

i>

Op.

291

4 -

hf - =H= =s=a -r* #

©

— -a

w

0 m

*

•—

m-

m

-f-

sqpr-jp-

* ^— — * r r

L-p-

Andtelegati

Presto

Manuscript Sources a.

CS KRa II F-5:

"Concerto Del Sigre Bach." NS

b.

D-ddr G01 Mus.

p.

4/8:

e/ Violoncello/ da/ G.

"CONCERTO IV./ a/ Cembalo cone:/ 2 Violini/ C.

Bach."

292

Appendix B

X15

(cont.)

c.

D-ddr Dlb 3374/0/4:

"Six Concerts./ Pour le/ Clavecin./ deux

Violons,/ et Violoncelle,/ Composes/ par/ J. C. d.

D-ddr Dlb 3374/0/5,2:

Bach" NS

[arranged for two harpsichords]

[!]/ a/ Due Cembali/ Cembalo Imo, Concertante/

(bzw.

Cembalo IIdo

Ripieno)/ di J.

C.

Bach" NS

D-brd B St 488:

Concerto, ex G. dur. per il/ Cembalo Concertato./

S

e.

"Concerto IVa

N

con/ Violino Primo./ Violino Secundo./ et/ Violoncello./ Dal Sige: Jean Bach/ No: f.

IV." NS

I Me Noseda B 36/20 (= vol. Sig. J.

[?] Gio. Bach./

114, no.

992/38):

[in another hand:]

"Cembalo/ Concerti del

Op.

1 1763 Bremner London/

[illegible]." [score] g.

I Me Noseda B 85

(= vol.

Del Sigr. Gio. Bach." note:

116, no.

See Eugenio de' Guarinoni,

D-brd HR:

"Concerts pour le Clavecin/

[parts]

musicale Noseda (Milan: Reggiani, h.

973/19):

Indice generale dell' Archivio 1897), p.

22.

"Concerto ex G ./ a/ Cembalo obligato./ Violino Primo/

Violino Secondo/ Con/ Basso/ del Sgr. i.

F Pn Vm.^ 4877, fol.

42v:

j.

D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. 44:

Bach."

[last movement only:] "De Bach. Presto." [keyboard part only:]

Clavecin/ 2. Violini et Violoncello/ di J. owner: Manfred Gorke

Early Editions See X14.

C.

"Concerto pour le Bach/ a Majland." NS

Appendix B X15

293

(cont,)

Modern Edition a.

Johann Christian Bach.

Concerto for Piano With the accompaniment of

two violins and violoncello. Op.

I., No.

4^.

Ed. Alfred Mann.

ments of the Musical Past, ed. Alfred Mann, No. University Press, note:

1.

Docu¬

Rutgers: Rutgers

[1953].

This concerto has been recorded as one by Johann Christoph

Friedrich Bach in the Sine Qua Non set "Sons of Bach," SQN 119/3X, in a performance by Helma Eisner and the Mainz Chamber Orchestra, conducted by Gunter Kehr.

294 X16.

Appendix B Concerto in B-Flat Major

(by Johann Christian Bach, Op. VII, 4)

Schoke1 190,4; Ty 294,4.

All° Giusto

Welcker edition

Manuscript Sources a.

D-ddr WRtl Mus.

1 Mus.

IV c:

16: Concerto di Cembalo/ in B/ Accom-

pagnato di due/ Violini e Vioncello [!]/ di Bach." b.

D-ddr Dlb 3374/0/12:

[arranged for two harpsichords:]

Per il/ Due Cembali/ Cembalo Im° Concertante Ripieno)/ di J.

C.

(bzw.

"Concerto IVa/

Cembalo II^°

Bach" NS

Early Editions Johann Christian Bach's six concertos, Op. VII, were published in many early editions and reprints by Hummel, Welcker, de La Chevardifere (Gerardin), Longman & Broderip, and Torricella; B 281.

see RISM A I,

1, B 275-

Appendix B X17.

Concerto in C Major

Allegro

a.

[?]

CS KRa II F 3:

cs KRa II F 3

"Concerto Del Sig.

Bach" NS

295

296

Appendix B

X18.

Concerto in D Major

CS KRa II G 1

Manuscript Source a.

CS KRa II G 1:

"Concerto Ex D Con 11 Instrumenti Clavi Cembalo

2 Violini 2 Flauti Traversi 2 Oboe 2 Corni Alto Viola e Basso Del Sig.

Bach.” NS

Appendix B X19.

297

Concerto in E Minor

Allegretto

US Wc M 1010.A2B13 L.

C.

Adagio

Presto

zz VB-

-

U1

r~ *#

f

r f1-C^—f—hi 1




■>«

Appendix C Copyists

The identification of copyists was done largely from microfilm and can only be regarded as tentative. Certain patterns do emerge, however, among the thirty-eight copyists I have arbitrarily named with letters of the alphabet. To a great extent these copyists are encountered among the sources owned at some point by one indi¬ vidual or institution: Copyists A, B C, E, F D, I, L, II G J, K, FF, GG, HH, JJ M N, O, P Q,R,S U V W X Y, Z, DD CC EE KK, LL

Encountered in Manuscripts Owned by: C. P. E. Bach Voss Rust G. J. v. S.[?] Lasserre Uarell [?] or Agrell Koldofsky J. J. H. Westphal Grave Rellstab Pretlack Joachimsthalsche Gymnasium (possibly a librarian?) Anna Amalia Schicht Besser Thulemeier

The designations “An300,” “An 301,” etc. are those of Paul Kast in Die Bach-Handschriften der Berliner Staatsbibliothek and refer to copyists associated with C. P. E. Bach. Kast was also able to provide the names of certain copyists, who had either signed their work or been identified in some other way.

318

Appendix C

The list below provides an overview of the activity of all the copyists. The use of double letters to identify certain copyists (AA, BB, etc.) is only an arbitrary method and implies no relationship to copyists designated by single letters (A, B, etc.). In some cases the copyist may have written only one part in the manuscript set of parts listed next to his name; for these details, consult Appendix A or Appen¬ dix B. Agricola, Johann Friedrich (1720-1774):

D-brd B Am. H

Bib.

100

(W.

Altnickol, Johann Christoph (1719-1759): D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. (App.

40

B, X7) Bach, Johann Christian

B St 534

(W.

(1735-1782): D-brd B St 493

32); D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. 40 (App.

(W.

20)?; D-brd

B, X7)?

Bach, Johann Christoph Friedrich (1732-1795): D-brd DS Mus. ias. (W.

5); D-brd B St 515

(W.

(W.

18); D-brd B St 193

(W.

7);

D-brd B St 360 (W.

20); D-brd B St 212

Borsch, Johann Stephan (c. D-brd B St 535

(W.

(W.

See Appendix A, note 1.

(W.

42) (W.

34); D-brd B St 502

(1804-1857): D-brd B P 438

Fuchs, Aloys (1799-1853):

16); D-brd B St 271

1744-1804): D-brd B St 199

32); D-brd B St 359

Fischhof, Josef

1.

46)

V

(W.

18); (W.

1)

t. p. n. on D-brd B St 493

(W.

20)

34)

970

Appendix C Gerber, Ernst Ludwig (1746-1819): A Wn PhA 73

(App.

B X6)

Grave, Johann Heinrich (?-after 1810): All D-brd B: St 498

(W.

4);

St 523

(W.

(W.

16);

St 513

(W.

(W.

35);

St 537

(W. 43/1);

(W.

43/4);

St 503

Hering, S.

19);

5);

(W.

St 210 (W.

St 505

St 509

43/5);

5889 W.

Bib.

99

(W.

6, W.

B Be 5887

22, W.

23, W.

D-ddr Bds St 500 (W. D-brd B St 198 W.

40, W.

(W.

41, W.

(W.

26, W.

(W.

(W.

7, W.10,

27, W.

93

1, W. W.

28, W.

37); D-brd B St 526 (W.

H Bn Ms mus IV 694

(W.

42 arr., W. 47);

42

(W.

12);

St 514 (W.

44, W.

B Be 5871 (W.

Nichelmann,

Oppel, J. Penzel,

170

(App. E.

(App.

(W.

34);

St 581

St 527

13,

36);

1), D-brd

3, W. 4);

W.

29, W.

(W.

35)

14) cover label?

2, W.

16,

31);

W.

B Be 20,

B Be 5888 (W.

B Be 5887

(W.

36, W.

37);

B Be 5887

(W.

38, W.

45);

B Be 5890

(W.

47);

33); 37);

39,

120) St 218

(W. 8);

(W. 32)

B, XI); D-ddr Bds Am.

B, X7) cover label;

(?-?): D-brd B St 522

19) cover label;

Bib. 521 (App.

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. 4 (App.

B, X2);

(App.

B X30)

B, Xll)

Christian Friedrich (1737-1805): D-brd B St 531 (W.

Polchau, Georg tents,

St 216

St 499

43/3);

Christoph (1717-1762): D-brd B St 220 (W.

D-ddr Bds M. Thul. D-brd B St 482

19);

(W.

(W.

Miithel, Johann Gottfried (1728-1788): All D-brd B: St 210

14);

34); D-brd B St 581 (W.

34); D-brd B St 530 (W.

42, W.

(W.

(W. 3);

43/6)

t. p.; D—brd B Am. Bib. B Be 5887

21, W.

St 521

St 497

(1721-1783): D-brd B P 239

Michel (?-after 1789): 46);

43/2);

(W.

(?-?): D-brd B St 213

(W. 5)

St 517

24); N. Mus. ms.

(W.

St 494

Kirnberger, Johann Philipp B Am.

(W.

12);

319

(1773-1836): Polchau wrote notations,

25)

tables of con¬

or title pages on nearly all the sources he owned: D-ddr Bds P 352,

320

Appendix C

D-brd B P 353, D-brd B P 354, D-brd B P 355, D-ddr Bds P 356, D-brd B St 514

(W.

19), D-brd B St 493

(W.

20)

Rust, Friedrich Wilhelm (1739-1796): Rust signed his name on the manuscript copies he owned

(see Appendix D).

Schlichting (?-?): D-brd B St 544 (W. D-brd B St 534

(W.

32); D-ddr Bds M. Thul.

2

17); D-brd B St 524 (W. 4

(App.

B, X30)

H Weiss, F. G.

(?-?): PL Wu Mf 1700 nr.

inw.

31);

8172

\

(W.

11)

Westphal, Johann Jacob Heinrich (1756—1825): note on B Be 5887 An300: D-ddr Bds P 356 An301: D-brd B St 362

(W. (W.

(W.

17); US Wc M 1010.A2B13 An303: D-brd B St 576

A2B13

(W.

?; D-brd B P 1211 An304_:

(W.

(W.

St 526 (W.

2

(W.

9, W.

(W.

21); D-brd B St 520 (W.

B Be 5887

(W.

(W.

35)

24); US Wc M 1010.

(W. 34 arr. = W.

169)

34)

30; D-brd B St 540 (W. 6);

36)

13); D-brd B St 542

33); D-brd B P 769

32); D-brd B St 536 (W.

38)

12, W.

32); D-brd B St 502

32); D-brd B (W.

34); D-brd B

37)

An701: All D-brd B: (W.

19, W.

6, W.

18): D-brd B St 363

D-brd B St 510 (W.

An403: D-brd B St 539

St 205

(W.

5, W.

34)?; D-ddr Bds St 500 (W.

An305: D-brd B St 217 St 535

(W.

(W.

27); D-brd B St 539

35) 46); D-brd B St 530 (W.

An302: US Wc M 1010.A2B13

(W. 9)

43/3);

St 196

(W.

St 362 (W.

33) (W.

43/4);

46);

St 619

St 215

(W.

(W.

32);

43/5);

St 619

St 194

(W.

(W.

43/1);

43/6)

Samples of Rust's handwriting are included in Friedrich Wilhelm Rust, Werke fur Klavier und Streichinstrumente, ed. Rudolf Czach, Das Erbe deutscher Musik, Zweite Reihe, Bd. 1 (Wolfenbuttel, Berlin: Georg Kallmeyer, 1939).

Appendix C An702: All D-brd B: (W.

43/4);

St 215

(W.

A: All D-brd B: St 212

(W.

St 619

43/5);

F Pc Ms.

1550

18);

(W.

(W.

St 208

43/3);

(W.

St 530 (W.

(W.

(W.

St 619

7);

(W.

St 208 (W.

3);

St 202

(W.

(App.

(W.

14);

32);

St 502 (W.

12); D-brd B St 363

St 221

(W.

34);

(W.

28);

P 710

St 535

(W.

33)

35)

St 543

(W.

17);

(W.

43/1);

35);

St 201 (W.

43/2);

B, X23) St 628 (W.

19)

of D-brd B St 545

(W.

24);

(W.

St 518

12.217

B Be 14.885

32);

St 539

(W. 35);

(W.

(W.

(W. 25,

(W. 33); St 528

17) and wrote 11); D-brd B II); All

St 359

(W.

39);

(W.

34);

St 212

42) I_:

US Wc M 1010.A2B13

(W.

2, W.

17)

J:

US Wc M 1010.A2B13

(W.

5, W.

6 W.

US Wc M 1010.A2B13 (W.

41);

St 211 (W.

(W.

11);

short notations on many other sources: B Be Litt.

D-brd B:

(W.

20)

24);

(W.

St 619

H: This copyist wrote the t. p.

(W.

St 196

24)

St 619

G: D-brd B St 627

St 361

43/3);

36); P 353

14); US Wc M 1010.A2B13

St 214

F: All D-brd B: St 205

19);

(W.

43/6)

13); D-brd B St 493

St 219

E: All D-brd B: (W.

(W.

St 205

42)

C: All D-brd B:

St 366

43/1);

St 194 (W.

St 512

B: D-brd B St 200 (W.

D:

(W.

321

19, W.

21, W.

(W.

13); F Pc Ms.

24, W.

29, W.

K: US Wc M 1010.A2B13 (W. 43/1);

F Pc Ms.

(W.

1554 (W.

L: US Wc M 1010.A2B13

1551

(W.

1553

(W.

12)

17); US Wc M 1010.A2B13

34?) 3, W.

9, W.

43/6)

(W.

9); F Pc Ms.

17, W.

32)

23, W.

26); F Pc Ms.

1555

322

Appendix C M: US BEu Ms.

727

(W. 5); US Wc M 1010.A2B13 L. C.

X12); US Wc M 1010.A2B13 L. N: All US BEu: Ms. Ms.

733

(W.

18); Ms.

C.

728

735

2

(W.

(W.

(App. 6); Ms.

729

11); US BEu Ms.

P; US BEu Ms.

727

8); US BEu Ms.

B Be 5887

(W.

5, W.

R:

B Be 5887

(W.

17, W.

S: D-brd B St 508

(W.

U: All D-brd B: St 527 V:

(W.

43/4);

B Be Lltt.

St 528 (W.

24, W.

(W.

St 537

St 503 12.217

cembalo);

25,

B Be 5887

43/1);

43/5);

(W.

732

(W.

12);

736

(W.

(W.

19)

16) 39)

(W.

