19

Introduction

The present volume combines all of Bach’s organ compositions transmitted with the Unlike in the circle of the Sweelinck School, where the “Fantasia” mutated to the title “fantasia,”1 the (few) fugues belonging to individual fantasias, as well as all sepa- “stylus phantasticus” of the North German organists, its significance was reduced in rately transmitted fugues. Closer inspection shows no single authorized and complete most other parts of Europe in the second half of the 17th century to a kind of make- pair of fantasia-cum-fugues for organ. In the sources for BWV 542, fantasia and fugue shift term for polyphonically designed, usually smaller compositions that could not mostly appear separately, whereas with the two C-minor pairs, BWV 537 and 562, the be identified, for instance, as “fugue,” “canzone,” or something similar. That is also fugues (probably so in the case of BWV 537) have remained incomplete. Especially true of the Middle German keyboard music at the end of the 17th century, where owing to this circumstance and the fact that the majority of fantasias have come down “Fantasia” also occasionally turns up as a generic name. Central here are Johann as single works, it is appropriate to combine the fantasias with the single fugues in one Pachelbel’s six extant examples.4 The most important parameters appearing here are volume. It also enables publishing together the two parts of the G-minor work BWV free imitation of one or several brief subjects or motives as well as the use of 542 – in its two-part form it is one of the most famous of all of Bach’s compositions “ostinato” (Fantasias in C major and D major), of the “figura corta” (rhythm: eighth – , although the source findings may perhaps suggest otherwise. note – two sixteenth notes; Fantasias in D minor and G minor), and of “durezze” (“harsh” harmonic dissonances; Fantasias in E-flat major and G minor). The Fantasia Concept in Bach’s Music It is this liberal and rather unpretentious fantasia type that the young Bach took up.5 In order to properly grasp the concept of the Fantasia in Bach’s music, it is necessary His engagement with the fantasia did not constitute any continuum, but occurred in to sketch its previous history. The origin of the genre lies c. 1500 and is a consequence two clearly separate phases: An early phase (BWV 563, 570, 571, 917, 922, and 1121) is of the historically significant level of contact between humanism and music. connected to the search for his own voice, emanating from the Pachelbel model. After “Fantasia” was an idea from Greek body of thought associated by humanistic aesthet- the sharp rise of the North German influence – a tradition deliberately ignoring the ics with contemporary arts. The abstract concept stands for the “highest” that an artist fantasia as a genre – probably under the impression of the journey to Lübeck in the as an individual can attain.2 It was gratefully adopted for the new instrumental music winter of 1705/06, the term disappeared for some time from Bach’s work. Accordingly, of the 16th century that, lacking the traditional support of a text, sought a coherent no fantasias as independent works are known from the Mühlhausen and Weimar concept and suitable terminology. The aspect of the “highest” was applied as a matter period (1707–17). Bach used the term in this decade simply as an accessory in the case of course to the most artful kind of music then composed, namely that of the imita- of several especially expansive chorale arrangements (BWV 651a, 654a, 658a, 659a, and tive counterpoint of the Franco-Flemish school. This particular feature of the 713) where the North German element of the “fantastic style” and/or the chorale “Fantasia” required of the composer a high degree of originality. Without the formal fantasia unmistakably resonated.6 The fantasia itself was apparently considered a genre or content-related support of a text or, for instance, the framework of a dance, he had of the past – just like the toccata and the chorale partita from which the young Bach to create, so to speak, his own fantasia type. It is therefore not surprising that this definitely took his leave only a little later. But unlike these two genres, the fantasia individualizing tendency took place predominantly in the realm of keyboard music: resurfaced in Bach’s late work. In this second phase, probably first starting in the Not only because a single player was responsible for the presentation of the total Cöthen period, the term is then very deliberately used, but apparently not without polyphonic structure, but also especially because composer and interpreter were here united in one person. Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck’s fantasias form the climax of this “humanistically”-oriented clavier keyboard fantasia.3 The formal scheme is as a rule 4 Johann Pachelbel, Sämtliche Werke für Tasteninstrumente, vol. 6: Fantasien, Ciaconen, Suiten, Variationen, that of a classical, three-part speech, consisting of exordium, medium, and finis [begin- ed. by Michael Belotti (in preparation). 5 In this conjunction the definition by Friedrich Erhard Niedt (1674–1717), one of the Bach con- ning, middle, and end], and this with carefully thought-out proportions. temporaries coming from Jena, is also important: “Fantaisie, ist Frantzösisch / und wird auf Italiänisch Fantasia genannt. Es heißt auf Teutsch ein eingebildetes Ding / eine Phantasey / und wird in musicalischen Sachen solchen Stücken beygeleget / die ein jeder nach seinem Sinn / wie es ihm 1 With two exceptions: [a] The Praeludium in D minor BWV 549a is designated “Praeludium ô Fantasia einkommt / oder gefällig ist / ohne gewisse Schrancken und Maasse verfertiget / oder extemporisiret. pedaliter” in the main source (Möllersche Handschrift). But since the C-minor version BWV 549 always Die Organisten halten viel davon: Denn / wer ein Organist will heissen / muss sich der Phantasie confines the title to “Praeludium” and “Fantasia” is used in the Möller manuscript only as an alter- befleissen … [Fantaisie, is French / and is called Fantasia in Italian. In German it is called an native to “Praeludium,” the work is assigned to volume 1 of the new edition (Praeludien und Fugen I). imagined thing / a fantasy / and such matters are added to musical pieces / which everybody [b] The singular three-part G-major piece BWV 572 was long known primarily as “Fantasia” (especially according to his mind / has found acceptable / or pleasing / creating without certain limits and due to the Peters edition), however most sources transmit the designation “Pièce d’Orgue;” the piece proportions / or extemporizing. The organist thinks much of it: For / whoever wants to be called an appears therefore in volume 4 (Toccaten und Fugen, Einzelwerke). organist / must zealously fantasize…]” (Friedrich Erhard Niedtens Musicalischer Handleitung Anderer 2 Cf. on this, in particular, Arnfried Edler, Fantasia and Choralfantasie: on the Problematic Nature of a Theil, Hamburg, 1721, Reprint Buren, 1976, p. 97). Genre of Seventeenth-Century Organ Music, The Organ Yearbook 19 (1988), pp. 53–66. 6 Cf. Werner Breig, Der norddeutsche Orgelchoral und Johann Sebastian Bach – Gattung, Typus, Werk, in: 3 Pieter Dirksen, The Keyboard Music of Jan P. Sweelinck – Its Style, Significance and Influence, Gattung und Werk in der Musikgeschichte Norddeutschlands und Skandinaviens, ed. by Heinrich W. Muziekhistorische Monografieën 15, Utrecht, 1997, pp. 327–492. Schwab and Friedhelm Krummacher, Kassel, 1982, pp. 79–94. 