6);

St 509

St 494

P 714

(W.

(W.

(App. BP 146

strings);

(W.

43/2);

17)

St 521 (W.

43/3);

43/6)

11); D-brd B P 710 (W.

39); D-brd B P 680

BP 150 (W.

731 (W.

30)

3); P 712

(W.

(W.

W: All D-brd B N. Mus.:

8); Ms.

35)

18);

T: All D-brd B: P 708

(W.

32)

730 (W.

Q:

B,

B, X19)

0: US BEu Ms.

(W.

1 (App.

35); D-brd B

B, XI) (W.

14);

BP 148

BP 145

(W.

32);

(W.

18);

BP 147

(W.

BP 149

(W.

25,

34)3

X: Copyist X wrote cover labels on Amalien-Bibliothek manuscripts, and title-page notations on Thulemeier manuscripts, as well as the entire title page of D-ddr Bds M. Th.

170 (App.

B, XI).

Copyist X might have

been a librarian in the Joachimsthalsche Gymnasium, since both the Thulemeier and the Amalien-Bibliothek collections were there at one point. X-s hand is represented in D-brd B Am.

Bib.

99

(W.

5); D-brd B Am.

Bib.

Copyist W here is equivalent to the copyist identified by Joachim Jaenecke as "Kopist 1" in Die Musikbibliothek des Ludwig Freiherrn von Pretlack (1716-1781), Neue Musikgeschichtliche Forschungen, Bd. 8, ed. Lothar Hoffmann-Erbrecht (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1973).

Appendix C 100

(W.

46); D-ddr Bds M. Thul.

D-ddr Bds M. Thul.

15

Y: D-brd B Am.

(W.

Bib.

Z: D-brd B St 197 Thul.

16

(W.

20

95

(W.

(W.

5/8

(W.

32); D-brd Bhm (W.

5); D-brd B Am.

3029/0/3

IV c:8 (W.

DP: D-brd B Am.

Bib.

96

EE: All D-ddr SW1: Mus.

(W.

32)

99

(W.

5); D-ddr Bds M.

(W.

2); pag.

5/5

(W.

5); D-ddr Dlb Mus.

(W.

(W.

33, W.

9); pag.

3029/0/9

4/1

(W.

25);

35)

20); US Wc M 1010.A2B13

859/4 (W.

(W.

6, W.

GG: US Wc M 1010.A2B13

(W.

46, W.

17); Mus.

F Pc Ms.

1555

(W.

43/1);

19, W.

859/2

(W.

20)

(W. 43/3); Mus.

F Pc Ms.

1554

(W.

2, W.

JJ: US Wc M 1010.A2B13

(W.

3, W. 46, W.

KK: D-ddr Bds M. Thul.

20 (W.

17); M. Thul.

15

(W.

Thul.

18

25); M.

21, W.

24, W.

27)

7)

II: US Wc M 1010.A2B13

(W.

B, XI).

43/4)

LL: All D-ddr Bds: M. 12

5/3

FF: US Wc M 1010.A2B13

HH:

19);

43/1-6)

CC: GB Lbm Add. MS 29 907

(W.

Bib.

(W.

19)

D-ddr WRtl Mus.

D-ddr Dlb Mus.

859/3

170 (App.

97

46)

18); pag. BB:

18); D-brd B Am. Bib.

25); D-ddr Bds M. Th.

AA: All D-ddr GOl Mus.: pag. (W.

(W.

323

12, W.

(W.

17, W.

43/6) 32)

7)

18); D-ddr Bds M. Thul. (W.

4); M. Thul.

Thul.

14

(W.

32)

10 (W.

13

(W.

24)

5); M. Thul.

Appendix D Owners

Albu,

(?-?): GB Lbm Add. MS 29907

(W.

33)

Anna Amalia, Princess of Prussia (1723-1787): D-ddr Bds Am. 521 (X2); All D-brd B Am. 97

(W.

19);

96

(W.

Anton, Karl

20);

Bib.:

94

(W.

99 (W. 5); 24);

95 (W.

100 (W. 46); 32);

(?-?): F Pc Ms.

1549 W.

(?-?): D-brd B St 221 (W.

522

(W. 32)

(W.

19)

28)

Bach, Johann Valentin (1787-1875): D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. 47

(App.

14);

25

Arnstein, Fanny (?-?): A Wgm VII 18933 B., L. L.

(W.

101 (X28)

(1887-1956): D-brd DS Mus. ms.

Areck, Franz

93

Bib.

38

(W.

25);

B, X25)

Besser, Theodore Gottlieb (1743-1791) and Johann Friedrich (17711847): All D-ddr SW1: Mus. 859/3

(W.

(W.

(W.

34);

5/1 (W.

(W.

17); Mus. 859/2

9); 5/2 4/13 43/6);

(W.

(?-c.

11);

4/1

(W. 43/1); 4/11 5/6

(X3);

Brahms, Johannes

43/3); Mus.

5/7

1945): All D-ddr G01 Mus. pag.: 5/3 (W.

18);

5/8

(W.

(W. 43/2); 4/12 (X8); 4/3 (X24);

19); 4/2

(W.

(W.

2);

25); 5/4

(W. 43/3); 4/14 (W. 43/4); 4/4

(W.

(1833-1897): A Wgm VII 36258

Breitkopf & Hartel [firm]: D-brd B P 235 970 (W.

(W.

43/4)

Boyneburg, C^. _E. 5/5

859/4

(W.

25)

(XI) 1); D-brd DS Mus. ms.

5)

Charles Louis Prince de Hohenlohe (?-?): D-brd LB gelbe Mappe IX/10 (W.

43/6)

326

Appendix D Commer, Franz Ebeling,

(1813-1887): US Wc M 1010.A2B13

Christoph Daniel

D-brd B St 365

(W.

(W.

6);

St 515

(W.

Fischhof, Josef

7);

St 544

(W.

17);

40

5);

3);

St 532

St 520 (W.

(App.

(W.

847

Gehring, F.

(W.

35)

B, X7) (W.

1) (W.

1); US Wc

(1717-1785) or his family:

25)

(1799-1853): D-brd B St 493 (?-?): GB Lbm K 7 i 10 (W.

(W.

20)

25)

Ernst Ludwig (1746-1819): A Wn PhA 73

Gorke, Manfred

(X6)

(1897-1956): D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg.

D-ddr LEb Gorke Slg.

38

(W.

354

(W.

10);

25); D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. 40 (App.

D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg. 44 (App.

B, X15); D-ddr LEb Gorke Slg.

B, X7);

47

(App.

Grave, Johann Heinrich (?-after 1810): GB Lbm K 7 i 10 (W. D-brd B:

St 497

St 516 (W.

14);

St 505

(W.

3);

St 517 (W.

St 498 (W.

(W. 4);

14);

(W.

19);

(W.

43/1);

St 509

(W.

43/2);

(W.

43/5);

St 494

(W.

43/6)

Hauser, Franz

St 523

St 499

(W.

24); N. Mus. ms. 42 St 521

Hallen, E.: D-brd B St 542

(W.

S.

5);

B Be 5887

Hissman [?], Hippman,

(W.

(W.

St 581

St 527

(W.

(W.

(W.

18);

522

IV.694

(W.

12); St 513

35);

St 537

43/4);

St 503

32)

(W. 47)

27); D-brd B St 213

B, X25)

25); All

17)

(1794-1870): D-brd DS Mus. ms.

(?-?):

St 541

St 508

34);

(W. 43/3);

(W.

(W.

16);

Haydn, Joseph (1732-1809): H Bn Ms. mus. Hering,

6);

20)?

Fuchs, Aloys

Gerber,

(W.

(1749-1818): D-brd B P 239

Friedrich, Herzog von Mecklenburg D-ddr SW1 Mus.

St 496

(1804—1857): D-brd B P 438

Forkel, Johann Nikolaus (W.

(W.

14)

F., J. C.: D-ddr LEb Gorke-Slg.

M 1010.A2B13

20)

(1741-1817): D-brd B St 197

Erk, Ludwig Christian: All D-brd B: St 533

(W.

(W.

or Lippman (?-?): D-brd B St 529

34) (W.

39)

Appendix D Huhne, Walt: US Jahn, Otto

(private) Kulukundis

(W.

(1813-1869): GB Lbm K 7 i 10

Johannes, P.

(?-?): D-brd B St 512

Kirnberger, Johann Philipp

(W.

31) (W.

25)

19)

(1721-1783): D-brd B Am.

Bib.

99

Koldofsky, Adolph and Gwendolin (20th c.): All US BEu: Ms. (W.

5); Ms.

728

(W.

6); Ms.

Ms.

732

(W.

16); Ms.

Ms.

736

(W.

39)

733

Kulukundis, Elias N. Lasserre W. W.

15); F Pc Ms.

W.

24?

1554

(W.

(W.

(W.

8); Ms.

18); Ms.

734

(20th c.): W.

(?-?): US Wc M 1010.A2B13

7, W.9?); F Pc Ms.

W.

729

1551 (W.

26, W.

43/6)

1552-3

29, W.

(W.

11, W.

327

730 (W.

(W.

11); Ms.

24); Ms.

8; W.

20; W.

(W. 3? W.

735

4, W.

34, W. 39); F Pc Ms.

(W.

5? W.

1555

19?

(W.

12);

32);

31 46, W.

12); US Wc M 1010.A2B13

17); US Wc M 1010.A2B13

727

731 (W.

(W.

28; W.

(W. 5)

W.

(W.

6?

13,

21, W.

23,

43/1); F Pc Ms.

[Question marks indicate sources probably owned by

Lasserre, even though his name does not appear on them, since these sources were prepared by the same copyists encountered in other manuscripts owned by Lasserre, which also were all acquired at the same time by the Library of Congress.] Lebermann (?-?): D-ddr Dlb Mus. Levy,

2/0/3,4

(W.

Sarah (1761-1854): D-brd B N. Mus.

11)?

SA 4 (W. 47)

Marshall, Julian (1836-1903): GB Lbm Add. MS 31679

(W.

Martini, Maria Catherina

6)

Mason, Lowell

(1792-1872): US NHu (W.

Miithel, Johann Gottfried B St 216

(W.

32)

(?-?): D-brd B St 532

(W.

6)

32)

(1728-1788): D-brd B P 709

(W.

24); D-brd

328

Appendix D Oppel, J. E.

(?-?): D-brd B St 522

(Xll)

Palschau, Johann Gottfried Wilhelm (c. (W.

1741-1813): D-brd B P 239

1) Petersen, A.

(?-?): D-brd B St 510

(W.

30)

Poelitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig (1772-1838): D-ddr LEm Poel. ms. Ms.

41

(W.

1)

Polchau, Georg (1773-1836): (W.

2); D-ddr Bds P 352

D-ddr Bds P 352

(W.

(W.

12, W.

D-brd B P 239

3, W. 15, W.

7, W.

8, W.

17, W.

19); D-brd B P 354

(W.

20); D-brd B St 493

(W.

23); D-brd B P 355

(W.

25, W.

354

(W.

D-ddr Bds P 352

D-brd B St 502 W.

39 arr.

(W.

[- W.

Poussin

[?]

(W.

26 arr. 31, W.

(?-?):

40 arr.

[= W.

B Be 5891 (W.

(W.

strings);

14); BP 148

BP 145 (W.

(W.

32);

18); BP 147

Rellstab, Johann Carl Friedrich (W.

(W.

20);

D-brd B P 354

170], W.

27); D-brd B P

35, W.

36, W.

33, W.

37, W. 38,

(W.

(1716-1781): All D-brd B: 25, cembalo);

BP 150

(W.

25,

34) (1759-1813):

B Be Litt.

12.217

11)

Roesgin-Campion, Mme.

[?]: US

(private) Kulukundis

31) Rudorff, Ernst

34);

165]); D-brd B St 350 (X30)

Rinck, Johann Christian Heinrich (1770-1846): US NHu

W.

(W.

11)

BP 149 (W.

(W. 11);

19); D-brd B St 514

32); D-brd B P 354

Pretlack, Johann Ludwig Freiherr von BP 146

[= W.

34); D-ddr Bds P 356 (W.

164], W.

1);'D-brd B P 354

9); D-brd B P 354

18, W.

(W.

30);

(W.

(1840-1916): D-brd Bhm (W.

32)

(W.

(W.

32)

20, W.

28,

Appendix D Rust, Friedrich Wilhelm (1739-1796): US Wc M 1010.A2B13 W.

12); F Pc Ms.

1550 (W.

S.,6. J. v.

14); US Wc M 1010.A2B13

(?-?): D-brd B St 627

Schicht, Johann Gottfried W.

33, W.

(W.

(W.

17, W.

14; D-brd B St 628

329

(W.

2, W.

32,

[W.

(W.

(1753-1823): GB Lbm Add. MS 29907

8,

35])

19) (W.

27,

35); D-brd B P 926 (XI)

Schlichting (?-?): D-brd B St 197 Sorenson: F Pc Ms. Strahl, H.

(?-?;

1549

5)?; A Wgm VII 36258 (XI)

25)

subsequent owner of the Wagener Collection;

Eitner, Quellen-Lexikon, [B Be U 14,885 W.

(W.

(W.

25];

I,

16,

283):

(B Be Litt.

[B Be Litt.

12.217

(W.

26.656

(W.

see

15)];

35)]

Swieten, Gottfried Bernhard Baron von (1733-1777): H Bn Ms. mus. IV 694

(W.

47)

Thulemeier, Friedrich Wilhelm von (1750-1811): All D-ddr Bds: M. Thul. (W.

18

4); M. Thul.

6); M. Thul.

M. Thul. 17

(W.

(W.

13

(W.

12

(W.

10

(W.

5); M. Thul.

17); M. Thul.

24); M. Thul.

21

(W.

3029/0/5

(W.

Uarell US Wc M.

46); M. Thul.

18); M. Thul.

28); M. Thul.

14

(W.

15

(W.

19 25);

32); M. Thul

(?-?): All D-ddr Dlb: Mus. 3029/0/4 (W.

4); Mus. [?]

3029/0/6

(W.

(?-?): US BEu Ms.

1010.A2B13 L. C.

1

All D-brd B:

St 214

St 202

(W.

St 208

(W.

24);

St 201

(W.

43/2);

(W.

527

St 619

St 209

St 207 (W.

St 205

(W.

5); US Wc M 1010.A2B13

(X12); US Wc M 1010.A2B13 L. C.

3);

11);

2); Mus.

5)

Voss, Otto Karl Friedrich von

7);

(W.

34)

Tunerstein, D.

(W.

20 (W.

16

32);

(W.

(W.

15);

(X19)

(1755-1823) and Karl von

(1786-1864):

(W.

St 219

46);

St 362

14); St 543

St 211

43/3);

2

(W.

(W.

(W.

33);

St 196 (W.

(W. 17);

St 619 43/4);

46);

St 366 (W.

(W.

18);

43/1);

St 215

(W.

43/5);

330

Appendix D

St 194 (W. 43/6); St 619 (X23) Voss, Ka_rl von (1786-1864): All D-brd B: P 235 (W. 1); P. 295, pp. 72-85 (X2); St 144 (X20) Wagener (?-?):

[B Be Litt. 26.656 (W. 15)]; B Be U 14,885 (W. 25, II);

[B Be Litt. 12.217 (W. 35)] Wahler, G.

(?-?): D-ddr Bds P 352 (W. 3, W. 46, W. 7, W. 8, W. 9,

W. 12, W. 15, W. 17, W. 18, W. 19, W. 31, W. 32) Westphal, J. C.

'

(1727-1797): D-brd B St 144 (X20); D-brd B St 125

(X30) Westphal , Johann Jacob Heinrich (1756-1825): All B Be: 5887 (W 5), 5889 (W. 46); 5887 (W. 6-10, W. 12, W. 13, W. 16-24, W. 26-32); 5888 (W. 33); 5887 (W. 34-43, W. 44, W. 45); 5890 (W. 47)

Appendix E Authentic Cadenzas

Appendix E provides an inventory of the cadenzas copied by Michel in “Cadenzen/von/C. P. E. Bach,” B Be 5871. Michel identified the concertos to which the cadenzas belonged by writing the Nachlassverzeichnis number of the concerto above or below the cadenza. Thus his title “Cadenz. zum ersten Allegro des Con¬ certos No. 51” designates the first cadenza in the manuscript as intended for W. 45, I. Not all the cadenzas belong to a particular concerto. Those intended for general use are listed here with Michel’s title and the key of the cadenza in brack¬ ets, using uppercase letters for major keys, lower case for minor. These nonspeci¬ fic cadenzas are unbarred, except for No. 20 in 4/4 meter and No. 72 in 3/4.

Concerto Movement for Which Cadenza No.

Page No.

the Cadenza is Intended

1

2

W. 45, I

2

3

W. 25, I

3

W. 25, III1

4

W. 24, II

5

W. 20, II W.

'3' CM

6

4

II

1Although this cadenza is in D minor, it could be played at measure 256.

332

Appendix E Concerto Movement for Which Cadenza No.

Page No.

the Cadenza is Intended

7

Cadenz zum Adagio [f]

8

Cadenz zum Adagio [f]

9

W. 34, I

10

5

W. 34, II

11

6

W. 34, III v

12

W. 27, II

13

W. 34, I

14

7

W. 11, I

15 16

W. 24, II

8

W. 11, II

17

W. 24, II

18

W. 170, I

19

W. 170, II

20

9

Einfall. All° assai [B-:

21

W. 17, I

22

W. 17, II

23

10

W. 171, II

24

W. 25, I

25

W. 34, I

26

11

W. 14, II

27

W.

14, I

28

W. 25, III (see footnot

29

W. 34, II

Appendix E Concerto Movement for Which Page No. 30

12

the Cadenza is Intended W. 34, III

31

W. 172 ,

32

W. 30,

33

W.

13, II

w.

5, II

35

w.

36, I

36

w.

36, 11

37

w.

36, III

34

38

13

14

II 1

W. 21, I

39

W. 21, II

40

w.

41

Cadenz zum Adagio [c]

42

15

Cadenz zum Adagio [a] Cadenz zum Adagio [c]

43 44

15, II

16

Cadenz zum Adagio [C]

45

W. 31, I

46

W. 23, II

47

W. 23, III

48

W. 25, I

49

17

W. 25, III (see footnote 1)

50

W. 32, II

51

Cadenz [D]

52

18

Fermate [G]

333

334

Appendix E Concerto Movement for Which

Cadenza No.

Page No.

the Cadenza is Intended

53

W.

41,

II

54

W.

46,

II

Cad:

55

zum Adag.

Andante. 56 57

19

• oder vielmehr

[E]

Cad.

zum All?

[A]

Cad.

zum All

[B-flat]

58

Cad. zum Ad.

59

W.

41,

I

60

W.

11,

I

w.

46,

II

w.

11,

II

w.

27,

II

64

w.

32,

II

65

w.

30,

II

66

Cadenz zum Adagio [E-

61

20

62 63

21

[E-flat]

W.

14,

II

68

w.

14,

I or III

69

Cadenz .

70

W.

67

22

[e]2 2

10,

zum all?

[E] [fi¬

ll

O

Michel gives No. 14 as the concerto for which these cadenzas were intended, which would indicate W. 13, but W. 13 is in D major with a slow movement in B minor. Since Michel's No. 15 on page 12 referred to a concerto with an Adagio in B minor, it appears that these two concertos from the same year were in reverse order at some point.

Appendix E Concerto Movement for Which Cadenza No.

Page No.

71 72

the Cadenza is Intended W.

23

34,

I

Cadenz zu einem Andante von 3/4 Tact aus dem C dur [C]

73

Cadenz zu einem Andante aus dem C dur [C]

74

W.

6,

75

W.

96,

II I

335

>

'-V

Modern Editions of C. P. E. Bach’s Concertos

Keyboard Concertos W.

46

Ed. H.

W. 46,

arr.

Schwartz.

Leipzig:

Arr. for two pianos. graber, 1914.

Steingraber, 1914.

Ed. H.

Schwartz.

Leipzig:

Stein¬

W.

6

Ed.

W.

18, arr.

Arr. for two pianos. graber , [n.d. ].

W.

22, arr.'*"

Arr. for flute and orchestra. F. E. C. Leuckart, [I960].

Ed. Kurt Redel.

W.

22, arr.1

Arr. for flute and piano. C. Leuckart, [1959].

Kurt Redel.

W.

23

Ed. Arnold Schering 1904-1908; rev. ed. Hans Moser, Denkmaler deutscher Tonkunst, 29-30. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1958. pp. 62-102.

W.

23

Ed.

W.

23

Ed. K.

W.

23

Ed. Gertrud Wertheim. [1956].

W.

23

Ed. G. Darvas.

W.

23, arr.

Arr. for two pianos. Steingraber, 1913.

Ed.

W.

23, arr.

Arr. for two pianos. Musica, 1968.

Ed. G. Darvas.

W.

26

Ed.

W.

26

Ed. Wilhelm Altmann.

1See App.

Fritz Oberdorffer.

B. Hinze-Reinhold. Straube.

Georg Amft.

B, X28.

Kassel, Basel:

Barenreiter, 1952.

Ed. Hugo Riemann. Leipzig: Stein¬

Ed.

Leipzig:

Munich:

Munich: F.

E.

Steingraber, 1913.

Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1926. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel,

Budapest: Editio Musica, 1968. B. Hinze-Reinhold.

Leipzig:

Budapest: Editio

Leipzig: C. F. Kahnt Nachfolger, 1938;

rpt.

[1905].

London: Eulenburg,

[1954]

338

Appendix E

Keyboard Concertos, cont. W.

27

Ed.

Elias N. Kulukundis.

W.

28

Ed. P. Hartel,

Klengel and W.

Madison: A—R

Schulz.

Leipzig:

Editions,

1970.

Breitkopf &

1930.

W.

29

Ed. Hans Maria Kneihs.

Zurich: Eulenburg,

W.

31

Ed. Gyorgy Balia.

W.

33

Ed. Fritz Oberdorffer.

W.

34

Ed. Helmut Winter.

Hamburg: Hans Sikorski,

[1964].

W. 35

Ed. Helmut Winter.

Hamburg: Hans Sikorski,

[1964].

Kassel: Nagel, Kassel,

[1967].

[197b].

Basel: Barenreiter, 1952.

2 W.

43/1

[Ed. Johannes Brahms.]

W.

43/2

Ed. Ludwig Landshoff. shofen,

Leipzig: A.

Cranz,

[c.

1862].

1932; rpt. Wilhelmshaven: Heinrich-

[1967].

W.

43/2,

arr.

Arr. for two pianos. graber, [n.d.].

Ed. Hugo Riemann.

Leipzig: Stein-

W.

43/3, arr.

Arr. for two pianos. graber, [n.d.].

Ed. Hugo Riemann.

Leipzig:

Stein-

2

[Ed. Johannes Brahms.] Leipzig: A. Cranz, [c. 1862]. (copy in the University of Virginia Library, Charlottes¬ ville) .

W. 43/4

W.

43/4,

W.

43/5

arr.

Arr. for two pianos. graber, [n.d.]. [Ed. Johannes Brahms.]

Ed. Hugo Riemann. Leipzig: Stein-

2

Brussels: A. Cranz,

[c.

1862].

(copy in the University of Virginia Library, Charlottes¬ ville) . W.

43/5, arr.

Arr. for two pianos. graber, [n.d.].

Ed. Hugo Riemann.

W.

47

Ed. Erwin R. Jacobi.

Kassel, Basel: Barenreiter,

W.

47

Ed. Gabor Darvas.

See Chapter 3, pp. 124-125.

London: Eulenburg,

Leipzig: Stein-

[1969].

1958.

Appendix E Keyboard Concertos,

339

cont:

W.

47, arr.

Arr. for two pianos. Ed. Steingraber, 1914-1918.

W.

47, arr.

Arr. for three pianos. Eulenburg, [1969].

H.

Ed.

Schwartz.

Leipzig:

Gabor Darvas.

Zurich:

Oboe Concertos W. 164 (=W. 39)

Ed. Oskar Kaul. [1965].

W.

164

Ed.

W.

164, arr.

Arr. for oboe and piano. berg: Forberg, 1952.

1943;

R. Lauschmann.

rpt. Munich: F.

C. Leuckart,

Bad Godesberg: Forberg, 1952. Ed.

R. Lauschmann.

W. 165 (=W. 40)

Ed. Hermann Tottcher and Karl Grebe. Sikorski, [1959].

W.

Arr.

165, arr.

E.

for oboe and piano.

Bad Godes¬

Hamburg: Hans

Hamburg: Lichnowski,

1959.

Flute Concertos W. 166 (=W. 26, =W. 170)

Ed. G. Amft.

W.

166

Ed. Wilhelm Altmann. [1954] .

1938; rpt. London:

Eulenburg,

W. 167 (=W. 28, =W. 171)

Ed. P. Klengel and W. Hartel, 1930.

Schultz.

Breitkopf &

W.

Ed. David Lasocki.

167

Leipzig: Kahnt,

1905.

Leipzig:

London: Musica Rara,

[1975].

Appendix E

340

Flute Concertos cont W. 168 (=W. 29, =W. 172)

Ed.

W.

Arr.

168, arr.

Hans Maria Kneihs.

for flute and piano.

York: Eulenburg, W. 169 (=W. 34)

New York: Eulenburg,

[1967].

Ed. Hans Maria Kneihs.

New

[1968].

Ed. David Lasocki.

London: Musica Rara,

[1973].

Violoncello Concertos W. 170 (=W. 26, =W. 166)

Ed.

Friedrich Griitzmacher. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel,

W.

170

Ed. Wilhelm Altmann.

W.

170, arr.

Arr.

[1893].

1938;

rpt. London: Eulenberg,

for viola and piano. Ed. Robert Boulay.

Leduc,

Paris: A.

[1965].

W. 171 (=W. 28, =W. 167)

Ed.

Paul Klengel and U.

W.

171, arr.

Arr. for viola and piano. Ed. Paul Klengel. Breitkopf & Hartel, [1927?].

W.

171, arr.

Arr. zig:

W.

171, arr.

Arr. for viola or viola da gamba solo and strings. W. Schulz. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1938.

Hartel,

[1954]

Schulz.

Leipzig: Breiticopf 6

1930.

Leipzig:

for violoncello and piano. Ed. Paul Klengel. Breitkopf & Hartel, [1931].

Hans Maria Kneihs.

New York: Eulenburg,

Leip¬

Ed.

W. 172 (=W. 29, =W. 168)

Ed.

[1967].

W.

172, arr.

Arr. foj violoncello and piano. Ed. Fernand Pollain. Paris: Editions M. Senart, [1924].

W.

172, arr.

Arr. for violoncello and piano. New York: Eulenburg, [1968].

Ed. Hans Maria Kneihs

Bibliography

Aigner, Theodor."Johann Gallus Mederitsch Komponist und Kopist des ausgehenden 18. und friihen 19. Jahrhunderts.” Die Musikforschung, 26 (1973): 341-43. Angelini-Rossi. Katalog der bedeutenden und werthvollen Autographen. 2ter Theil-....Collection Aloys Fuchs: Musik-Manuscripte und Briefe von Musikern. Versteigerung zu Wien: Marz 11-16, 1901. Vienna: Gilhofer & Ranschburg, 1901. Anonymous [Christoph Nichelmann]. Die Vortrefflichkeit der Gedanken des Herrn Caspar Diinckelfeindes iiber die Abhandlung von der Melodie ins Licht gesetzt von einem Musick Freunde. N.d., n.p. [probably issued with:] Ernst Gottlieb Baron, Abriss einer Abhandlung von der Melodie. Berlin: A. Haude & J. C. Spener, 1756. (Copy in D-ddr Dlb.) Arnold, F. “Mitteilungen.” Bach-Jahrbuch (1909): 153-55, 156-60. Arnold, F. T. The Art of Accompaniment from a Thorough-Bass, as Practised in the XVllth&XVIIIth Centuries. 1931; rpt. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1965. Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. Carl Philip Emanuel Bach’s Autobiography. Ed. William S. Newman. Facsimiles of Early Biographies, Vol. IV, 1773; facsimile rpt. Hilversum: Frits Knuf, 1967. -"Einfall einen doppelten Contrapunct in der Octave von sechs Tacten zu machen, ohne die Regeln davon zu wissen.” Historisch-Kritische Beytrage zur Aufnahme der Musik, ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, III: 1, pp. 167-81. Berlin: Lange, 1757. -Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments. Trans. William J. Mitchell. New York: W. W. Norton, 1949. -Herrn Professor Gellerts Geistliche Oden undLieder. Berlin: Winter, 1758. -[?]. Kurze Anweisung zum General-Bass, mit Exempeln iiber jeden Accord. MS. B Br Fonds Fetis 6487. -Letter to Karl Wilhelm Ramler dated 20 November 1780. GB Lbm Add. MS 47843. _Letters and Receipts to Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf, 21 November 1761-3 May 1788. D-brdDS. _Miscellanea Musica. MS. B Be 5895. -Neue Melodien zu einigen Liedern des neuen Hamburgischen Gesangbuchs. [Hamburg:] Herold, 1787. -Sechs Sonaten mit veranderten Reprisen . . . Wq. 50. Ed. Etienne Darbellay. Winterthur/ Schweiz: Amadeus Verlag, 1976. _Zwolf geistliche Oden und Lieder als ein Anhang zu Gellerts geistlichen Oden und Liedern. Berlin: Winter, 1764. _Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. Ed. Lothar Hoffmann-Erbrecht. 1753, 1762; facs. rpt. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1969. _Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. Erster Theil, rev. ed. Leipzig: Schwickert, 1787. Zweyter Theil, Leipzig: Schwickert, 1780.