20 15 encountering specific problems. On the one hand, it was used for singular, rhetorical- well-authenticated keyboard works by Bach which are all datable before c. 1712, ly-cast chromatic compositions (harpsichord fantasia BWV 903 and organ fantasia among them all seven harpsichord toccatas BWV 910–916, as well as the organ works BWV 542), unmistakably showing Bach’s knowledge of the North German “stylus BWV 532/2, 550, 564, and 574b. The source as a whole is hence probably based on a phantasticus;” on the other hand, the conceptual draft [Konzeptschrift] for the organ cohesive early Thuringian composite manuscript. The G-major fantasia appears, fantasia in C major BWV 573 was abandoned early on, which, significantly, was furthermore, to form a logical compositional development of BWV 570 and 563: it also the case with the fugues for the harpsichord fantasia BWV 906 and for the organ expands the two-section form of BWV 563 to three sections. It thereby unmistakably fantasia BWV 562 (and probably also for the fugue of the organ fantasia BWV 537). combines the three most important parameters of the Pachelbel fantasias identified above in a closed composition: free imitation with a brief theme (first movement), The Early Fantasias the same (with the first movement’s theme inverted) in combination with The Fantasia in C BWV 570 is probably Bach’s earliest extant, independent organ “durezze” (second movement), and freely-handled “ostinato” (third movement). work, if not one of his first compositions altogether and could have been composed Like BWV 563, BWV 571 can be attributed to the period c. 170412, underscored in Ohrdruf.7 It is therefore not surprising that it directly follows the Pachelbel model. by the great resemblance of the closing configuration (mm. 118–127) with the His Fantasia in d shows a similar structure with a full-voiced, key-defining introduc- close of the chorale arrangement Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern BWV 739 tion, followed by a freely-imitative main section based on the “figura corta” with (mm. 65–75), extant in an autograph from the same time. “durezze”-like harmonic progressions. The Fantasia in c BWV 1121 long eked out an anonymous and shadowy existence The beginning of the Fantasia in b BWV 563 strongly resembles the main section of in ABB, transmitted, moreover, in tablature notation (albeit it was already recognized BWV 570, although the “figura corta” is used with more freedom, especially harmon- by its first editor Max Seiffert as a significant composition13), until the manuscript ically. The second section (“imitatio”) is based on a short, overture-like fugal theme in was identified as autograph at the start of the 1980s.14 Since then the anonymous flowing three-four time, likewise handled freely and appearing also inverted. The piece has justifiably been considered an authentic work of Bach’s, confirmed by copies of both works by Bach’s Ohrdruf brother Johann Christoph in the Andreas- his characteristic closing cadence formation (combination of the diminished seventh Bach-Buch (subsequently abbreviated as ABB) can be dated only generally as prior to chord [on b] and tonic pedal).15 Combined also here are short imitative themes 1715; however, the more mature work BWV 563 must have originated somewhat later with expressive, “durezze”-like harmonies, though in rather improvisatory form and and can be assigned stylistically to the early Arnstadt period.8 constantly changing thematic configuration – an experimental way that Bach apparently soon abandoned again. At the latest from his stay in Lüneburg and In contrast to these two pieces reliably transmitted in ABB is the source situation of instruction from Georg Böhm, Bach was familiar with North German tablature the Fantasia in G BWV 571, extant only in significantly later sources, which has led to notation, as emphasized by the recently discovered copies of Reincken’s and doubts about its authenticity.9 However, Johann Peter Kellner’s attribution in the Buxtehude’s chorale fantasias.16 Tablature notation of keyboard music, while manuscript P 287 alone already gives no grounds for doubt.10 The last uncertainties generally going out of fashion in Europe soon after 1600, was further cultivated in could then be disposed of by the revaluation of the Brussels manuscript Fétis 2960 as the North German organ tradition of the 17th century as a kind of guild-bound a central source for Bach’s early work.11 This source is now dated significantly earlier cryptograph. The experimental character and the freely-floating disposition of the (c. 1750 instead of the end of the 18th century) and contains next to BWV 571 only

7 Jean-Claude Zehnder, Die frühen Werke Johann Sebastian Bachs. Stil – Chronologie – Satztechnik, Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, Scripta 1, Basel, 2009, pp. 15–18. 8 Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 135f. 12 Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 112f. 9 Cf. Peter Williams, The Organ Music of J.S. Bach, vol. 1, Cambridge, 1980, p. 231; Wolfgang Dömling 13 Anonymi der norddeutschen Schule (Organum, vol. 10), ed. by Max Seiffert, Leipzig, 1925, no. 6. and Thomas Kohlhase, Kein Bach-Autograph: Die Handschrift Brüssel, Bibliothèque Royale II. 4093 Seiffert noted here: “With its formal structure and thought content it stands fully isolated in the (Fétis 2960), Acta Musicologica 43 (1971), pp. 108f.; Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis: Kleine Ausgabe (BWV 2a), literature. We must owe this wondrous piece to one of the great masters.” ed. by Alfred Dürr, Yoshitake Kobayashi, and Kirsten Beisswenger, Wiesbaden, 1998, p. 461. 14 Dietrich Kilian, Zu einem Bachschen Tabulaturautograph, in: Bachiana et alia musicologica. Festschrift 10 Philipp Spitta was also convinced of the piece’s authenticity; Joh. Seb. Bach, vol. 1, Leipzig, 1873, Alfred Dürr zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Wolfgang Rehm, Kassel, 1983, pp. 161–167; Hans-Joachim p. 317. Schulze, Die Bach-Überlieferung im 18. Jahrhundert, Leipzig, 1984, p. 49. 11 Ulrich Leisinger and Peter Wollny, Die Bach-Quellen der Bibliotheken in Brüssel – Katalog, Leipziger 15 According to Russell Stinson (Some Thoughts on Bach’s Neumeister Chorales, The Journal of Beiträge zur Bachforschung 2, Hildesheim, 1997, pp. 85–89 and 214f.; Johann Sebastian Bach, Neue Musicology 11 [1993], pp. 464–467), typical, specifically, of Bach’s early work. Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, ed. by Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut Göttingen and by Bach-Archiv 16 Die frühesten Notenhandschriften Johann Sebastian Bachs sowie Abschriften seines Schülers Johann Martin Leipzig, Kassel etc. 1954–2007 (=NBA), vol. V/9.1, Toccaten – Critical Report by Peter Wollny, Kassel, Schubart, mit Werken von Dietrich Buxtehude, Johann Adam Reinken und Johann Pachelbel, ed. by Michael 1999, p. 16; Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 359f. Maul and Peter Wollny, Kassel, 2007. 21 16 piece seems to be causally linked with the singular tradition in tablature writing. In B’ mm. 25–31 “confirmatio”“artful confirmation”– B transposed and affirmed by an any case, the piece was evidently never passed on further.17 additional measure A” mm. 31–49 “peroratio” “outcome or resolution” – expansion and elevation of A’, The Later Fantasias exactly in the middle, a reminiscence of B (mm. 39–41) Whereas the earlier fantasias can be relatively easily classified from the current state of The artistic proportioning called for by the Hamburg “stylus phantasticus” is fully research, this is not true, astonishingly, of the later and much better known group of present, and in fact on various levels. The work features two equally long sections organ fantasias. The only exception pertains to the fragmentarily extant Fantasia in C (ABA’ = B’A”), as well as also the classical proportion 2:5 (AB:A’B’A”). Additionally, BWV 573. It is located in the first Clavierbüchlein für Anna Magdalena Bach of 1722, A” is exactly as long as A+A’ (18 measures, respectively), and the piece’s dramaturgi- where Bach probably entered it the same year or shortly thereafter. Although this cal “resolution” is to be found at the 4:1 grid intersection (m. 39), where after the fantasia is substantially more ambitious and enriched by the obbligato pedal as a fifth enharmonic culmination a brief reminiscence of B appears. part, the twelve extant measures show a similar concept of composition as that in the The knowledge of the particular background of the G-minor fantasia is essential for same key, the Fantasia in C BWV 570: Full-voiced opening (including the “figura interpreting the sources as well as for determining the time of origin. Unlike the fugue corta” and corresponding to the harmonic plan of the first line of BWV 570!), BWV 542/2, the transmission of the fantasia is of a wholly posthumous character. The followed by imitative sixteenth-note motives. Why Bach left this very promising main focus of the sources moreover lies on the period c. 1800 or later, whereas the two compositional draft unfinished is not known. A comparable uncertainty in the somewhat earlier sources (AmB 531 and P 595) coming from the second half of the use of the “fantasia” idea can be found at the same period in the cycle of strictly 18th century are in an unknown hand. The various intermediate sources that have