342

Bibliography

_ed. Musikalisches Vielerley. Hamburg: Michael Christian Bock, 1770. _See also under “Dunkelfeind.” Bach, Johann Christian. Konzert Es dur, fur Cembalo und Streichorchester. Ed. Ernst Praetorius. Leipzig: Eulenburg, [1937]. Bach, Johann Christoph Friedrich. Die KindheitJesu (1773), Die Auferweckung Lazarus (1773). Ed. Georg Schiinemann; rev. ed. Hans Moser. Denkmaler Deutscher Tonkunst, 56. Leipzig. Breitkopf & Hartel, 1959. Bach, Johann Sebastian. NeueAusgabe sdmtlicher Werke [abbreviated NBA], Ed. Johann-SebastianBach-Institut, Gottingen and the Bach-Archiv, Leipzig. Kassel: Barenreiter, and Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag fur Musik, 1954—. _Kritische Berichte. 1955—. _Konzert in D moll nach der urspriingliche Fassung fur Violine. Reconstructed by Robert Reitz. Veroffentlichungen der Neuen Bachgesellschaft, Jg. XVIII, Heft 1. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1917. Bach, Johanna Maria. Letter to Johann Gottlob Immanuel Breitkopf, 4 March 1789. D-brd DS. The Bach Reader. Ed. Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel. Rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Com¬ pany Inc., 1966. Bach-Dokumente, Bd. I. Schriftstucke von der Hand Johann Sebastian Bachs. Ed. Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze. Supplement to Johann Sebastian Bach. Neue Ausgabe sdmtlicher Werke. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1963. Bach-Dokumente, Bd. II. Fremdschriftliche und Gedruckte Dokumente zur Lebensgeschichte Johann Sebastian Bachs 1685-1750. Ed. Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze. Supplement to Johann Sebastian Bach. Neue Ausgabe sdmtlicher Werke. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1969. Bach-Dokumente, Bd. III. Dokumente zum Nachwirken Johann Sebastian Bachs 1750-1800. Ed. Hans-Joachim Schulze. Supplement to Johann Sebastian Bach. Neue Ausgabe sdmtlicher Werke. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1972. Bach-Urkunden. Ed. Max Schneider. Veroffentlichungen der Neuen Bachgesellschaft, Jg. XVII, Heft 3. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, [1917], Bagger, Louis S. Review of Concerto inC-moll fur Cembalo (Klavier) undStreicher, Wq.31, byC. P. E. Bach, ed. Gyorgy Balia. Notes 34 (1978): 970-72. Barford, Philip. The Keyboard Music of C. P. E. Bach Considered in Relation to his Musical Aesthetic and the Rise of the Sonata Principle. London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1965. _“Some Afterthoughts by C. P. E. Bach,” The Monthly Musical Record 90 (1960): 94-98. Beach, David Williams. “The Harmonic Theories of Johann Philipp Kimberger: Their Origins and Influences.” Diss. Yale University 1974. Bellermann, H. “Briefe von Kimberger an Forkel. ’’ AllgemeineMusik-Zeitung 6 (1871): 529-34,55054, 565-72, 614-18, 628-30, 645-48, 661-64, 677-78. Benecke, Rolf. “Bach, Familie.” MGG. Bd. 1, cols. 903-23. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1949-1951. Benton, Rita. Ignace Pleyel.A Thematic Catalogue of His Compositions. New York: Pendragon Press, 1977. Berg, Darrell Matthews. “The Keyboard Sonatas of C. P. E. Bach: An Expression of the Mannerist Principle.” Diss. State University of New York at Buffalo 1975. _“Towards a Catalogue of the Keyboard Sonatas of C. P. E. Bach.” JAMS 32 (1979): 276-303. Bernhardt, Reinhold. “Aus der Umwelt der Weiner Klassiker, Freiherr Gottfried van Swieten (17341803).” Der Bar (1929-1930): 74-166. Beurmann, Erich. “Die Klaviersonaten Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs.” Diss. Georg-AugustUniversitat Gottingen 1952. Bill, Oswald. “Unbekannte Mendelssohn-Handschriften in der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt.” Die Musikforschung 26 (1973): 345-49. Bitter, Karl Hermann. Carl Philipp Emanuel und Wilhelm Friedemann Bach und deren Briider. 1868; rpt. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1973.

Bibliography

343

-“Die Sohne Sebastian Bachs,” Waldersees Sammlung Musikalischer Vortrage, Reihe 5. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1884. Blechschmidt, Eva Renate. Die Amalien-Bibliothek. Berliner Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, Bd. 8. Berlin: Merseburger, 1965. Bode, Wilhelm. Amalie, Herzogin von Weimar. II: Der Musenhof der Herzogin Amalie. 2nd ed. Ber¬ lin: E. S. Mittler & Sohn, 1909. [Boemer, C. G., firm.] Auktion LXXX: SammlungHauser-Karlsruhe. Versteigerung zu Leipzig bei C. G. Boemer vom 1. bis 3. Mai 1905. -Katalog einer wertvollen Bibliothek von Musikbuchern desXV. bis XVIII. Jahrhunderts. Ver¬ steigerung . . . den 2. und ... 3. April 1913 . . . C. G. Boemer, Leipzig. Leipzig: Poeschel & Trepte, [1913]. Bolen. Jane Moore. “The Five Berlin Cembalo Concertos, P. 390, of John Christian Bach: A Critical Edition.” Diss. Florida State University 1974. Boyden, David D. “Corelli's Solo Violin Sonatas 'Grac’d' by Dubourg.” Festskrift Jens Peter Larsen. 1902-1972. Ed. Nils Schiprring and Henrik Glahn. Kpbenhavn: Wilhelm Hansen MusikForlag, 1972. The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue. Ed. Barry S. Brook. New York: Dover, 1966. [Breslauer, M., and L. Liepmannssohn, firms.] Versteigerung der Musikbibliothek des Herrn Dr. Werner Wolffheim . . . durch die Firmen: M. Breslauer & L. Liepmannssohn .... 2 vols. Berlin: [n.p.], 1928-1929. Brewer, Richard Harding. “The Two Oratorios of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach in Relation to Perform¬ ance.” Diss. (D. M. A.) University of Southern California 1965. British Museum [now The British Library], General Catalogue of Printed Books. Photolithographic Edition to 1955. London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1965. The British Union-Catalogue of Early Music. Ed. Edith B. Schnapper. London: Butterworths Scien¬ tific Publications, 1957. Brown, A. Peter. “The Earliest English Biography of Haydn.” The Musical Quarterly 59 (1973): 339-54. Buck, Charles H. “Revisions in Early Clavier Concertos of C. P. E. Bach: Revelations from a New Source.” JAMS 29 (1976): 127-32. Burney, Charles. Carl Burney’s . . . Tagebuch seiner musikalischen Reisen. Bd. 3: Durch Bohmen, Sachsen, Bradenburg, Hamburg und Holland, [tr. J. J. C. Bode.] 1773; facsimile rpt. ed. Richard Schaal, Documenta Musicologica, Erste Reihe, XIX, Kassel: Barenreiter, 1959. _Dr. Burney’s Musical Tours in Europe. Ed. Percy A. Scholes. 2 vols. London: Oxford Uni¬ versity Press, 1959. Busch. Gudrun. C. Ph. E. Bach und seine Lieder. Kolner Beitrage zur Musikforschung, ed. Karl Gus¬ tav Fellerer, Bd. XII. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1957. Campbell, Robert Gordon. “Johann-Gottfried Miithel, 1728-1788.” Diss. Indiana University 1966. Catalogue of the Music Library ofCharles Burney, Sold inLondon, 8 August 1814. [1814]; rpt. with an introduction by A. Hyatt King, Auction Catalogues of Music, vol. 2, Amsterdam: Frits Knuf, 1973. Chamblee, James Monroe. “The Cantatas and Oratorios of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.” Diss. Uni¬ versity of North Carolina 1973. Cherbuliez, Antoine Elisee. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, 1714-1788. Neujahrsblatt der Allgemeinen Musikgesellschaft in Zurich, 128. Zurich & Leipzig: von Hug & Co., [1940]. Chrysander, Friedrich, ed. “Briefe von Karl Philipp Emanuel Bach und G. M. Telemann.” Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, N. F. 4 (1869): 177-81, 185-87. Churgin, Bathia. The Symphonies of G. B. Sammartini, Vol. I. Harvard Publications in Music, 2. Cam¬ bridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Cohen, Peter. Theorie und Praxis der Clavierasthetik Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs. Hamburger Beit¬ rage zur Musikwissenschaft, Bd. 13. Hamburg: K. D. Wagner, 1974.

344

Bibliography

Crickmore, Leon. “C. P. E. Bach’s Harpsichord Concertos.” Music and Letters 39 (1958): 227-41. Cudworth, Charles L. “Ye Olde Spuriosity Shoppe or, Put it in the Anhang.” Notes 12 (1954-1955): 25-40, 533-53. Czach, Rudolf. Friedrich Wilhelm Rust. Diss. Berlin, 1927. Essen: Kauermann, 1927. Dadelsen, Georg von. Beitrage zur Chronologie der Werke Johann Sebastian Bachs. Tiibinger BachStudien. Ed. Walter Gerstenberg. Heft 4/5. Trossingen: Hohner, 1958. _Bemerkungen zur Handschrift Johann Sebastian Bachs, seiner Familie und seines Kreises. Tiibinger Bach-Studien. Ed. W. Gerstenberg. Heft 1. Trossingen: Hohner, 1957. _ed. Editionsrichtlinien musikalischer Denkmdler und Gesamtausgaben. Musikwissenschaftliche Arbeiten, 22. Ed. Gesellschaft fur Musikforschung. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1967. _“Kimberger,” MGG 7, cols. 950-56. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1958. Daffner, Hugo. Die Entwicklung des Klavierkonzerts bis Mozart. Publikationen der Intemationalen Musikgesellschaft. Beihefte. Zweite Folge, Heft IV. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1906. David, Hans T. and Arthur Mendel. See The Bach Reader. Davis, Shelley G. “The Keyboard Concertos of Johann Georg Lang (1722-1798).” Diss. New York University 1972. Deutsch, O. E. “Mit Wurfeln komponieren.’’ Zeitschriftfur Musikwissenschaft 12(1929-1930): 595. A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A. D. 1450-1889). Ed. Sir George Grove. 4 vols. London. Mac¬ millan and Co., 1890. Directory of Music Research Libraries, Part II: Thirteen European Countries. Ed. Rita Benton. Iowa City: The University of Iowa, 1970. Doblin, Helga Boie. “Designations of Stringed Instruments in Romantic Languages.” Diss. Harvard 1965. Dollmann, H. Christoph Nichelmann (1717-1762), ein Musiker am Hofe Friedrichs des Grossen. Diss. Munster 1938. Dunkelfeind, Caspar [Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach?]. Gedanken eines Liebhabers der Tonkunst iiber Herrn Nichelmanns Tractat von der Melodie. [at end:] Nordhausen, den 1. Julii. 1755. [probably issued with:] Ernst Gottlieb Baron, Abriss einer Abhandlung von der Melodie. Berlin: A. Haude & J. C. Spener, 1756. [copy in D-ddrDlb.] Durr, Alfred. “Hauser, Franz.” MGG 5, cols. 1838-1840. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1956. _Studien iiber diefriihen Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1977. _‘ ‘Zur Chronologie der Handschrift Johann Christoph Altnickols und Johann Friedrich Agrico¬ las.” Bach-Jahrbuch 56 (1970): 44-65. _Zur Chronologie der Leipziger Vokalwerke Bachs. 2nded. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1976. (Origi¬ nally published in the Bach-Jahrbuch, 1957). Ecrits imprimes concernant la musique. Ed. Francois Lesure. RISM, B VI, 1 and 2. Munich-Duisburg: G. Henle, 1971. Ehinger, Hans. Friedrich Rochlitz als Musikschriftsteller. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1929. Einzeldrucke vor 1800. Ed. Karlheinz Schlager. RISM, ALL Kassel: Barenreiter, 1971. Eitner, Robert. Biographisch-bibliographische Quellen-Lexikon der Musiker und Musikgelehrten der christlichen Zeitrechnung bis zur Mine des 19. Jahrhunderts. 10 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898-1904. _Katalog der Musikalien-Sammlung des Joachimsthalschen Gymnasium zu Berlin. MonatsheftefiirMusikgeschichte, Beilage. XV (1883): 1-4; XVI (1884): 5-76. _Studien beim Lesen von Handschriften. Monatshefte fiir Musikgeschichte, Beilage XVI (1884): 1-8. _, and Otto Kade. Katalog der Kgl. offentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden. Monatshefte fiir Musikgeschichte, Beilage XX1-XXII. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1890. Eller, Rudolf. “Die Entstehung der Themenzweiheit in der Fruhgeschichte des Instrumentalkonzerts.” Festschrift Heinrich Besseler zum 60. Geburtstag, pp 323-35. Ed. Institut fiir Musikwissen-

Bibliography

345

schaft der Karl-Marx-Universitat. Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag, 1961. Elvers, Rudolf. “Die bei J. F. K. Rellstab in Berlin bis 1800 erschienenen Mozart-Drucke,” MozartJahrbuch (1957): 152-67. -Breitkopf & Hartel, 1719-1969. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1968. -‘ ‘Datierte Verlagsnummem Berliner Musikverleger. ’ ’ Festschrift Otto Erich Deutsch zum 80. Geburtstag, pp. 291-95. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1963. -“Musikdracker, Musikalienhandler und Musikverleger in Berlin 1750 bis 1850—eineUbersicht.” Festschrift Walter Gerstenberg zum 60. Geburtstag, pp. 37-44. Ed. Georgvon Dadelsen and Andreas Holschneider. Wolfenbuttel, Zurich: Moseler, 1964. -“Neuerwerbungen fur die Musikabteilung der Staatsbibliothek.” Jahrbuch der Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz (1966): 240-46; (1968): 223-25. -“Winter, Georg Lud(e)wig.” MGG 14, col. 713. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1968. Engel, Hans. Das Instrumentalkonzert. E Von den Anfangen bis gegen 1800. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1971. -“Notiz zum Klavierkonzert in f von J. Chr. Bach.” Zeitschrift fiir Musikwissenschaft 13 (1930-1931): 154-57. _Review of Hans Uldall, Das Klavierkonzert der Berliner Schule. Zeitschrift fiir Musikwissen¬ schaft 12 (1929-1930): 240-46. _Das Solokonzert. Das Musikwerk, Bd. 25. Cologne: Amo Volk Verlag, 1964. English ed.: The Solo Concerto, Anthology of Music, ed. Karl Gustav Fellerer, Vol. 25. Cologne: Amo Volk Verlag, Hans Gerig KG, 1974. Englander, Richard. Die Dresdener lnstrumentalmusik in derZeit der Wiener Klassik. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, [1956]. _Johann Gottlieb Naumann als Opernkomponist, 1741-1801. Mit neuen Beitragen zur Musikgeschichte Dresdens und Stockholms. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1922. Ernst, Friedrich. “Bach und das Pianoforte.” Bach-Jahrbuch (1961): 61-78. Falck, Martin. Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. Rev. ed. by Wilibald Gurlitt. Lindau: Kahnt, 1956. Fall, Henry Cutler. “A Critical-Bibliographical Study of the Rinck Collection.” M.A. Thesis Yale University 1958. Feder, Georg. “Manuscript Sources of Haydn’s Works and Their Distribution.” Tr. Eugene Hartzell. Haydn Jahrbuch 4 (1968): 102-39. (previously published in German in Haydn Studien 1/1 of 1965.) Fetis, Franqois-Joseph. “Bach, C. P. E.” Biographie universelle des musiciensl. 2nd ed. Paris, 1883; rpt. Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963. Fetis pere [Francois-Joseph], “Jean-Sebastien Bach et les associations pour la publication de ses oeuvres.” Revue et gazette musicale de Paris 20 (1853): 116-18, 147-49, 169-72. Fetis, Franqois-Joseph. “Westphal.” Biographie universelle des musiciens XVIII. Paris, 1875; rpt. Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963. Fischer, Karl. “Das Freundschaftsbuch des Apothekers Friedrich Thomas Bach. Eine Quelle zur Geschichte der Musikerfamilie Bach.” Bach-Jahrbuch (1938): 95-102. Fischer, Kurt von. ‘ ‘Arietta Variata. ’ ’ Studies in Eighteenth-century Music. A Tribute to Karl Geiringer on his Seventieth Birthday, pp. 224-35. Ed. H. C. Robbins Landon and Roger Chapman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. _“C. Ph. E. Bachs Variationenwerke.” Revue Beige de musicologie 6 (1952): 190-218. Fischer, Wilfried. Moglichkeiten und Grenzen der Rekonstruction verschollener Instrumentalkonzerte Joh. Seb. Bachs. Diss. Hamburg 1966. Flueler, Max. Die Norddeutsche Sinfonie zur Zeit Friedrichs des Grossen, und besonders die Werke Ph. Em. Bachs. Diss. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat zu Berlin, 1908. Berlin: Ebering, 1908. Fock, Gustav. Brahms und die Musikforschung. Beitrage zur Hamburgischen Musikgeschichte. Ed. Heinrich Husmann. Hamburg: Musikwissenschaftliches Institut, 1956.

346

Bibliography

Forkel, Johann Nicolaus. Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik. 2vols. Leipzig: Schwickert, 1788-1801. _Musikalisch-kritische Bibliothek. 3 vols. Gotha: Carl Wilhelm Ettinger, 1778-1779. _Musikalischer AlmanachfiirDeutschlandauf dasJahr 1782. Leipzig: Schwickert, [1782]. _ 1783. _ 1784. _ 1789. _Uber Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst, und Kunstwerke. Leipzig: Hoffmeister und Kiihnel, 1802. Frangois-JosephFetis, et la vie musicale de son temps. Brussels: Bibliotheque Royale Albert I , 1972.

Fuchs, Aloys. “Eine Erinnerung, den musikalischen FunddesHm. Fetis auf derKonigl. Bibliothek zu Brussel betreffend.” Allgemeine WeinerMusikzeitung 3 (1843): 473-74. Gaensler, Heinrich. Herzogliche Bibliothek Gotha. Verzeichnis der Musikalien und derSchriften uber Musik aufgestellt in der Zeit von Januar 1937 bis Juli 1938. I. Revision am 1. September. 1962 abgeschlossen... MS. D-ddr GOl, Musik I. Gehring, P. and W. Gebhardt. “Signaturenverzeichnis abendlandischer und Musikhandschriften der

ehem. Preuss. Staatsbibliothek.” Scriptorium 13 (1959): 127-30. Geigy-Hagenbach, K. Autographen-Sammlung von K. Geigy-Hagenbach. Basel: Gasser & Cie, 1929. Geiringer, Karl. The Bach Family. Seven Generations of Creative Genius. London: G. A. and Unwin, 1954. Gerber, Ernst Ludwig. Historisch-biographisches Lexicon der Tonkiinstler. 2 vols. Leipzig: J. G. I. Breitkopf, 1790-1792. _Neues Historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkiinstler. 4 pts. Leipzig: Kiihnel, 18121814. _Wissenschaftlich geordnetes Verzeichniss einer Sammlung von musikalischen Schriften. Sondershausen: Gedruckt mit Fleck’schen Schriften, 1804. Gerber, Rudolf. “Unbekannte Instrumentalwerke von Christoph Willibald Gluck.” Die Musikforschung 4 (1951): 305-18. Grave, Floyd Kersey. “The Process of Articulation in Mozart’s Piano Concertos.” Diss. New York

University 1973. Green, Douglass. “Progressive and Conservative Tendencies in the Violoncello Concertos of Leonar¬ do Leo. ’ ’ Studies in Eighteenth-century Music. A Tribute to Karl Geiringer on his Seventieth Birth¬ day, pp. 261-71. Ed. H. C. Robbins Landon and Roger Chapman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. Grubbs, John Whitfield. “The Sacred Vocal Music of the Graun Brothers: A Bio-Bibliographical Study.” Diss. The University of California at Los Angeles 1972. Guarinoni, Eugenio de. Indice generate dell'Archivo musicale Noseda. Milan: Reggiani, 1897. Guttmann, Oskar. Johann Karl Friedrich Rellstab. Diss. Leipzig, 1910. Berlin: Ebering, 1910. Haag, Charles Robert. “The Keyboard Concertos of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.” Diss. The Universi¬ ty of California at Los Angeles 1956. Rochester, N.Y.: University of Rochester Press, 1960. (Avail¬ able on microcard.) Haberkamp, Gertraut. Thematischer Katalog der Musikhandschriften der Fiirstlich OettingenWallerstein'schen Bibliothek Schloss Harburg. Munich: G. Henle Verlag, 1976. [Hartknoch, Joh. Friedrich.] Verzeichniss derpraktischen musikalischen Werke, welche bey Joh. Fr. Hartknoch in Riga . . . zu haben sind. Riga, [c. 1790], (Available in D-ddr Bds.) Hase, Hermann von. “Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und Joh. Gotti. Im. Breitkopf.” Bach-Jahrbuch (1911): 86-104. Helm, Ernest Eugene. Music at the Court of Frederick the Great. Norman: The University of Oklaho¬ ma Press, 1960. Helm, Eugene. “The ‘Hamlet’ Fantasy and the Literary Element in C. P. E. Bach’s Music.” The Musical Quarterly 58 (1972): 277-96.

Bibliography

347

-“Six Random Measures of C. P. E. Bach.” Journal of Music Theory 10 (1966): 139-50. Heuschele, Otto. Herzogin Anna Amalia. 2nd ed. Munich: Bruckmann, 1949. Heussner, Horst. “Der Musikdrucker Balthasar Schmid in Ntimberg. ’ ’ Die Musikforschung 16 (1963): 348-62. -“Zur Musizierpraxis der Klavierkonzerte in 18. Jahrhundert.” Mozart-Jahrbuch (1967): 165-75. Hitzig, Wilhelm. Katalog des Archivs von Breitkopf & Hartel. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1925. Hoboken, Anthony van. “Zur Entstehung meiner Sammlung musikalischer Erst- und Friihdrucke.” Franz Grasberger zum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. Gunter Brosche. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1975. Hoffmann-Erbrecht, Lothar. “Die Bedeutung der Konzertform Bachs filr die Geschichte des Solokonzerts. ’ ’ Bericht iiber die Wissenschaftliche Konferenz zum III. Internationalen Bach-Fest der DDR, Leipzig, 18.119. September 1975. Ed. Werner Felix, Winfried Hoffmann and Armin Schneiderheinze. Leipzig: VEB Deutscher Verlag fiirMusik, 1977. -“J. S. Bach als Schopfer des Klavierkonzerts,” Quellenstudien zur Musik—Wolfgang Schmieder zum 70. Geburtstag, pp. 69-77.Ed. Kurt Dorfmiiller. Frankfurt a. M.: C. F. Peters, 1972. -“Das Klavierkonzert. ” Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen, Erste Folge, pp. 74484. Bern, Munich: Francke, 1973. _“Klavierkonzert und Affektgestaltung—Bemerkungen zu einigen d-Moll-Klavierkonzerten des 18. Jahrhunderts.” Deutsches Jahrbuch der Musikwissenschaft 1971, pp. 86-110. Leipzig: Edi¬ tion Peters, 1973. Hofmann, Kurt. Die Bibliothek von Johannes Brahms: Bucher und Musikalienverzeichnis. Hamburg: Karl Dieter Wagner, 1974. _Die Erstdrucke der Werke von Johannes Brahms. Musikbibliographische Arbeiten, Bd. 2. Ed. Rudolf Elvers. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1975. Holschneider, Andreas. “Die musikalische Bibliothek G. v. Swietens.” Bericht iiber den interna¬ tionalen musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress, Kassel 1962, pp. 174-78. Ed. Georg Reichert and Mar¬ tin Just. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1963. Hudson, Frederick. “Concerning the Watermarks in the Manuscripts and Early Prints of G. F. Hand¬ el.” Music Review 20 (1959): 7-27. _“The Earliest Paper made by James Whatman the Elder (1702-1759) and its Significance in Relation to G. F. Handel and John Walsh.” Music Review 38 (1977): 15-32. Humphries, Charles. “Longman & Broderip.” MGG 8 (1960), col. 1188. _, and William C. Smith. Music Publishing in the British Isles. 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970. Huys, Bernard, et al. Frangois-Joseph Fetis et la vie musicale de son temps. Brussels: Bibliotheque Roy ale Albert Ier, 1972. J. Haydn’s Verzeichniss musikalischer Werke theils eigner, theilsfremder Composition. MS. GB Lbm MS Add. 32070. Jacobi, Erwin R. “Das Autograph von C. Ph. E. Bachs Doppelkonzert in Es dur.” Die Musikfors¬ chung 12 (1959): 488-89. _“Five Hitherto Unknown Letters from C. P. E. Bach to J. J. H. Westphal.” JAMS 23 (1970): 119-27,545. _“Three Additional Letters from C. P. E. Bach to J. J. H. Westphal." JAMS 27 (1974): 11925. Jacobs, R. Thematischer Katalog der von Thulemeir'schen Musikalien-Sammlung in der Bibliothek des JoachimsthaTschen Gymnasiums. Ed. R. Eitner. Monatshefte fur Musikgeschichte Beilage XXX-XXXI. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1899. Jaenecke, Joachim. Die Musikbibliothek des Ludwig Freiherrn von Pretlack (1716-1781). Neue Musikgeschichtliche Forschungen, Bd. 8. Ed. Lothar Hoffmann-Erbrecht. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1973.

348

Bibliography

Jahrbuch der Tonkunst von Wien und Prag. 1796; facsimile rpt. ed. Otto Biba. Munich, Salzburg. Musikverlag E. Katzbichler, 1976. Johansson, Cari. French Music Publishers’ Catalogues of the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955. Joseph Haydn’s Verzeichniss musicalischer Werke theils eigener, theils fremder Composition. MS. GBLbmMS Add. 32070. Jurisch, Herta. “Zur Dynamik im Klavierwerk Ph. E. Bachs.” Bericht uber den Internationalen Musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress Kassel 1962, pp. 178-81. Ed. Georg Reichert and Martin Just. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1963. Kade, Otto. Die Musikalien-Sammlung des Grossherzoglichen Mecklenburg-Schweriner Furstenhauses aus den letzten zwei Jahrhunderten. 1893; rpt. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1974. Kaiser, Fritz. ‘‘Zur Geschichte der Darmstadter Musiksammlung.” Durch der Jahrhunderte Strom. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothekpp. 108-40. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1967. Kast, Paul. Die Bach-Handschriften der Berliner Staatsbibliothek. Tiibinger Bach-Studien, Heft 2/3. Ed. Walter Gerstenberg. Trossingen: Hohner, 1958. Kellar, Allan D. “The Hamburg Bach—Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach as Choral Composer.” Diss. The University of Iowa 1970. Kemmler, Erwin. Johann Gottfried Miithel (1728-1788) und das nordostdeutsche Musikleben seiner Zeit. Diss. Saarbriicken 1964. Wissenschaftliche Beitrage zur Geschichte und Landeskunde OstMitteleuropas, Nr. 88. Ed. Ernst Bahr. Marburg (Lahn): [n.p.], 1970. Kidson, Frank. “Handel’s Publisher, John Walsh, his Successors and Contemporaries.” The Musical Quarterly 6 (1920): 430-50. Killer, Hermann. “Zur Musik des deutschen Ostens im 18. Jahrhundert (aus der Sammlung Gotth¬ old . . .).” Konigsberger Beitrage. Festgabe zur 400jahrigenJubelfeier der Staats- undUniversitatsbibliothek zu Konigsberg in Prussia, pp. 228-43. Konigsberg [now Kaliningrad]: Grafe und Unzer, 1929. King, A. Hyatt. Some British Collectors of Music, c. 1600-1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Kimberger, Johann Philipp. “Harmonie. ’ ’ Allgemeine Theorie der Schonen Kunst von Johann George Sulzer, Erster Theil, Bd. 2. Biel: In der Heilmannischen Buchhandlung, 1777. _Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik. 1776-1779; rpt. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968. Klein, Hans-Gunter. Der Einfluss der Vivaldischen Konzertform im lnstrumentalwerk Johann SebastianBachs. Sammlung Musikwissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen, Bd. 54. Strasbourg: Editions P. H. Heitz, 1970. Knodt, Heinrich. “Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Kadenzen im Instrumentalkonzert.” Sammelbande der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft 15 (1913-1914): 375-419. Kobayashi, Yoshitake. Franz Hauser und seine Bach—Handschriftensammlung. Diss. Gottingen 1973. Kochel, Ludwig Ritter von. Chronologisch-thematisches Verzeichnis samtlicher Werke Wolfgang AmadeMozarts. 3rd ed., ed. Alfred Einstein. Ann Arbor: J. W. Edwards, 1947. Kohler, Karl-Heinz. “Die Bach-Sammlung der Deutschen Staatsbibliothek—Uberlieferung und Bedeutung.” Bach-Studien 5 (1975): 139-46. _“Die Musikabteilung.” Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, 1661-1961 1: 241-74. Leipzig: Verlag fur Buch-und Bibliothekswesen, 1961. Kritische Briefe uber die Tonkunst. Berlin: F. W. Bimstiel, 1760. Krummel, D. W., comp. Guide for Dating Early Published Music. Hackensack: Joseph Boonin, Inc., 1974. Kummerling, Harald. Franz Commers Abschriften alterer Musikwerke. Beitrage zur Rheinischen Musikgeschichte, Heft 100. Cologne: Amo Volk-Verlag, 1973.