three-part imitative clavier pieces BWV 787–801: These pieces are called “fantasias” gone missing imply, furthermore, the likewise lost autograph.20 But it is all the more in the Clavierbüchlein für Wilhelm Friedemann Bach of 1720/21, but were renamed noteworthy that the work, despite this unfavorable source situation, is astonishingly “sinfonias” soon thereafter (in the autograph P 610, beginning of 1723). On the well transmitted and with only marginal variants. This extraordinary transmittal situ- other hand, the term underwent special significance in the same epoch through two ation strongly indicates that Bach kept this fantasia, in every respect unparalleled, – keyworks in Bach’s oeuvre, the Chromatic Fantasia in d BWV 903 and the Fantasia in g and indeed just like the early, likewise isolated tablature piece BWV 1121! – for BWV 542/1. They complement each other not only by being intended for harpsi- himself and never made it available to his pupils for copying. chord and organ respectively: Both works represent rather extreme manifestations of Whereas the sources thus cannot reveal anything about the G-minor fantasia’s time of the Hamburg “stylus phantasticus”. Unlike the three-section layout of BWV 903/1, origin, the work has since Spitta21 been associated with Bach’s visit in Hamburg at the BWV 542/1 is in five sections, with alternating free (framing and central parts) and end of November 1720, for which there does, in fact, exist plenty of circumstantional strict imitative sections (second and fourth sections). This corresponds to the standard evidence. The sister work BWV 903/1(a) is dated in the Cöthen period,22 and if type of the North German pedaliter praeludium:18 Wolfgang Wiemer’s theory is correct,23 that this represents a tombeau on the death of A mm. 1–9 “exordium” “entrance and start”19– passagework on pedal points I and V Maria Barbara Bach (died July 1720), then it would be a useful reference to that year. j B mm. 9–14 “propositio” “actual narrative” – fugato (short subject in modified The “modern” notation of BWV 542/1 with two points in any case to a genesis after 24 “figura corta”) in multiple invertible counterpoint, “durezze” the Weimar period, and the revival of the “ fantasia” concept falls as elaborated above A’ mm. 14–25 “confutatio” “citation and refutation of strange-seeming cases” – in the years 1720–22. Two technical, compositional details point in the same direction: passage work, heavy chromaticism, sharply heightened “durezze” a striking parallel of an enharmonic change (cf. m. 20 and especially mm. 38f.) can be

17 Not incorporated here are the early fantasias in G minor BWV 917 and in A minor BWV 922, fea- 20 Cf. NBA IV/5, Präludien, Toccaten, Fantasien und Fugen – Critical Report by Dietrich Kilian, Kassel, turing no idiomatic organ traits and likely to be associated rather with the harpsichord. The fantasias 1978/79, pp. 455–457; William H. Bates, J. S. Bach’s Fantasy and Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542: A Source BWV 570 and 1121, though likewise conceived manualiter, clearly indicate the organ, as demon- Study for Organists, BACH: Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 39/2 (2008), pp. 1–89 strated by the long pedal point towards the end of the piece in BWV 570, as well as the notation in (here pp. 2–13). organ tablature in BWV 1121 (a way of notating that Bach used only for organ music, as also shown 21 Spitta, vol. 1 (see fn. 10), p. 635. by the examples in the Orgelbüchlein). – The much later fantasias (with fugues) in A minor BWV 904 22 Philipp Spitta, Joh. Seb. Bach, vol. 2, Leipzig, 1880, pp. 661f. and 842; George Stauffer, “This fantasia and in C minor BWV 906 are purely harpsichord works. … never had its like”: on the enigma and chronology of Bach’s Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue in D Minor, 18 For the rhetorical analysis in terms of the “stylus phantasticus,” cf. Pieter Dirksen, The Enigma of the BWV 903, in: Bach Studies, ed. by Don O. Franklin, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 160–182 (here stylus phantasticus and Dieterich Buxtehude’s Praeludium in G Minor (BuxWV 163), in: Orphei Organi pp. 175–181). Antiqui: Essays in Honor of Harald Vogel, ed. by Cleveland Johnson, Seattle, 2006, pp. 107–132. 23 Wolfgang Wiemer, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs Fantasie in c-Moll – ein Lamento auf den Tod des Vaters?, 19 Keywords from Johann Mattheson, Der Vollkommene Capellmeister, Hamburg, 1739, p. 236; cf. also Bach-Jahrbuch 1988, pp. 163–177 (here p. 166). Dirksen 2006 (see fn. 18), pp. 121–126. 24 Cf. George Stauffer, The Organ Preludes of Johann Sebastian Bach, Ann Arbor, 1980, p. 27. 22 17 found (aside from BWV 903/1[a]) in another Cöthen work, that is, the Sarabande fugue BWV 562/2 can be dated to “c. 1747 to August 1748.”29 In any case, Bach con- from the Third English Suite in G minor (!) BWV 808, whereas the “endlessly” falling sidered the fantasia as a single-standing piece for at least some years. Regardless of that, scale with surprising modulations (mm. 31–35) has a clear parallel in the first there is the question of whether or not he ever paired the fantasia with the fugue BWV movement of the Third Brandenburg Concerto BWV 1048 (mm. 87–91), present at the 546/2 prior to its renewed writing-out in P 490. (For this reason, the fugue fragment, latest in 1721. Hence, in view of the work’s conception in the Hamburg “stylus most likely deliberately broken off by Bach,30 is reprinted separately from the fantasia phantasticus”, the Hamburg visit in November 1720 comes clearly into view, and even in the appendix to the present new edition [NA].) The fact that the new (?) “partner” so independently of the possible association with this occasion of the G-minor Fugue of this fugue, the Praeludium BWV 546, can be dated, stylistically, to c. 1740 and had (cf. on this, p. 28). The work was most likely composed expressly for his visit. At the at this point in time therefore perhaps superseded the fantasia, could be significant. same time it is clearly written for some modern, circular temperament. For this reason, Since the first manuscript of BWV 562/1 is missing, the piece can only generally be and on account of the full keyboard compass called for, the fantasia was not playable dated at before c. 1742. There is, however, some evidence for a more precise dating. on the two organs associated for certain with Bach’s visit, those at the St. Jacobi and The thematic background is often brought into play here. The theme is undeniably St. Catherine churches, since both still had the short octave in the manual (without inspired by Nicolas de Grigny’s Livre d’Orgue of 1699.31 Bach’s soggetto appears almost E flat, F sharp, and A flat) and did not include the essential low E flat in the pedal, like the aggregate of two fugue subjects by de Grigny: and must have stood in some sort of meantone temperament.25 But hitherto not Fugue Fugue à 5 considered was the possibility that Bach played the work on Hamburg’s then largest and most modern organ, namely the four-manual masterwork completed in 1687 by Arp Schnitger in the St. Nikolai church, with the “Bach” range CD–c3 Furthermore, Bach adopts the typical five-part layout of de Grigny’s pedaliter fugues (manual) and CD–d1 (pedal), and in all likelihood tuned in a more modern, and initially also apparently even its two-manual layout “à 2 tailles [de cromorne] et circular temperament.26 This famous instrument, “supposed to surpass all [others] 2 dessus [de cornet]” up to m. 56, or two-thirds of the piece, the four manual parts are in Germany,”27 certainly had Bach’s special interest and was probably the only one thus playable on two manuals, thereafter this approach was evidently discontinued. capable of demonstrating to the Hamburg audience his virtuosic development of The careful, complete copy that Bach prepared from de Grigny’s Livre d’Orgue North German organ art. Nevertheless, why this organ never shows up anywhere (University Library Frankfurt a. M., Mus. Ms. 1538) can be dated at c. 1712.32 However, in Bach’s biography remains puzzling. – Concerning the registration of this fantasia, BWV 562/1 fits stylistically less well into the Weimar epoch, from which indeed no see further below; on the fugue BWV 542/2, see pp. 27ff. other fantasias are passed down. The aforementioned copy of the early version (P 1104) clearly points to Cöthen,33 indicating that the work existed at least at the Like