Bibliography

349

La Mara [Ida Marie Lipsius}. Musikerbriefe aus fiinfJahrhunderten. Bd. I. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1886. LaRue, Jan. Guidelines for Style Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1970. -“Watermarks and Musicology." Acta Musicologica 33 (1961): 120-46. Layer, Adolf. Katalog des Augsburger Verlegers Lotter von 1753. Catalogus Musicus, Vol. II. Ed. H. Heckmann and H. Heussner. Kassel: Internationale Vereinigung der Musikbibliotheken, 1964. Lebermann, Walter. “Apokryph, Plagiat, Korruptel oder Falsifikat?” Die Musikforschung 20 (1967): 413-25. Ledebur, Carl Friedrich. Tonkiinstler-Lexicon Berlin's von den altesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. Berlin: Ludwig Rauh, 1861. Lee, Douglas Allen. “The Instrumental Works of Christoph Nichelmann.” Diss. The University of Michigan 1968. Lee, Douglas A. “Some Embellished Versions of Sonatas by Franz Benda.” The Musical Quarterly 62 (1976): 58-71. Lee, Douglas A. The Works of Christoph Nichelmann: A Thematic Index. Detroit Studies in Music Bibliography, 19. Detroit: Information Coordinators, Inc., 1971. [Lempertz, firm.] Katalog der bedeutenden Musiksammlung aus dem Nachlasse Dr. Erich Prieger— Bonn. Versteigerung . . . den 7. bis ... 10. November 1922 .... durch M. Lempertz’ Buchhandlung und Antiquariat. (Copy in US NYp.) [Lempertz, firm. ] Musiksammlung aus dem Nachlasse Dr. Erich Prieger Bonn nebst einigen Beitragen aus anderem Besitz. III. Theil.Musikerbriefe, Handschriften, Musikalien . . . BeschreibendesVerzeichnis von Georg Kinsky . . . Versteigerung . . . den 15. Juli 1924. . . . (Copy in US NYp.) Lenz, Hans Ulrich. Der Berliner Musikdruck von seinen Anfangen bis zur Mine des 18. Jahrhunderts. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1933. Lesure, Francois. “Les Bibliotheques des Conservatoires en France. ” FontesArtis Musicae 22 (1975): 119-21. Letters of Distinguished Musicians. Ed. L. Nohl, trans. Lady Wallace. London: Green & Co., 1867. (See also Musiker-Briefe.) Library of Congress. Report of the Librarian of Congress . . . for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1907. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1907. [Liepmannssohn, firm.] Katalog 174. Musiker-Autographen. (copy in GB Lbm.) Lingke, Georg Friedrich. Einige zum allgemeinen Nutzen deutlicher gemachte Musikalische Erwegungs- und andere leichter eingerichtete Uibungs-Wahrheiten. Leipzig: Michael Blochberger, [n.d.] Lorenz, Franz. Die Musikerfamilie Benda. I: Franz Benda und seine Nachkommen. II: Georg Anton Benda. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1967-1971, [Marpurg, F. W.] Legende einiger Musikheiligen von Simeon Metaphrastes dem jiingern. Cologne: Hammer, 1786. Marshall, Robert Lewis. The Compositional Process of J. S. Bach. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. _“Musical Sketches in J. S. Bach’s Cantata Autographs.” Studies in Music History. Essays for Oliver Strunk, pp. 405-427. Ed. Harold Powers. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. Mendel, Arthur. “More for the Bach Reader." The Musical Quarterly 36 (1950): 485-510. Miesner, Heinrich. Philipp Emanuel Bach in Hamburg. Beitrage zu seiner Biographie und zur Musikgeschichte seiner Zeit. Diss. Berlin 1928. 1929; rpt. Wiesbaden: Dr. Martin Sandig, 1969. _“Philipp Emanuel Bachs musikalischer Nachlass." Bach-Jahrbuch (1938): 101-36; (1939): 81-112; (1940-1948): 161-81 _“Portrats aus dem Kreise Philipp Emanuel und Wilhelm Friedemann Bachs.” Musik und Bild. Festschrift Max Seiffert zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. pp. 101-12. Ed. Heinrich Besseler. Kas¬ sel: Barenreiter, 1938.

350

Bibliography

_Review of J. C. Bach by Charles Sanford Terry. ZeitschriftfurMusikwissenschaft 16 (1934): 182-88. _“Urkundliche Nachrichten iiber die Familie Bach in Berlin.” Bach-Jahrbuch (1932): 157-63. Mitchell, William J. “Modulation inC. P. E. Bach'sVersuch.” Studies in Eighteenth-century Music: A Tribute to Karl Geirirtger on His Seventieth Birthday, pp. 333-42. Ed. H. C. Robbins Landon and R. E. Chapman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus. Briefe und Aufzeichungen. Ed. Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum Salz¬ burg; collected and annotated by Wilhelm A. Bauer and Otto Erich Deutsch. 5 vols. Kassel. Barenreiter, 1962-1975. Miiller-Blattau, J. “Die musikalischen Schiitze der Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek zu Konigsberg i. Pr.” [Anhang in the 1924 Leipzig edition of:] J. Mueller, Die Musikalischen Schatze der Koniglichen- und Universitatsbibliothek zu Konigsberg in Preussen. 1870; rpt. of the 1924 ed., Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1971. Miinnich, Richard. “Aus der Musikaliensammlung der Weimarer Landesbibliothek, besonders dem Nachlassder Anna Amalia." Aus der Geschichte der Landesbibliothek zu Weimar, pp. 168-84. Ed. Hermann Blumenthal. Jena: Fischer, 1941. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Ed. Friedrich Blume. Kassel, Basel. Barenreiter, 1949

.

Musiker-Briefe. Ed. Ernst Biicken. Leipzig: Dieterich, 1940. Musiker-Briefe. Ed. Ludwig Nohl. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1867. Nachlassverseichnis: see under Verzeichniss des musikalischen Nachlasses . . . Neufeldt, Ernst. “Der Fall Rust.” Die Musik 12, 1 (1912-1913): 339-44. Neumann, Werner. Handbuch der Kantaten Johann Sebastian Bachs. 4th ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf & H artel, 1971. _“Welche Handschriften J. S. Bachs cher Werke besass die Berliner Singakademie?” Hans Albrecht in Memoriam, pp. 136-42. Ed. Wilfried Brennecke and Hans Haase. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1962. Newman, William S. “Emanuel Bach’s Autobiography.” The Musical Quarterly 51 (1965): 363-72. Nichelmann, Christoph. Die Melodie nach ihrem We sen sowohl, als nach ihren Eigenschaften. Dantzig: J. C. Schuster, 1755. _See also under “Anonymous.” Niedt, Friedrich Erhard. Musici, Musicalische Handleitung Oder Griindlicher Unterricht . . . Erster Theil . . . Hamburg: Schiller, 1710. Otto John’s musikalische Bibliothek und Musikalien-Sammlung, Versteigerung in Bonn am 4. April 1870 . . . unter Leitung der Herrn Joseph Bauer, MaxCohen & Sohn, M. Lempertz. [n.p.]: [1870], P[ohl], C. F[erdinand]. “Gerber.” A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A. D. 1450-1889) I: 589. Ed. Sir George Grove. London: Macmillan and Co., 1890. Plamenac, Dragan. “New Light on the Last Years of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.” The Musical Quarterly 35 (1949): 565-87. [Polchau, Georg.] Katalog der Sammlung Polchau. Bd. IV: Handschriften (praktische Musik). MS. D-ddr Bds Mus. ms. theor. K. 41. Prieger, E. “Rustiana.” Die Musik 12 (1912/1913): Heft 11: 269-77. Rameau, Jean-Philippe. Treatise on Harmony. Trans., ed. Philip Gossett. New York: Dover Publica¬ tions, Inc. 1971. Ratner, Leonard G. “Ars combinatoria. Chance and Choice in Eighteenth-century Music.” Studies in Eighteenth- century Music. A Tribute to Karl Geiringer on his Seventieth Birthday, pp. 343-63. Ed. H. C. Robbins Landon and Roger Chapman. London: Allen & Unwin, 1970. Reeser, Eduard. “Zum vorliegenden Band.” Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Neue Ausgabe samtlicher Werke, Ser. X, Werkgruppe 28, Abt. 2. pp. VII-XVI. Ed. Walter Gerstenberg & Eduard Reeser. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1964. Reich, Nancy B. “The Rudorff Collection.” Notes 31 (1974): 247-61.

Bibliography

351

[Rellstab, J. C. F.] Vollstdndiges Verzeichniss alter gedruckten, gestochenen u. geschriebenen Musikalien . . . welchezu Berlin beymMusik- und Instrumentenhandler J. C. F. Rellstab . . . zuhaben sind. [n.d.] (copy in D-ddr Bds Mus. Ab. 1044). Riedt, Friedrich Wilhelm. Versuch iiber die musikalische Intervalleh. Berlin: A. Haude and J. C. Spener, 1753. Rixman, Eunice Elizabeth. ‘‘The Sacred Cantata God Hath Awakened the Lord, by Carl Philipp Ema¬ nuel Bach, in Relation to its Performance.” Diss. Doctor of Musical Arts, University of Southern California 1969. Rochlitz, Friedrich. Fur Freunde der Tonkunst. 4 vols. Leipzig: Carl Cnobloch, 1824-1832. Rose, Gloria. “Father and Son: Some Attributions to J. S. Bach by C. P. E. Bach.” Studies in Eight¬ eenth- century Music. A Tribute to Karl Geiringer on his Seventieth Birthday, pp. 364—69. Ed. H. C. Robbins Landon and Roger Chapman. London: Allen & Unwin, 1970. Rose, Juanelva M. “The Harmonic Idiom of the Keyboard Works of C. P. E. Bach.” Diss. The Uni¬ versity of California at Santa Barbara 1970. Rosenthal, Albi. “Wolffheim, Werner.” MGG 14 (1968), cols. 823-24. Rust, Friedrich Wilhelm. Werke fur Klavier und Streichinstrumente. Ed. Rudolf Czach. Das Erbe deutscher Musik, ZweiteReihe, Bd. 1. Wolfenbiittel, Berlin: Georg Kallmeyer, 1939. Sammartini, G. B. The Symphonies of G. B. Sammartini, Vol. I. Ed. Bathia Churgin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968. Schaal, Richard. “Die Autographen der Wiener Musiksammlung von Aloys Fuchs. ” The Haydn Year¬ book 6 (\969): 5-191. -‘ ‘Dokumente Zur Wiener Musiksammlung von Joseph Fischhof. ’ ’ Mozart-Jahrbuch (1967): 339-47. -Quellen und Forschungen zur Wiener Musiksammlung von Aloys Fuchs. Vienna: Bohlau, 1966. Schaffrath, Christoph. Concerto in B-Flatfor Cembalo and Strings. Ed. Karyl Louwgnaar. Yale Uni¬ versity Collegium Musicum, Second Series, Vol. VII. Madison: A-R Editions, [1977], Schenker, Heinrich. Fin Beitrag zur Ornamentik, als Einfuhrung zu Ph. Em. Bachs Klavierwerken. Vienna: Universal Edition, 1908. Schering, Arnold. Geschichte des Instrumentalkonzerts. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1927. Schicht, J. G. Grundregeln der Harmonie nach dem Verwechslungs-System entworfen und mil Beispeilen erlautert. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, [1812], Schipdt, Nanna. “Checklist for Cataloguing Music Manuscripts and Prints.” Fontes 19 (1972): 17174. Schmid, Ernst Fritz. “Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel.” MGG 1 (1949-1951), cols. 914-42. _Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach und seine Kammermusik. Kassel: Barenreiter, 1931. _“Joseph Haydn und Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.” Zeitschrift fur Musikwissenschaft 14 (1932): 299-312. Schmidt, Ludwig. Katalog der Handscriften der Konigl. Offentlichen Bibliothek zu Dresden. Bd. 3. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1906. Schmieder, Wolfgang. Thematisch-Systematisches Verzeichnis der musikalischen Werke von Johann Sebastian Bach. 5th ed., 1950. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1973. Schokel, Heinrich Peter. Johann ChristianBach und die Instrumentalmusik seiner Zeit. Diss. Munich, 1921. Wolfenbiittel: Georg Kallmeyer, 1926. Schottlander, Johann-Wolfgang. “Carl Friedrich Zelters Beziehungen zu Breitkopf & Hartel.” Zeit¬ schrift fur Musikwissenschaft 15 (1932-1933): 97-112. Schreyer, Johannes. “Mitteilungen.” Bach-Jahrbuch (1906): 134-38; (1909): 155-56, 160-62. Schulze, Hans-Joachim. Katalog der Sammlung Manfred Gorke. Bibliographische Veroffentlichungen der Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig, 8. [Leipzig: Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig], 1977.

352

Bibliography

_“Marginalien zu einigen Bach-Dokumenten.” Bach-Jahrbuch (1961): 79-99. _“Der Schreiber ‘Anonymous 400’— ein Schuler Johann Sebastian Bachs.” Bach-Jahrbuch (1972): 104-17. Schiinemann, Georg. “Die Bachpflege der Berliner Singakademie.

Bach-Jahrbuch (1928). 138-71.

_Musikerhandschriften von Bach bis Schumann. Berlin, Zurich: Atlantis, 1936. _Die Singakademie zu Berlin 1791-194]. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1941. Schwartz, Judith Leah. “Phrase Morphology in the Early Classic Symphony (ca. 1720-ca. 1765).” Diss. New York University 1973. Selbstbiographien deutscher Musiker des XVIII.Jahrhunderts. Ed. Willi Kahl. Cologne. Staufen, 1948. Siegele, Ulrich. Kompositionsweise und Bearbeitungstechnik in der Instrumentalmusik J. S. Bachs. Diss. Tubingen, 1957. Tiibinger Beitrage zur Musikwissenschaft, Bd. 3. Ed. Georg von Dadelsen. Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hanssler, 1975. Silhouetten jetzlebender Gelehrten en Bou-Magie. Ed. Jacob von Dohren and Otto Sohn. Hamburg. Herolds Wittwe, 1778. Simon, Edwin J. “The Double Exposition in Classic Concerto Form.” Diss. The University of Califor¬ nia at Berkeley 1954. _“The Double Exposition in the Classical Concerto.” JAMS 10(1957): 111-18. Sing-Akademie zu Berlin. Ed. Werner Bollert. Berlin: Rembrandt, 1966. Sittard, Josef. Geschichte des Musik- und Konzertwesens in Hamburg vom 14. Jahrh. bis auf die Gegenwart. Altona: Reher, 1890. Smith, William C. and Charles Humphries. A Bibliography of the Musical Works Published by the Firm of John Walsh during the Years 1721-1766. London: The Bibliographical Society, 1968. Sonneck, O. G. “Zwei Briefe C. Ph. Em. Bach’s an Alexander Reinagle.” Sammelbdnde der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft 8 (1906-1907): 112-14. Spitta, Philipp. Johann Sebastian Bach. 2 vols. 1873-1880; rpt. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1970 (reprinted from the fourth unchanged reprint of 1930). _Johann Sebastian Bach. Trans. Clara Bell and J. A. Fuller-Maitland. 1883-1885; rpt. New York: Dover Publications, 1951. _‘‘Der Tractat iiber den Generalbass und F. Niedts ‘Musikalische Handleitung.’ ” Allgemeine musikalischeZeitung 17 (1882), cols. 241-45. Stevens, Jane R. “The Keyboard Concertos of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.” Diss. Yale University 1965. Suchalla, Ernst. Die Orchestersinfonien Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs nebst einem thematischen Verzeichnis seiner Orchesterwerke. Diss. Mainz, 1968. Augsburg: W. Blasaditsch, 1968. Telemann, Georg Philipp. “Neues musikalisches System.” MusikalischeBibliothek, oderGriindliche Nachricht nebst unpartheyischem Urtheil von alten und neuen musikalischen Schriften und Biichern . . . , pp.713-19 [L. C. Mizler’s Neu eroffnete Musikalische Bibliothek. Bd. 3, Theil 4.] 1752; rpt. Hilversum: Frits Knuf, 1966; Tabellen I-VII. Terry, Charles Sanford. John Christian Bach. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1967. Fore¬ word by H. C. Robbins Landon. Terry, Miriam. “C.P.E. Bach and J.J.H. Westphal—A Clarification.” JAMS 22 (1969): 106-15. Tyson, Alan. “Ground Rules for the Description of Watermarks.” [at the end of his article “Beeth¬ oven’s ‘First’ Leonore Overture.”] JAMS 28 (1975): 332-34. _“A Reconstruction of the Pastoral Symphony Sketchbook.” Beethoven Studies. Ed. Alan Tyson. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1973. Uldall, Hans. Das Klavierkonzert der Berliner Schule.