BWV 573 the Fantasia [et Fuga] in c BWV 562 exists in an autograph fair copy outset of the 1720s. But it would also be quite plausible to assign the fantasia to just (P 490), originating in the Leipzig period. The history of this version28 shows, never- that epoch in which this genre concept was revisited in exceptional cases. Then theless, that this manuscript must have been preceded by still another version extant BWV 562/1, together with other Cöthen works written in this manner, like the in a copy from the period c. 1750 (P 1104). There the fantasia is paired with the fugue Ouverture in C BWV 1066 or the English and French Suites BWV 806–815, could BWV 546/2, though whether or not this goes back to Bach must be left open. The two be classified as a study in the French style. movements in the single manuscript P 490 are written at different times: the fantasia 29 Yoshitake Kobayashi, Zur Chronologie der Spätwerke Johann Sebastian Bachs. Kompositions- und was probably written down between 1742 and 1745, whereas that of the unfinished Aufführungstätigkeit von 1636 bis 1750, Bach-Jahrbuch 1988, p. 59. The interpretation of the scribal evidence by Kobayashi regarding BWV 562/1 in P 490 can possibly be enhanced. Three rather than two forms of the downward stemmed half note do in fact occur; besides those shown by Kobayashi (pp. 18, 35, and 59), 5a (“prevalent form up to c. 1738”) and 5d (“customary from c. 1742”), there also occurs 2c (“towards the middle of the 1740s;” cf. Kobayashi, p. 17). Furthermore, the form 5c (“from c. 1739 to 1742”) is entirely absent. This permits overall a chronological narrowing down of this autograph to “c. 1742–1745.” 30 Werner Breig, Freie Orgelwerke, in: Bach-Handbuch, ed. by Konrad Küster, Kassel, 1999, p. 704. 25 Christoph Wolff and Markus Zepf, Die Orgeln J. S. Bachs – Ein Handbuch, Leipzig, 2008, 31 Hermann Keller, Die Orgelwerke Bachs, Leipzig, 1948, p. 98; Norbert Dufourcq, Jean-Sébastien Bach – pp. 52–55. Le maitre de l’orgue, Paris, 1973, p. 223. Less convincing is, on the other hand, the attempt by Hans 26 Gustav Fock, Arp Schnitger und seine Schule, Kassel, 1974, pp. 46–50. But the single d3 of BWV 542/1 Steinhaus (Themen anderer Komponisten in drei Orgelwerken Bachs, Ars Organi 59 [2011], p. 100), to (m. 24) might be unauthentic; cf. the Kommentar, p. 148. assign the theme model to a piece by Jacques Boyvin. 27 According to the noteworthy organ description in Caspar Friedrich Neickelius, Museographia, 32 Yoshitake Kobayashi, Quellenkundliche Überlegungen zur Chronologie der Weimarer Vokalwerke Bachs, in: Leipzig and Breslau, 1727, p. 45. Das Frühwerk Johann Sebastian Bachs, ed. by Karl Heller and Hans-Joachim Schulze, Cologne, 1995, 28 Cf. Dietrich Kilian, Studie über Bachs Fantasie und Fuge c-Moll (BWV 562), in: Hans Albrecht in p. 294. Memoriam, ed. by Wilfried Brennecke and Hans Haase, Kassel, 1962, pp. 127–135; Kilian 1978/79 33 Cf. Andrew Talle, Nürnberg, Darmstadt, Köthen. Neuerkenntnisse zur Bach-Überlieferung in der ersten (see fn. 20), pp. 333–340. Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts, Bach-Jahrbuch 2003, pp. 162–165. 23 18

The primary source for the Fantasia et Fuga in c BWV 537 is a copy (P 803) prepared soprano and/or tenor entering on a perfect fifth corresponds to the earlier C-minor jointly and evidently in one step by the father and son, respectively, Johann Tobias and fantasia BWV 562/1. The unusual time signature 6$is significantly also encountered Johann Ludwig Krebs. The latter dated the copy “1751” at the close. John O’Donnell in the early fantasia in the same key, BWV 1121, and otherwise within Bach’s was the first to observe that the work was most probably copied from an autograph organ music in only two late works: the incomplete C-minor fugue BWV 562/2 where the fugue remained incomplete.34 Johann Tobias’ share extends only to m. 89 as well as Dies sind die heilgen zehn Gebot BWV 678 (Clavierübung III).38 A genesis after of the fugue, obviously corresponding to his model. After that, he probably handed 1739 is ultimately shown by the fugue subject, which is possibly inspired by one over the copy for completion to his son who was more experienced in composing in from Johann Mattheson:39 the Bachian manner. Various features of his contribution indicate this. Although he prudently decided for a da capo of the fugue’s beginning and thus contributed sub- stantially to the success of his work, the perhaps newly composed part as well as details Mattheson, subject, 1739 (transposed from G minor to C minor) show characteristics which cannot be attributed to Bach himself: the harmonic inde- cisiveness of measures 90–103, the differing form of the subject with passing notes This raises the question of the registration of Bach’s fantasias, especially with regard (m. 105), as well as the final measure with threefold suspensions written out in half to an organo pleno realization, of significance in particular in the later fantasias. notes.35 Pointing to an activity going beyond mere copying is also the elaborateness Organo pleno, as generally known, is as a rule the principal chorus including mixtures of Johann Ludwig Krebs’ inscription at the close, only half a year after Bach’s death: with the addition of one or more reed stops in the pedal. Here, attention is to be “Soli Deo Gloria d. 10 Januarij 1751.”36 This kind of signature actually occurs directed above all to the closest related forms, that is, praeludium and toccata. To be repeatedly in the autographs of Krebs’ own compositions and is otherwise never to be found in the few original sources is the specification organo pleno with BWV 544 found, to my knowledge, in the – numerous – copies of his teacher’s works. If indeed (autograph), and 552 (original print, Clavierübung III, 1739), but not with BWV 548 the younger Krebs is responsible for the composition of the final 41 measures, which (P 274) and the C-minor fantasia BWV 562. Within the secondary sources which can cannot be proven beyond any doubt, the quality and singularity of this completion, be classified as reliable, organo pleno can be found with BWV 535, 538, 540, 543, 545, obviously done shortly after Bach’s death, is still striking, which is why the complete 546, 547, 548, 569, 582 and 589. It is striking that there are no fantasias among them, fugue was incorporated in the main part of the present NA.37 The beginning of Krebs’ and that Bach also refrained from such an indication in his autograph of BWV 562 completion is indicated by a footnote. (the same goes for the autograph heading for BWV 573). An organo pleno registration Transmission, notation (C minor in “modern” notation with three j), and style of in BWV 537/1 can be ruled out because of its rhythmically and polyphonically fine- BWV 537 clearly point to the Leipzig period, if not actually to a markedly late ly-chiseled form. Similarly, the early fantasias BWV 563, 570, 571, and 1121 show by genesis. A comparison with the preludes for organ of the Leipzig period (BWV 544, their “durezze”-like style that they should be performed with a traditional registration 546, 547, 548, 552) explains why Bach had once again resorted to the rare “fantasia” with solo labials. The registration question poses more difficulty in the case of the heading: Unlike the late prelude type, BWV 537/1 is definitely not an organo pleno G-minor fantasia BWV 542/1. Without doubt, the fugue BWV 542/2 is conceived composition (cf. further on this, below). Also belonging in this context is the sonata- for organo-pleno registration, as the primary sources P 288/5 (Kellner) and P 1100 like transition to the dominant at the close, as well as the avoidance of the ritornello (Oley) explicitly stipulate. For the fantasia, on the other hand, any such kind of source form and the chordal “concertante” writing belonging to it, which occur in all evidence is missing. Only in P 288/9, a manuscript originating c. 1800, is organo pleno Präludien mentioned. BWV 537/1 replaces this with free imitation of two relatively given for the work as a whole; however, the title (“Fantasia e Fuga Gm: Per l’Organo short themes, in which the “figura corta” is also freely used, and the rich harmony pieno col pedale”) turns out to be an addendum from c. 1830.40 Since the G-minor has features of “durezze.” The design with tonic and dominant pedal points with the fantasia reflects the “durezze” style in a special way, the modern tradition of playing

38 BWV 678 seems to be especially closely related to BWV 537/1: contrasting also here is a quiet, 34 John O’Donnell, Mattheson, Bach, Krebs and the Fantasie & Fugue in c Minor BWV 537, The Organ canonically used opening idea over a pedal point with a sighing motive, and both works show a Yearbook 20 (1989), pp. 88–105. similar, extremely flexible rhythmic picture; thus one could with good reason assert that BWV 678 35 That in the da capo the original first alto entry has been omitted (the da capo thus picks up the was written in “fantasia” style. Meredith Little and Natalie Jenne (Dance and the Music of J.S. Bach, exposition at m. 5 instead of m. 1) has been criticized (cf. Breig 1999 [see fn. 30], p. 691), however, Bloomington, 2/2001, pp. 255–257) indicate here, that BWV 537/1 (and hence also BWV 678) is to the additional alto entry (repeating the 1st degree of the piece’s opening) is included (mm. 25 be assigned to the loure dance type. Strikingly, a dance model also underlies the fugue of BWV 537, and 125) and is especially effective, completing the four-part subject development as well as also namely that of the bourrée (ibid, p. 207). All in all, this finding, of significance not least for reinterpreting it as closing subject. performance practice, confirms the chronological closeness of this pair of works to the second part 36 O’Donnell 1989 (see fn. 34), p. 90. of the Well-Tempered Clavier (c. 1739–42), where strikingly many stylized dance types occur. 37 But the player could choose an approximation of mm. 114–122 to the version of mm. 14–22, as also 39 Der vollkommene Capellmeister, (see fn. 19), p. 210. Cf. on this Williams 1980 (see fn. 9), p. 86; in m. 104 in the alto, beat 4, a quarter-note f 1 that might sound more “Bachian” rather than the two O’Donnell 1989 (see fn. 34), p. 92. eighth notes. 40 Cf. Bates 2008 (see fn. 20), pp. 10–12 (note 14). 24 19 the G-minor fantasia (in part or as a whole) with organo pleno registration should significant interludes. The source situation is difficult, for the only contemporaneous perhaps be freshly reconsidered. source (a copy by Johann Peter Kellner estimated to be prior to 1725) emerges as a simplification of the original transposed to G major, whereas Johann Ringk’s copy in Early Fugues Based on Italian Models fact reproduces the A-major version, albeit in a rather corrupt version. NA is thus The composition of fugues on Italian subjects and models was evidently an important based primarily on a copy in an unknown hand which originated much later. component of the young Bach’s (autodidactic) learning process. Besides the com- positions incorporated here (BWV 574, 579, 946, 949, and 950), there are further The principle of a broadly-sweeping, toccata-like close, already present in BWV 950, examples in the harpsichord fugues BWV 914/4 (last section of the Toccata in E minor) gains still further significance in the Fuga in c BWV 574(b), which, moreover, takes the and BWV 951(a). Those fugues considered for organ, and therefore incorporated in important step from intermittent to obbligato use of the pedal. Though the copy NA, reveal long pedal points towards the close (BWV 946, 949, 950) or obbligato pedal of BWV 574b by Johann Christoph Bach in ABB is of high quality, the seemingly use (BWV 574, 579) – features lacking in BWV 914a and 951(a). unambiguous information given there (“Thema legrenzianum elaboratum per Joan. Seb. Bach cum subjectum”) has always been problematic, since no clear correlation The earliest example is undoubtedly the Fuga in C on a theme by Albinoni BWV 946. in Legrenzi’s work has been found (only some rather vague reminiscences).45 Michael Talbot’s identification of the subject model41 confirms Bach’s authorship of However, recently Rodolfo Zitellini found the model of the first subject in a trio this piece available only in posthumous copies. The theme derives from the same print sonata in C minor (!), op. 3 no. 4, by Giovanni Maria Bononcini (1642–1678); as – Tomaso Albinoni’s trio sonatas op. 1 of 1694 – as the models for BWV 950 and other reminiscences of Bononcini’s composition are also present in the first section 951(a). The young Bach dared here, as in the approximately contemporaneously of BWV 574, the long sought-after model seems to have been found:46 classified Fuga in A BWV 949, to construct a four-part fugue, in which he was Allegro probably somewhat more successful in the latter, substantially more extensive work.42 The A-major fugue, extant in a copy by Bach’s brother Johann Christoph (ABB), is also evidentally based on a subject of Italian provenance, which has hitherto, How the misleading title materialized, apparently going back to Bach himself, is however, still not successfully been unambiguously identified. It comes close to the impossible to say, just as little as whether the “subjectum” (the second subject) subject of a fugue by Bernardo Pasquini (1637–1712), whose music Bach had perhaps stemmed from Bach himself or is to be ascribed to a secondary, unknown line of gotten to know from a printed collection of c. 1698:43 sources for this sonata. In any case, the double subject shows features of a standard- ized Italian contrapuntal model.47 The work with its clear-cut three-part form (A, B, A+B) played a key role in the development of the double fugue.48 In contrast to the fugues BWV 535(a), 532(a), and 951(a), the differences between the Pasquini subject (transposed from C major to A major) early version BWV 574b and the revised version BWV 574 are less far-reaching, and the transmission shows instead a continuum of minor improvements and enhancements Another Fuga in A BWV 950, likewise on a subject from Albinoni’s op. 1, probably (comparable with, for instance, in BWV 542/2). NA attempts to clearly separate the originated several years later and can be assigned to the early Arnstadt period.44 It two versions. BWV 574b can be rather precisely dated, as not only can the copy in remains closer to the Italian model than BWV 946 due to it remaining in three parts ABB be estimated as being prior to 1715, but also, because Johann Gottfried Walther’s and adopting several of its model’s (interlude) motives, resulting in a more agile copy (P 805) originated not long after Bach’s arrival in Weimar. The hitherto rather composition made up of continuous sixteenth notes. A further advancement appears problematical source situation of BWV 574 has been considerably improved by the in the use of the subject also on the minor degrees III and VI, as well as from the more discovery of an anonymous copy in the Gotha Forschungsbibliothek (Mus. 40 43/1); its valuable readings are printed here for the first time.

41 Michael Talbot, A further Borrowing from Albinoni: The C Major Fugue BWV 946, in: Das Frühwerk Johann Sebastian Bachs (see fn. 32), pp. 142–161. 42 Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 13–18; he dates both works “around 1699.” 43 In the collection of prints Sonate da Organo di varii autori (ed. by Guilio Cesare Arresti, Bologna, 45 Cf. David Swale, Bach’s Fugue after Legrenzi, Musical Times 126 (1985), pp. 687–689; Robert Hill, Die c. 1698), the fugue has been anonymously reprinted as “Sonata 14.a di N. N. di Roma” (cf. Zehnder Herkunft von Bachs ‘Thema Legrenzianum’, Bach-Jahrbuch 1986, pp. 105–107. 2009 [see fn. 7], pp. 18f.), though the manuscript, Bologna, Civico Museo Bibliografico, Ms. 46 Rodolfo Zitellini, Das „Thema Legrenzianum“ der Fuge BWV 574 – eine Fehlzuschreibung?, Bach- DD.53, contains the same piece with an attribution to the well-known Roman composer Bernardo Jahrbuch 2013, pp. 243–259. Pasquini; cf. the edition in the series Frutti Musicali, vol. 7, ed. by Jolando Scarpa, Magdeburg, 2009, 47 Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 199f. preface, and p. 32. 48 Werner Breig, Das ‘Thema legrenzianum elaboratum per Joan. Seb. Bach’ und die Frühgeschichte der 44 Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 119f. Doppelfuge, Bach-Jahrbuch 2001, pp. 141–150. 25 20

The version BWV 574a, located only in the composite volume P 207 which originated a. at the end of the 18th century, probably does not stem from Bach.49 The (unknown) scribe evidently wanted to “improve” this and other Bach fugues, as well as Händel’s, by excising the all-too-“baroque” passage work. Omitted in the process was naturally Buxtehude, Praeludium in A Bux WV 151, mm. 23–25 also the toccata-like coda – probably the most extreme example of the North German b. recitativo style in Bach’s works.