Sammlung musikwissenschaftlicher

Einzeldarstellungen,10. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1928. Unger, Willi. Deutsche Staatsbibliothek Berlin: Benutzungsfiihrer, 4th ed. Berlin: [n.p.], 1959. Vander Linden, Albert. “Wotquenne.” MGG 14 (1968), col. 877.

Bibliography

353

Versteigerungs-Katalog der von dem verstorbenen Herrn J.G. Schicht Cantor an der Thomasschule zu Leipzig hinterlassenen Musikaliensammlung, welche als Anhang der Biicherauction vom 19ten November zu Leipzig den Meistbietenden gegen baare Zahlung iiberlassen werden soil. Leipzig: [n.p.], [1832], (Copy in D-ddrBds Ac 931.) Verzeichniss der von dem verstorbenen Doctor und Musikdirector Forkel in Gottingen nachgelassenen Bucher und Musikalien welche den lOten May 1819 . . . in Gottingen meistbietend verkauft wer¬ den. Gottingen: F. E. Huth, 1819. (Copy in D-ddr Bds Mus. Df 132/1.) Verzeichniss der von dem verstorbenen Herrn Joh. Christ. Westphal, weil. Organisten an der Hauptkirche St. Nicholai, hinterlassenen Bucher- und Musikaliensammlung. welche am 11. Januar 1830 undfolgende Tage . . . versteigert werden soil. Hamburg, gedruckt in der Borsen-Halle bei A. F. M. Kiimpel. (Copy in D-ddr Bds Ac 1243.) Verzeichniss derjenigen Musikalien und musikalischen Schriften aus dem Nachlasse des verstorbenen Hrn. Organist Kittel in Erfurt welche Dienstags den 24ten October . . . and die Meistbietenden . . . versteigert werden sollen. Erfurt, 1809. (Microfilm copy in US NHu.) Verzeichniss des musikalischen Nachlasses des verstorbenen Capellmeisters Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. Hamburg: Schniebes, 1790. Verzeichniss von auserlesenen, gut conditionirten, zum Theil sauber gebundenen, meistens Neuen Buchern und Kostbaren Werken aus alien Theilen der Kiinste und Wissenschaften und in mehreren Sprachen welche nebst den Musikalien aus dem Nachlass des seel. Kapellmeisters C. P. E. Bach wie auch einer Sammlung von Kupferstichen Montags, den 4ten Marz 1805 in Hamburg in Eimbeckischen House djfentlich verkauft werden sollen. Hamburg: gedruckt in der Borsen-Halle von Conrad Muller, [1805], (Copy in D-ddrBds Db313.) [Voss, Otto Karl Friedrich von.] Verzeichnis von den Musicalien des Koenigl. Wiirkl. Geheimen EtatsKriegs- und dirigirenden Ministre, pp Herrn Freiherrn von Voss, Excellenz. MS. D-ddr Bds Mus. ms. theor. Kat. 21. Vrieslander, Otto. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. Munich: R. Piper & Co., 1923. _“Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach als Theoretiker.” Von neuerMusik 1 (1925): 222-79. Wade, Rachel W. “Beethoven’s Eroica Sketchbook.” Fontes ArtisMusicae 24 (1977): 254-89. _Communication in JAMS 30 (1977): 162-64. Walter, Georg. Katalog der gedruckten und hs. Musikalien des. 17.—19. Jh. im Besitze der Allgemeinen Musikgesellschaft Zurich. Zurich: Hug, 1960. Weinmarm, Alexander. Kataloge Anton Huberty (Wein) und Christoph Torricella. Beitrage zurGeschichte des altwiener Musikverlages, Reihe 2, Folge 7. Vienna: Universal, 1962. W[elch], C[harles]. “Marshall, Julian.” The Dictionary of National Biography. Second Supplement, 1901-1911. Ed. Sir Sidney Lee. London: Oxford University Press, 1912, p. 574. Welter, Friedrich. “Die Musikbibliothek der Sing-Akademie zu Berlin.” Sing-Akademie zu Berlin, Festschrift zum 175jahrigen Bestehen, pp. 33-47. Ed. Werner Bollert. Berlin: Rembrandt, 1966. [Westphal, Johann Christoph.] Verzeichnis von Musicalien welche bey Johann Christoph Westphal und Compagnie in Hamburg in Commission zu haben sind. 1770-1796. [Westphal, Johann Jacob Heinrich ] Catalogue thematique des oeuvres de Ch. -Ph. Emm. Bach. MS. Brussels, Bibliotheque Royal Albert Ier, Fonds Fetis 5218 II (4140). Westphal, J. J. H., comp. Besammlete Nachrichten von demLeben und Werken des Herrn Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach Kapellmeister in Hamburg nebst einer Sammlung verschiedener Recensionen und Beurtheilungen seiner herausgegebenen Werke gesammlet und zusammen getragen von J. H. West¬ phal. MS. Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale Albert Ier, Fonds Fetis 4779 II (4133). Weiss, Karl Theodor. Handbuch der Wasserzeichenkunde. Ed. Dr. Wisso Weiss. Leipzig: Fachbuchverlag, 1962. Wihan, Josef. Johann Joachim Christoph Bode als Vermittler Englischer Geisteswerke in Deutsch¬ land. Prager Deutsche Studien, Heft 3. Prague: Carl Bellmann, 1906. Willi, Liselotte. “Die Musikabteilung.” Sachsische Landesbibliothek Dresden 1556-1956. pp. 15665. Ed. Karl Assmann et. al. Leipzig: VEB Otto Harrassowitz, 1956.

354

Bibliography

Wohlfahrth, Hannsdieter. Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach. Ein Komponist im Vorfeld der Klassik. Neue Heidelberger Studien zur Musikwissenschaft, Bd. 4. Ed. Reinhold Hammerstein. Bern, Munich: Franck, 1971. [a revised version of the author’s dissertation, Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach als Instrumentalkomponist, Diss. Heidelberg, 1968.] Wotquenne, Alfred. Catalogue de la Bibliotheque du Conservatoire Royal de Musique. 4 vols. Brus¬ sels: J.-J. Coosemans, 1898-1912. Wotquenne, Alfred. Catalogue thematique des oeuvres de Charles Philippe Emmanuel Bach (17141788). Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1905. Reprinted as Thematisches Verzeichnis der Werke von Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1972. Wutta, Eva Bleckschmidt. See under Bleckschmidt. Young, Percy M. The Bachs, 1500-1800. London: Dent, 1970. ' Ziffer, Agnes. “Katalog des Archivs fur Photogramme musikalischer Meisterhandschriften, Addenda et Corrigenda.” Franz Grasberger zum 60. Geburtstag. pp. 505-19. Ed. Gunter Brosche. Tutzing: Schneider, 1975. _Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Katalog des Archivs fur Photogramme musikalischer Meisterhandschriften. Teil I. Vienna: Georg Prachner, 1967. Zuckermann, Siegfried Barris [also known as Siegfried Borris], Kirnbergers Leben und Werk. Diss. Friedrich Wilhelms Universitat zu Berlin 1933. Ohlau in Schlesien: H. Eschenhagen, 1933

Index

Agrell, 18,52. See also Uare 11. Agricola, Johann Friedrich, 44, 64, 314, 318 Albu, S., 325 Altmann, Wilhelm, 108 Altnickol, Johann Christoph, 16, 275, 318 Amft, Georg, 108 Anna Amalia of Berlin, 39-40, 48, 110, 226,311,314,317,325 Anna Amalia of Weimar, 49 Anton, Karl, 48, 325 Areck, Franz, 47, 325 Arnold, E., 315 Arnstein, Fanny, 50, 325 Bach, Anna Carolina Philippina, 27, 29, 33, 37-38,122 Bach, August Tobias Bernhard, 53 Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel works of, by Wotquenne number W. 1, 3, 30, 34-36, 42, 88-89, 93, 95, 149, 235, (Ex. 7-10) W. 2, 25,38,45,48-49,55,57-58, 86,90, 95, 128, 131, 149,235, (Ulus. 14, Ex. 11-12) W. 3, 20, 91,140, 149,235-36 W. 4, 48-49, 52, 86, 91-92, 93, 133, 140, 149, 236, (Ex. 13-14) W. 5, 18,38,41,47,48,92-95,98, 112, 128,131, 149, 236-37, 309, 333, (Ex. 15-17) W. 6, 31, 38, 41,47, 128, 136,149, 238,335 W. 7, 20, 31, 69-70, 78-79, 89, 100, 140, 149, 238-39, (Illus.-Trans, 10) W. 8, 31,45,53,128, 131, 134, 140,146,149, 239 W. 9, 47,52,140, 149,239-40 W. 10, 52-53, 128, 149, 240, 334 W. 11, 20, 32, 45, 46-47, 52, 53, 55,

56,58,69, 70,149,240-41, 332, 334 W. 12, 45, 46-47, 70, 78, 89, 128, 131, 140,149, 241, (Illus.-Trans. 9) W. 13, 47, 149, 241, 333, 334 W. 14, 20, 30, 34, 38,41,45,46, 53.55.56.58, 131,149, 24142, 332,334 W. 15, 17,71,73-74,76,93, 149, 242, 333, (Ex. 1-3, Illus.-Trans. 4, Ex. 4, Illus.-Trans. 7) W. 16, 16,51-52, 128,146, 148, 149,242 W. 17, 20,21,45,4647,49,70-71, 128, 140,149, 24243, 332 W. 18, 18,20,21,53,55,58,66-67, 73,128, 131,146, 149, 24344 W. 19, 16,18, 31, 38,42,47,54, 89,128,131,134,149,244 W. 20, 27, 38, 128, 131, 13940, 149,245,331 W. 21, 47,95, 149,245,333 W. 22, 110-11,149, 245, 310, (Facs. 7, Ulus. 17) W. 23, 80, 98-99,149, 24546, 333, (Illus.-Trans. 12, Ex. 19) W. 24, 14, 20,51,53,55,58,97, 101, 128,131,246,331, 332, (Facs. 2) W. 25, 13-14,18,4647,49,52,53, 55.56.58, 80-82, 149, 247,312, 331, 332, 333, (Illus.-Trans. 13, Facs. 2) W. 26, 14,101,108, 128, 139-40, 149.248 W. 27, 47, 79-80, 99-100, 101, 128, 148, 248, 332, 334, (Ex. 6, Illus.Trans. 11, Illus.-Trans. 15) W. 28, 53,128, 131, 13940, 149, 150.248

356

Index

Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel (continued) W. 29, 31,54, 103, 108, 128, 149, 248 W. 30, 127, 149, 248-49, 333, 334 W. 31, 27, 96-97, 100, 127, 139-40, 149,249,333 W. 32, 19, 20, 21, 27, 30, 31, 39, 41, 45, 47-48, 53, 54, 74-75, 97, 131, 140, 149,249-50, 333, 334, (Illus.-Trans. 5, Facs. 1) W. 33, 20, 128, 149,250-51 W. 34, 20-21,31,47,55,58,70, 104-5, 107, 128, 131, 132, 149, 251, 332, 333, 335, (Facs. 3, Facs. 4, Trans. 16) W. 35, 27, 32, 38, 45, 54,128,131, 132, 149,252 W. 36, 27, 66, 127,149, 252-53, 333 W. 37, 97,127,131,149,253 W. 38, 149, 253 W. 39, 106-7 108-9,110, 149, 253, (Facs. 6b, Ex. 20, Ex. 21) W. 40, 106,108,110,149,254, (Facs. 5) W. 41, 27,100,149,254,334 W. 42, 6,41,76-77, 112-13, 131, 149, 254, (Ex. 5, Illus.-Trans. 8, Ex. 22) W. 43, 38,49-50,57-58,123,140, 149,151 W. 43/1, 19,20,21,46,50, 149, 254, (Facs. 1) W. 43/2, 12,20,140, 149,255 W. 43/3, 20,49,140,149,255 W. 43/4, 20,49,50,140,149,25556 W. 43/5, 20,50,149,256 W. 43/6, 20, 46-47, 53, 148, 149, 256-57 W. 44, 71-72, 257, (Illus.-Trans. 3) W. 45, 73,97,98,100, 149,257, 331 W. 46, 20,27, 31,41,54,75-76, 100, 102,149,237-38, 334, (Illus.-Trans. 6) W. 47, 41,44,53-54, 149,257 W. 48, 30-31 W. 49, 59-60 W. 50, 3,28,31, 86, 97 W. 55, 55 W. 56, 53,55 W. 57, 53,55 W. 58, 55 W. 59, 7,53 W.67, 53 W.68, 97

w. 81, 4 w. 87, 3,111 w. 90, 40-41 w. 91, 40-41 w. 91/4, 3 w. 92, 54 w. 93, 54 w. 94, 53 w. 96, 335 w. 96-110, 4 w. 109, 28 w. 112/1, 51' w. 113, 32 w. 114, 32 w. 116, 8 w. 116/21, 3 w. 116/22, 3 w. 117, 4 w. 117/17-40, 113 w. 117/26, 113 w. 118/2, 12 w. 120, 148, 257 w. 121, 65-66,71 w. 161, 96 w. 161/1, 12 w. 164, 106, 107,108,(Facsi. 6a, Ex. 20 and 21) 165, 106, 108, (Facs. 5) 166, 150 167, 150 168, 150 169, 103-10, (Facs. 3-4, Trans. 16) w. 170, 108,332 w. 171, 150,332 w. 172, 150,333 w. 182, 127 w. 194, 1,6 w. 196, 49 w. 198, 53 w. 202H, 135 w. 203, 7 w. 204, 26,53 w. 217, 53 w. 221, 127 w. 234, 26 w. 239, 51 w. 240, 2,28 w. 254-255, Versuch iiber die1 wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen, 63,6465,73-74,81,88, 92,96, (Ex. 13, Illus.-Trans. 4, Illus.-Trans. 13) V w. 259, 129 w. 279, 13 cantatas, 13

w. w. w. w. w.