The Fuga in b based on a theme by Corelli BWV 579 is probably to be viewed as a Bruhns, Praeludium in e, mm. 47–50 kind of counterpart to BWV 574(b). Both works can be assigned to c. 1706 as the time of origin,50 and BWV 579 is also based on a “Thema con Suggetto” (thus the title in Further Early Single Fugues P 804) of Italian provenance. Unlike BWV 574, the subjects are here combined with The Fuga in B flat (“Erselius”) BWV 955(a) was for a long time seen as the work of the each other from the outset, which corresponds with the model (Arcangelo Corelli, Freiberg organist Johann Christoph Erselius (1703–1772), in that basically he was con- second movement from the trio sonata op. 3 no. 4). However, the source situation of sidered the original composer of the version BWV 955a, while Bach – if the latter’s par- BWV 579 is substantially less favorable. Johann Nikolaus Mempell’s copy from the ticipation was considered at all – was responsible solely for the (only slightly revised) 1730s is rather problematic. A line of transmission which apparently ran via Wilhelm version BWV 955. It was Karl Heller, who was able to clarify matters and ascribe not Friedemann Bach but is now only available in sources from the 19th century offers a only both versions to Bach, but also to assign the piece a solid position in his early good alternative. A possible explanation for the noteworthy fact that Bach’s long fugue work.54 The attribution of this fugue to Georg Friedrich Händel in a recently resur- (he expanded Corelli’s 36 measures to 102 measures)51 – unlike not only BWV 574(b), faced source (Berlin Mus.ms. 9172/3), is not tenable. Yet, it is this source that contains but also the fugues estimated as earlier such as BWV 535a/2 and 950 – is limited an important clue towards understanding the relationship between the two versions. entirely to thematic entries in the tonic and dominant, is offered by Robert Hill’s The pedal directive at the start of BWV 955a in Mus.ms. 9172/3 shows that the bass analytical approach52 by considering BWV 579 as a kind of permutation fugue. A line is probably to be played throughout on the pedal and hence solving the problem direct stimulus to composition perhaps came from the visit in the winter of 1705/06 of several impossible manualiter passages (mm. 45–48, 74, 77–79, and 81). Thus, this to Dieterich Buxtehude, who used the largely similar double subject (in the major!) in is not a piece with intermittent pedal participation (as temporary support in those pas- his late Praeludium in A major BuxWV 151, datable to 1696 (example a). Apparently, sages), but a work with obbligato pedal.55 Measures 65–68 are particularly interesting Bach took along a copy of the piece from Lübeck, as suggested by his brother Johann in this respect. The lowest part was hitherto always edited as a bass line, but the sources Christoph’s copy in the Möllersche Handschrift, estimated to be prior to 1707. A fugue also allow an interpretation of a tenor line played by the left hand (realized in NA), subject by Buxtehude’s pupil Nikolaus Bruhns (example b), also adopting Corelli’s striking the low C in typical virtuosic manualiter figuration during the pedal’s rest. In tempo marking “Vivace,”53 offers another possible connection. the revised version BWV 955 this passage was rewritten so that now no longer is the bass silent, but the soprano. Bach’s attempt to transform the fugue into a manualiter piece was, however, not implemented to the hilt; whereas the span of the tenth in m. 48 is still more or less playable, the close from m. 79 is unplayable without use of the pedal. In addition, after the exposition the rhythm was smoothed out by the addi- tion of sixteenth notes, and the toccata-like close was expanded by one measure. 49 James A. Brokaw II, The Perfectability of J.S. Bach, or did Bach compose the Fugue on a Theme by Legrenzi, While BWV 955 is geared to a rather vocal cantabile manner, the Fuga in c BWV 575 BWV 574a?, in: Bach Perspectives I, ed. by Russell Stinson, Lincoln and London, 1995, pp. 163–180. 50 Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 198 and 212. shows an entirely different stylistic direction. The subject and its treatment bear traits 51 Cf. here Hartmut Braun, Eine Gegenüberstellung von Original und Bearbeitung, dargestellt an der of the fantastic style, and the rhetorical pauses of the playful, markedly original Entlehnung eines Corellischen Fugenthemas durch J. S. Bach, Bach-Jahrbuch 1972, pp. 5–11; Williams 1980 (see fn. 9), pp. 249–252; Gwylim Beechey, Bach’s B-minor Fugue, BWV 579 – Corelli’s B-minor Sonata, Op. 3 No. 4, The American Organist 19 (1985), pp. 126f.; Luca Tutino, La fuga per organo in si minore “über ein Thema von Corelli”. Modalità di lettura di un modello italiano, in: Bach und die italienische Musik. Bach e la Musica Italiana, ed. by Wolfgang Osthoff and Reinhard Wiesend, Venice, 54 Karl Heller, Die Klavierfuge BWV 955. Zur Frage ihres Autors und ihrer verschiedenen Fassungen, in: Das 1987, pp. 61–87. Frühwerk Johann Sebastian Bachs (see fn. 32), pp. 130–141. Cf. also Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 129f. 52 Robert Hill, „Streng“ versus „Frei“. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse der frühen Tastenfugen von Johann Sebastian 55 That also perhaps has consequences for the closest related piece to BWV 955a, namely, the Bach, in: Bach, Lübeck und die norddeutsche Tradition. Bericht über das Internationale Symposion der Canzona in D minor BWV 588. Also called for here appears to be, at first glance and considering Musikhochschule Lübeck April 2000, ed. by Wolfgang Sandberger, Kassel, etc., 2002, pp. 178–184. the sources, “intermittent” pedal usage (cf. Jean-Claude Zehnder in NA, vol. 4, pp. 13 and 179), 53 Geoffrey Webber, Buxtehude’s Praeludia and the sonata publications of Corelli, Early Music 38 (2010), but a continuous pedaliter performance was nevertheless obviously intended in both pieces pp. 252f. starting with the bass part. 26 21 subject are filled in by a counter subject. As in BWV 579 there is compositionally a directly after his visit to Buxtehude in Lübeck. In all three obviously independent “replacement” for the insistence upon tonic and dominant entries of the subject: in transmittal strands (Esser 2, Rara Ib, 31 and the lost source for Peters IX), the work is the form of free entries of parts and subject elements (after the four-part exposition),56 attributed to J. S. Bach. Moreover, the reliable manuscript Esser 2 evidently originated virtuosically exploiting the manual’s four octaves. BWV 575 forms in thematic and still in Bach’s lifetime (albeit hitherto the scribe has not been identified). The subject compositional respect the counterpart in the minor to the pedaliter fugue in D major seems influenced by Buxtehude; Spitta already referred to its relationship to the Fuga BWV 532/2. The direct model for the liberal, playful fugue technique of both works in C BuxWV 174 and to the closing fugue of the Praeludium in e BuxWV 142.59 The first was probably the fugue in Buxtehude’s Praeludium in F BuxWV 145 (mm. 40–123), half of the subject can indeed be considered a paraphrase of two elements from perhaps not coincidentally Buxtehude’s longest pedal fugue and comparable BuxWV 174 (example a). Buxtehude’s fugue, extant only in ABB and thus probably also in this regard to the two Bach works (as with so many free keyboard works of transmitted by way of Bach himself, is a manualiter-conceived work. BuxWV 142, on Buxtehude’s, BuxWV 145 survived thanks to copies from the Bach circle). BWV 575 the other hand, makes demands in pedal performance in every way comparable to forms part of a group of works which originated around 1708, with a new pedal BWV 577. Of relevance here is not so much the opening subject of the closing section virtuosity heavily influenced by Buxtehude (BWV 532, 550, 577), shown here in the of BuxWV 142, a fugato written in a rather relaxed manner, but particularly a specific pedaliter coda. passage in the course of the movement (example b). a. The Fuga in g BWV 131a is unique in Bach’s organ work. It is an arrangement of the BWV closing movement, “Und er wird Israel erlösen aus allen Sünden” from the cantata Aus 577: der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir BWV 131 of 1707. The arrangement skillfully avoids adopting the material schematically, though the impression remains ambivalent.57 On the one hand, there are definitely “Bachian” elements, such as the enhancement of the harmony in m. 17 (the first tenor note on the second beat is c1 instead of d1 as in the BuxWV 174, subject cantata), the passage, mm. 36f., very suitable for pedal, the alto part in m. 41, as well b. as especially the idea of replacing the cantata’s conclusion with those dialogue measures directly leading into the choral fugue; the original, strongly plagal close was rightly discarded as too dramatic and bound to the text. On the other hand, the texture turns out to be thin and fragmentary in several places from the dropping of parts, and there are harmonically and melodically problematic spots (for example, in the harmony in m. 22, the voice-leading in the alto in m. 26, or the cross relation between bass and alto in m. 44). The opening with a simple chord points more to an BuxWV 142 mm. 140–143 arranger of the younger generation. The late and rather peripheral transmission cannot contribute anything to the question of authorship. But since in its basic substance the This passage shows that the “short” notation with eighth notes instead of quarter notes piece obviously stems from Bach, it was included in the appendix. on the beat (Esser 2) in the very similar parallel passages in BWV 577 (mm. 29–32 and 71–74) probably corresponds to Bach’s intention, which is why this reading was Later Single Fugues adopted in NA. Because of its rather peripheral transmission, the authenticity of the Fuga in G The sources let the pedal re-enter athematically in m. 63 (together with the thematic BWV 577 has repeatedly been questioned,58 though the work with its virtuosic pedal return of the soprano) after a long internal manualiter section; the bass entry of the part completely fits stylistically into the view of Bach’s organ music from the period subject in m. 57 would thus still have to be played manualiter. This occurred appar- ently only in order to avoid the high e1 lacking on most organs in the pedal (m. 57). However, such a distribution of the bass over manual and pedal is inconceivable with 56 Cf. on this in detail, Breig 1999 (see fn. 30), pp. 639–642. Bach, and the three-part manualiter setting in mm. 57–62 is indeed very uncomfort- 57 Dismissive of Bach’s authorship are Spitta, vol. 1 (see fn. 10), p. 451, and Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), able to play – unlike the rest of the fugue. Furthermore, the subject appears in its p. 528. Leaning towards a more positive view are Hermann Keller, Unechte Orgelwerke Bachs, Bach- fourth measure (m. 60) in the version for alternating feet as was already used in m. 28, Jahrbuch 1937, p. 63; Hermann Keller, Die Orgelwerke Bachs, Leipzig, 1948, p. 70; NBA IV/8, Freie Orgelwerke und Choralpartiten aus unterschiedlicher Überlieferung – Critical Report by Ulrich Bartels and which when played manualiter would be futile. (But strikingly, the third pedal subject Peter Wollny, Kassel, etc., 2003, p. 27; Bernhard Billeter, Bachs Klavier- und Orgelmusik, Winterthur, at the end of the fugue [mm. 80f.] does not have this modified form, which probably 2010, pp. 446f. 58 Thus, still in BWV 2a (see fn. 9), where it is classified as a “work of doubtful authenticity” (p. 461). 59 Spitta vol. 1 (see fn. 10), p. 320. 27

links it with its characteristic as the final subject entry; should then the tempo be held Christoph Bach’s copy in ABB) may possibly even go back to Bach (cf. the back somewhat here?) commentary on p. 151 for mm. 11, 19, 27, 51, 58, and 62). Did his autograph have a The thus assured pedal e1 links BWV 577 with a series of other (early) Weimar organ sketch-like character, perhaps jotted down for some special occasion? works (BWV 528/2 [early versions], 536, 550, 593, 653a and b). The fugue BWV 550/2 in the same key is especially close stylistically to BWV 577, in the somewhat “mechan- There is also a folksong reference in the case of the Fuga in g BWV 542/2, for it is well ical”-seeming configuration of the subject, as well as in the complex figurations and known that BWV 542/2 may be based on a Dutch song (example a). However, the resulting brisk harmonic changes and virtuosically-managed pedal part. Their thematic connections also seem to exist to a capriccio by the Halle organist Friedrich closing lines are especially strongly related. Since the rebuilding of the Weimar Wilhelm Zachow (example b),66 as well as – hitherto unnoticed – to a “Thema Schlosskirche organ by Johann Conrad Weisshaupt (1707/08), its pedal went up to Legrenzianum” (example c).67 Johann Mattheson quoted a variant of the subject e1.60 In June 1708, Bach had been invited to inspect the work and to play the (example d) in 1731 in conjunction with an organist’s audition at the Hamburg dedication concert. Heard on that occasion was probably one (or even both) of the cathedral in 1725 and commented on it: “Indeed, I knew where this subject was at demonstration works BWV 550 or 577; they may have been specifically tailored to the home and who had formerly put it down on paper.”68 61 renovated organ, works that stylistically still belong to the Mühlhausen period. a.

The Fuga in g BWV 578 can be dated before 1713/14 on the basis of its occurrence in ABB, and its fitting stylistically into the picture of the early Weimar years.62 The Bach collector Franz Hauser (1794–1870) mentions a prelude for this fugue, but nothing further is known about this.63 That the song-like subject, violinistically constructed on “Ik ben gegroet van” (1700), first half the tonic and the subjacent “open string” d, is actually based on a folksong, was b. recently confirmed by Russell Stinson.64 Quoted on the title page of a truncated manualiter arrangement from the hand of the Bach pupil Johann Georg Schübler (born c. 1725) is the text incipit “Lass mich gehn, denn dort kommt meine Mutter Friedrich Wilhelm Zachow, Capriccio in D minor her,” that fits the first two measures of the subject: c.

Lass mich gehn, denn dort kommt mei ne Mut ter her Giovanni Legrenzi, subject from Sonata La Frangipana Perhaps the rather relaxed polyphony of this fugue can be accounted for against this d. background. The subject is indeed accompanied by two countersubjects, but one of them is simply a dominant sustained tone, still further emphasizing the already strong presence of this scale degree in the subject. Similarly tonally unsatisfying is the clash Johann Mattheson, 1731: “Fugue subject,” “with a countersubject which should be of the two manual parts in mm. 27f., the accented octave (two octaves apart!) between used simultaneously” soprano and tenor in mm. 46–48 (always on the third beat) and the rather “fluctuat- e. ing” harmony in mm. 49–51. Although basically conceived as a four-part pedaliter fugue, the piece is predominantly in three parts – even the exposition. Despite the well-proportioned form,65 a certain naiveté is ascertainable. In the same way, several Johann Adam Reincken, Hortus Musicus, Sonata V obvious inaccuracies in the extant music text (including the primary source, Johann Mattheson’s subject version, its countersubject and his commentary are doubtless related to Bach’s fugue and point to the Hamburg visit of 1720. The subject’s Dutch 60 Wolff/Zepf, Die Orgeln J. S. Bachs (see fn. 25), p. 105. 61 Zehnder 2009 (see fn. 7), pp. 292f. 62 Jean-Claude Zehnder, Zu Bachs Stilentwicklung in der Mühlhäuser und Weimarer Zeit, in: Das Frühwerk 66 Max Seiffert in Friedrich Wilhelm Zachow: Gesammelte Werke (Denkmäler Deutscher Tonkunst, 1st Johann Sebastian Bachs (see fn. 32), pp. 335. series, vol. 21/22, Leipzig, 1905), pp. X and 335f. Furthermore Zachow’s capriccio also seems to have 63 Yoshitake Kobayashi, Franz Hauser und seine Bach-Handschriftensammlung, Göttingen, 1973, p. 331. been the model for the harpsichord fantasia BWV 906. 64 Russell Stinson, J.S. Bach at his Royal Instrument. Essays on His Organ Works, New York, 2012, 67 Giovanni Legrenzi, Sonate a due e tre, Libro I, Venice, 1655. pp. 20–27. 68 Johann Mattheson, Grosse Generalbass-Schule. Oder: Der exemplarischen Organisten-Probe, Hamburg, 65 Breig 1999 (see fn. 30). 21731, pp. 34f. 28

background is traditionally associated with Johann Adam Reincken (1643–1722), the player all the variants transmitted up to about 1800; this is especially so because, on organist from the Dutch town of Deventer, then at St. Catherine’s in Hamburg. But the one hand, a version authorized by Bach is lacking, and because, on the other, it perhaps the melody already functioned for some time as an improvisation subject concerns one of the central works of the organ literature. Instead of intricate for auditioning Hamburg organists. Mattheson added, that the candidates had “to descriptions in the Critical Report, these variants are synoptically presented on the deliver the written-out fugue within two days after playing the audition to give visible CD-ROM. This is done on the basis of the putatively earliest accessible version from evidence of their knowledge of composition;” perhaps this also applied to Bach’s Johann Peter Kellner (P 288/5, in the ante correcturam version), which can thus serve performance in November 1720. For Bach, undoubtedly, the topos “G-minor fugue” at the same time for comparing the “late” version edited here after P 803. The was related to Reincken, revered since his youth: the early organ fugue BWV 535a/2 is transposition of this fugue to F minor,77 while certainly not stemming from Bach, is based on a “Thema Reinckenianum,”69 and a gigue theme from Reincken’s Hortus however