Index Cantata for the Installation of Haseler as Minister, 13 Lieder, 4 minuets, 7 Musikalisches Allerley, 56 Musikalisches Vielerley, 28, 39 oratorios, 13 passions, 4, 13 polonaises, 7 theoretical writings, unpublished. See W. 121 Versuch iiber die wahre Art das Clavier zu Spielen. See W. 254-255 vocal works, 13,103 Wq. n. v. See Kast, Paul, Wq. n. v. XI, 14,137,262-64 X2, 14, 265-66 X3, 15, 267-68 X4, 123,269 X5, 270-71 X6, 15, 100, 272-73 X7, 15-17,128,274-76 X8, 17,277-78 X9, 21,279-82 X10, 123-24, 283 XII, 17-18,284-85 XI2, 18, 286-87 X13, 288 X14, 18,289-90 X15, 123-24,291-93 X16, 294 XI7, 123-24,295 XI8, 123-24,296 XI9, 297-98 X20, 18-19,20,299-300 X21, 19,301 X22, 19,302-3 X23, 19-21, 304, (Facs. 1) X24, 18,305 X25, 18,306-7 X26, 308-9 “507

1

709

X28,' 110-11, 130, 310-11, (Facs. 7, Illus. 17) X29, 312 X30, 114-17,313-15 Bach, Johann August, 27 Bach, Johann Christian, 8, 15, 17, 18, 27, 39, 100, 245, 267-76, 282, 28994, 300, 306-7, 318 Bach, Johann Christoph, 53 Bach, Johann Christoph Friedrich, 8, 27, 39,47, 293, 318 Bach, Johann Ernst, 49 Bach, Johann Michael, 300

357

Bach, Johann Sebastian (father of C. P. E. Bach) authenticity, problems of: with BWV 1052-1052a (=X30), 114-17, 313-15, (Diagram 3) with BWV An 189 (=W. 1), 30, 3536, 130, (note 65) with the Concerto in B-Flat Major, X20 (=Bach-Incerta 35), 18, 299300 with the Concerto in B-Flat Major, X26, 308-9 with W. 48/5, 30-31 compositional process of, 66-67, 80, 117 influence of, 4 library of theoretical writings, 61-63 provenance of manuscript copies of works, 21, 26-27,41, 146 teaching activity, 60-61,65 works: BWV 54, 52 BWV 146, 114 BWV 148, 152, (note 44) BWV 167, 152, (note 44) BWV 188, 114 BWV 248, 26 BWV 884, 146, (note 1) BWV 1014-1019, 26 Bach, Johann Sebastian (son of C. P. E. Bach), 27,29-30 Bach, Johann Valentin, 52, 325 Bach, Johanna Maria, 8, 13, 14, 21, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 37 Bach, Wilhelm Friedemann, 8,15,16,17, 21,39,45 Bach-Incerta. See Kast, Paul Bahr, Johann, 62,63-64 Beethoven, Ludwig van, 3, 64, 66, 72 Behn, 31 Benda, 110-11, 310-11, (Facs. 7, Illus. 17) Benda, Georg, 17,49 Berg, Darrell, 5 Besser, Johann Friedrich and Theodore Gottlieb, 49, 317, 325 Beurmann, Erich, 5 Billaudot, Gerard, 111 Bimstiel, Friedrich Wilhelm, 29 Bitter, Karl Hermann, 10, 13 Boccherini, Luigi, 282 Bock, Michael Christian, 56 Bode, Johann Joachim Christoph, 7,42 Bodenburg, Joachim Christoph, 62-63 Borsch, Johann Stephan, 318 Boyneburg, C. E., 18,305,306,325 Brahms, Johannes, 49-50, 264, 325

358

Index

Breitkopf, Johann Gottlob Immanuel, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 25, 29-30, 31-32,40, 45, 54, 56, 113, 271, 278, 301,309 Breitkopf & Hartel, 325 Bremner, Robert, 290 Buck, Charles H., 51 Biicken, Ernst, 15, 273 Burgemeister, Dr., 300 Burney, Charles, 7,9,41-42,51,63 Busch, Gudrun, 5 Campbell, Robert Gordon, 42 Carolus, Sebastian, 62, 63 Casadesus, Henri, 279-82 Casadesus, Madame (widow of Henri), 282 Casadesus, Marius, 282 Charles Louis Prince de Hohenlohe, 53, 325 Chevadiere, de La, 294 Cohen, Peter, 64-65 Commer, Lranz, 47, 325 Copyists, unidentified An300, 27,320 An301, 27, 320 An302, 27, 95, 320 An303, 27,315,320 An304, 27, 320 An305, 27,320 An306, 27 An403, 320 An701, 320 An702, 20,321 A, B, 27,321 C, 20,317,321 D, 317,321 E, 20,317,321 L, 20, 304, 317, 321 G, 317,321 H, 321 I-M, 317,321 N-S, 317, 322 T, 322 U, V,W, 317,322 X, 317,322-23 Y, Z, 317,323 AA, 323 BB, 312, 323 CC, 275, 317, 323 DD-LL, 317,323 Cranz, A., 31 Cudworth, Charles L., 21, 281-82 Dadelsen, Georg von, 26, 314 Daffner, Hugo, 300 Dale, J., 269 Davis, Shelley, 112 Dehn, S., 39, 47

d’Indy, Vincent, 45-46 Dunkelfeind, Caspar, 2 Ebeling, Christoph Daniel, 7, 41, 93, 326 Eitner, Robert, 13,48 Eisner, Helma, 293 Elssler, Johann, 53 Engel, Hans, 59 Erk, Ludwig Christian, 43, 326 Falck, Martin, 21 Fasch, Karl Friedrich Christian, 42, 44, 64 Fetis, Fran£ois-Joseph, 11,135 Fischer, Wilfried, 114 Fischhof, Josef, 35, 318, 326 Forkel, Johann Nikolaus, 7, 8, 28, 37, 4041,47,52,56, 60, 64, 326 Frederick the Great, 17,44 Friedeisen, 28 Friedrich, Herzog von Mecklenburg, 49, 326 Fuchs, Aloys, 38-39, 318, 326 Gehring, F., 326 Geigy-Hagenbach, K., 308 Gerber, Ernst Ludwig, 15, 35, 37, 273, 319, 326 Gerstenberg, Heinrich Wilhelm von, 1 Gorke, Manfred, 52-53, 275, 292, 326 Gotthold, Friedrich August, 51,54 Grasnick, Friedrich August, 39 Graun, 41 Graun, Karl Heinrich', 112 Grave, 16, 17, 41-42, 96-97, 275, 288, 317, 319, 326 Grotthuss, Dietrich Ewald Baron von, 54 Hallen, E„ 326 Handel, Georg Friedrich, 282 Hartknoch, Johann Friedrich, 30, 277 Hassler, J.W., 30 Hauser, Franz, 47-48, 51, 326 Hauser, Joseph, 47-48 Haydn, Joseph, 53-54, 76, 94, 326 Helm, Eugene, 15 Hartknoch, Johann Friedrich, 15, 273 Hering, S„ 20,39,319,326 Hertel, Johann Wilhelm, 112 Herzfeld, Friedrich, 44 Hirsch, Paul, 114 Hissman, 326 Hitzig, Wilhelm, 7 Hoffmeister, Franz Anton, 11 Huberty, Antoine, 25, 57-58, 90, 235, (Ex.

ID Huhne, Walt, 327

Index Hummel, Johann Julius, 269, 290, 294, 300 Jahn, Otto, 39, 54 Johann Ludwig Freiherr von Pretlack, 43 Johannes, P., 327 Kade, Otto, 48, 49 Karl Eugen von Wiirttemberg, 42 Kast, Paul, 14, 18, 19, 27, 36, 263, 300, 307, 314, 318 Bach-Incerta 35 (=X20), 18,21,299300 Bach-Incerta 36 (=X21), 18, 19, 301 Bach-Incerta 37 (=X22), 18, 19, 302-3 Wq. n. v. 33 (=X1), 14, 262-64 Wq. n. v. 36 (=X2), 14, 265-66 Wq. n. v. 40 (=X27), 112, 309 Wq. n. v. 67 (=X23), 19, 20-21, 304, (Facs. 1) Kellner, Johann Peter, 314 Kehr, Gunter, 293 Kirnberger, Johann Philipp, 29, 34-35, 36, 39,40-41,64, 74, 87, 110, 112, 314, 319, 327 Kistner, F., 315 Kittel, Johann Christian, 54 Kneihs, Hans Maria, 108 Kobayashi, Yoshitake, 47-48 Koldofsky, Adolph, 51,317,327 Koldofsky, Gwendoline, 51, 327 Kopfermann, Albert, 12 Koswick, Michael, 62, 63 Koussevitsky, Serge, 281 Kraus, Friedrich, 53 Kuhnau, Johann Christoph, 55-56, 64 Kulukundis, Elias, 101, 288, 290, 300, 327 Landsberg, Ludwig, 39 Lang, Johann Georg, 112 LaRue, Jan, 94 Lasserre, 45-47,317,327 Lebermann, Walter, 282, 327 Levy, Sarah, 8,44,51,327 Liepmannssohn, Leo, 7-8, 45, 46, 287, 298 Lingke, Georg Friedrich, 63, 82 Longman & Broderip, 294 Longman, Lukey & Co., 55, 58, 66-67, 104, 244, 246 , 251 Lotter, Johann Jakob, 31 Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm, 39, 64, 112 Marshall, Julian, 50,327 Marshall, Robert, 66, 72, 80 Martini, Maria Catherina, 327 Mason, Lowell, 54, 327

359

Mehnert, M., 50-51 Mendelssohn, A., 37, 44 Michel, 26, 34-35, 36, 42, 52-53, 64, 65, 87,91,95,97-98, 100, 101, 110, 319, 331 Miesner, Heinrich, 4 Milhaud, Darius, 281 Mitchell, William J., 64 Mosewius, Johann Theodor, 52 Mozart, Leopold, 7 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 72, 76, 94, 102, 113 K. 40, 113 K. 175, 102 Miithel, Gottlieb Friedrich, 42 Miithel, Johann Gottfried, 37, 38, 41-42, 319, 327 Naegeli, Hermann, 308 Neidt, Friedrich Erhard, 60 Neufeldt, Ernst, 46 Neumann, Werner, 21 Nichelmann, Christoph, 2, 14-15, 16, 17, 49-50, 110, 117, 262-66, 275, 315,319 Oppel, J. E., 17, 285, 319, 328 Ormandy, Eugene, 282 Palschau, Johann Gottfried Wilhelm, 42, 328 Paulowna, Maria, 49 Penzel, Christian Friedrich, 319 Peter III of Kurland, 57 Petersen, A., 328 Poelitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig, 35, 328 Polchau, Georg Johann Daniel, 26, 34, 3739,42, 44, 315, 319-20, 328 Polchau, Hermann Daniel, 38 Poussin, 328 Pretlack family, 42,317,328 Prieger, Erich, 45, 50 Prohaska, Felix, 281 Quantz, Johann Joachim, 64 Rameau, Jean-Philippe, 65 Ramler, Karl Wilhelm, 1-2 Reich, Wolfgang, 300 Reinagle, Alexander, 55 Rellstab, Johann Carl Friedrich, 1, 11, 3133, 34, 317, 328 Riedt, Friedrich Wilhelm, 61-62, 63 Rinck, Johann Christian Heinrich, 54, 328 Robbins Landon, H. C., 17 Roesgin-Campion, 328 Rosenthal, Albi, 8

360

Index

Rudorff, Ernst, 53, 328 Rust, Friedrich Wilhelm, 45-46, 317, 320, 329 Rust, Wilhelm Karl, 45-46, 114 Saint-Saens, Camille, 46 Schicht, Johann Gottfried, 50-51, 263, 317, 329 Schi^rring, Niels, 57 Schlichting, 26-27, 50, 264, 315, 320, 329 Schmid, Balthasar, 53, 55, 56, 241, 247 Schmieder, Wolfgang, 36 Schulze, Hans-Joachim, 16, 27, 117, 275 Schumann, Robert, 68 Schunemann, Georg, 27 Schwenke, Christian Friedrich Gottlieb, 37, 42 Schwickert, Engelbert Benjamin, 1 Seiffert, 19 Sieber, 269 Solomon, Isler, 282 Solomon, Seymour, 281 Sorensen, 47, 329 Spitta, Philipp, 60 Steinberg, Maximilian, 281 Stevens, Jane, 60 Strahl, H., 329 Suchalla, Emst, 5, 233-34, 266 Swieten, Gottfried Bernhard Baron van, 54, 329 Telemann, Georg Michael, 37 Telemann, Georg Philipp, 4, 37, 62 Terry, Charles Sanford, 17 Thompson, C. and S., 15, 273 Thulemeier, Friedrich Wilhelm von, 42-43, 264, 315, 317, 329 Tischer, Johann Nikolaus, 308-9 Torricella, 294 Traeg, Johann, 37

Tunerstein, D., 48 Tyson, Alan, 52 Uarell, 18, 47, 52, 287, 298, 317, 329 Uldall, Hans, 15, 16, 17, 44, 277, 303, 309 Vierling, Johann Gottfried, 42 Voss, Hieronymus v., 20-21 Voss, Karl Otto Friedrich von (1786-1864), 20-21, 266, 304, 309, 317, 32930 Voss, Otto Karl Friedrich von (1755-1823), 19-21, 31,42, 266, 304, 309, 317, 329-30 Vrieslander, Otto, 64 Wacker, 48 Wagener, 45, 330 Wagner, Richard, 68 Wahler, G., 38, 330 Walsh, John, 53, 58, 242, 247 Weiss, F. G., 320 Welcker, John, 269, 290, 294 Westphal, Johann Christoph (1727-1797), 16, 17, 19, 29, 30-31 Westphal, Johann Christoph (1773-1828), 18-19, 21, 31, 37 Westphal, Johann Jacob Heinrich, 9-12, 13, 14,16,21,45,65,97,113,317, 320, 330 Winter, Georg Ludewig, 6, 31, 34, 53, 5657, 242 Wolf, J. K., 19,303' Wolffheim, Werner, 54 Wotquenne, Alfred, 12, 13, 26, 45, 54, 65 Wq. n. v. See Kast, Paul Zelter, Carl Friedrich, 37, 41,44, 314 Zernitz, Madame, 29 Ziffer, Agnes, 308-9

.

N

date due DEC l\o/p| V v

-

V

--L CAYLORD ►*INTEDiNU-*.A.

ML 1263 W3

Wade , Rachel W. , 1 946The keyboard con certos of Carl Phi 1 i pp Emanuel Ba ch / by Rachel W. : UMI Wade . — Ann Ar bor , Mich. Resea rch Press, cl 981. x v i i, 360 p. : i 11., music ; 24 cm -- (s tudies in mus icology) Bibliography: p. [3411-354. Includes index. ISBN 0-8357-1207-9

2 . Bach, 1. Concerto . Concertos. 1714-1788. II. Series. MUNION ME D000129

830311 MT /JW

Carl Ph i1ipp Select ions.

Emanuel, I. Titie

830 309 CStoC A* 83-B2009 81- 7429/MN

ISBN 0-8357-1207-9