transmitted in several reliable sources from the second half of the 18th Musicus was used for the concluding fugue from the harpsichord toccata BWV 915.70 century and therefore also offered on the CD-ROM. All sources prior to 1800 (thus Furthermore, Reincken’s manualiter fugue in the same key shows in its stepwise also those going back to the second autograph which undoubtedly originated in figuration a close affinity to BWV 542,71 as well as another subject from Hortus Leipzig), notate the work in “Dorian” with only one flat, indicating a genesis before Musicus (example e). Perhaps BWV 578 is also a part of this Hamburg context.72 The c. 1717.78 Werner Breig has shown that the singular, extremely differentiated structure “follow-up work” BWV 542/2 corrects several inconsistencies of the earlier work: of the fugue BWV 542/2 cannot be assigned to one of the two main forms of Bach the four-part texture is treated more strictly and the subject is not – as in BWV 578 – organ fugues, but is evidently to be placed (also chronologically) between the four- simplified for pedal performance. section form (Weimar and earlier) and the three-section form (Leipzig). In it, The widespread source transmission documents various phases of the fugue’s moreover, are uniquely “brought together popularity, stupendous pedal virtuosity, and development which can be traced back to two (lost) autographs; the first autograph complex fugal architecture.”79 was evidently repeatedly revised.73 But none of the copies is verifiably based directly The unity of fantasia and fugue still remains a central question. The strongest argu- on an autograph. The most important evidence of the second autograph version is the ment against it is the fact that all sources of the fugue from Bach’s direct circle as well copy by Johann Tobias Krebs in P 803. It has been traditionally associated with Bach’s as long afterwards show no reference to the fantasia, and the paired work is also final Weimar years,74 though Krebs, who enjoyed Bach’s instruction in Weimar, still notably missing in Forkel’s catalogue of the “Grosse Praeludien und Fugen für Orgel copied Bach’s works after his death, as documented by the copy of BWV 537 [Great Preludes and Fugues for Organ].”80 Until far into the 19th century the fugue evidently first prepared posthumously (cf. above, p. 23). Unlike P 801 and P 802, was copied as a single piece, and thus also in the first edition of BWV 542 from P 803 contains several post-Weimar Bach works from the hand of Tobias Krebs (above Breitkopf & Härtel, edited by Adolf Bernhard Marx, c. 1833. There both pieces appear all, BWV 807, 811, 903, and 537).75 Thus, the question of the alleged “Weimar” separately and in different volumes. Moreover, there are differences in the notation source and transmission of the later version can be duly answered. The copy by (“dorian” notation for the fugue, “modern” notation for the fantasia) and in the case Johann Friedrich Agricola (1720–1774), stemming from his period of instruction with of keyboard range (the d3 of the fantasia was obviously avoided in the fugue: the comes Bach in 1738–41, also largely confirms this version; however, this copy shows variants entry on d2 in m. 44 is given after a half measure an octave below to avoid d3). The (e.g., mm. 68–71) that are possibly not authentic.76 two pieces were undoubtedly not conceived at the same time. Although the differences are not so radical as in some other fugues and concern only But there are even more serious arguments for their unity. Although in 1845 details in the voice-leading, the editor considers it necessary to make available to the Griepenkerl opined: “Both are here associated with each other for the first time, for they otherwise occur only alone,”81 we encounter the paired work already in several 69 Pieter Dirksen, Zur Frage des Autors der A-Dur-Toccata BWV Anh. 178, Bach-Jahrbuch 1998, sources from the second half of the 18th century. Nevertheless, probably the earliest pp. 121–135 (here p. 133). 70 Peter Wollny, Traditionen des phantastischen Stils in Johann Sebastian Bachs Toccaten BWV 910–916, in: of these sources (at the same also the earliest for the fantasia), AmB 531, stems from Sandberger 2002 (see fn. 52) pp. 252f. an anonymous copyist, and the two pieces do not follow each other, but were 71 Williams 1980 (see fn. 9), p. 124. 72 Cf. comprehensively on this, Ulf Grapenthin, Bach und sein „Hamburgischer Lehrmeister“ Johann Adam Reincken, in: Bachs Musik für Tasteninstrumente. Bericht über das 4. Dortmunder Bach-Symposion 2002, ed. by Martin Geck, Dortmund, 2003, pp. 9–50. 77 On the problems and question of authenticity of the F-minor version, cf. Kilian 1978/79 (see 73 Cf. Kilian 1978/79 (see fn. 20), pp. 458–468 and 725; Bates 2008 (see fn. 20), pp. 5 and 13–33. fn.20), pp. 459–461. 74 Hermann Zietz, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen an den Bach-Handschriften P 801, P 802 und P 803, 78 Stauffer 1980 (see fn. 24), p. 27. Hamburg, 1969, pp. 98 and 100; Kilian 1978/79 (see fn. 20), p. 458; Breig 1999 (see fn. 30), p. 614; 79 Breig 1999 (see fn. 30), pp. 675f. Siegbert Rampe (ed.), Bach-Handbuch IV: Klavier- und Orgelwerke, Laaber, 2007, p. 774. 80 Johann Nikolaus Forkel, Ueber Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke, Leipzig, 1802, 75 Cf. also Stephen Daw, Copies of J.S. Bach by Walther and Krebs: a Study of the Mss P 801, P 802, P 803, p. 60, and fig. 16. The Organ Yearbook 7 (1976), pp. 31–58. 81 Johann Sebastian Bach’s Compositionen für die Orgel, vol. 2, ed. by Friedrich Conrad Griepenkerl and 76 Cf. Kilian 1978/79 (see fn. 20), pp. 459 and 463f. Ferdinand Roitzsch, Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1844, p. II. 29

originally separated from each other by three (now removed) leaves.82 A Berlin final chord is probably authentic, is underscored by the fact that in the two closing tradition seems to exist, for another work in this small composite manuscript measures of both works, respectively, the BACH signature appears (whereby the “H” (BWV 907) shows in its author indication the correcting hand of the Berlin Bach naturally ensures the major; in German nomenclature b = b-flat, h = b-natural), in pupil Johann Philipp Kirnberger (1721–1783). A similar problem is posed in the the fantasia hidden in the third part from the top (b-flat1-a1, c2/b1); in the fugue in the source (P 1071), written c. 1800 by Ambrosius Kühnel (1770–1813), where the fantasia closing measure and its upbeat, in which a1 and c2 sound simultaneously. appears, remarkably enough, after the fugue. A source closely related to AmB 531, the likewise anonymous composite manuscript P 595/1, is probably the earliest evidence The fugue from the sonata in G minor for violin solo BWV 1001 is extant in two of the coherently paired pieces together with the corresponding title “Fantasia con contemporary arrangements, for lute (BWV 1000) and for organ (BWV 539/2). The Fuga con pedale Gj”. The lost source which led Griepenkerl to the first edition of exclusively posthumous source situation of the Fuga in d BWV 539/2 has seen a BWV 542 as a paired work gives more details: “An early copy of the fantasia from my significant revaluation since the identification of the scribe of both its most important collection led us to this combination, which after its conclusion provides the subject sources, AmB 606 and P 213. The copyist, Carl August Hartung (1723–1800) – of the fugue belonging to it.” The relation of both pieces to the Hamburg visit of 1720 organist in Cöthen, 1752 to 1760, thereafter in Braunschweig up to his death – was constitutes another important argument in favor of their common bond. In any case, apparently an eager collector of Bach’s music and stood in close contact with the the performer today is free to play BWV 542 as a whole, as well as the two pieces Cöthen Bach pupil Bernhard Christian Kayser.84 But even without this new separately. knowledge, the repeatedly expressed doubt about its authenticity85 should be seen as Since in the literature there exist different interpretations regarding the nature of the unnecessary, considering the high quality of this arrangement. The identity of the closing chord of both the fantasia and the fugue, an overview of the sources is given composer and arranger of the piece, transposed down a fourth, bearing in mind the here:83 highest note of the violin version (f 3), becomes evident at the outset: For a thematic Major Minor pedal entry the exposition was expanded by a measure. This intervention in the Fantasia P 595, AmB 531, III.8.20, P 288/9 original substance and its flawless execution was probably entrusted to none other Rara II 134, P 1071 than Bach himself. The arrangement also elsewhere reveals in innumerable details and harmonic enrichment consistently high ingenuity,86 in the course of which a strict Fuga P 290, P 598, P 288/9, P 287, P 288/5, P 320, Ms. 4/2, continuation of the five-part exposition is certainly not pursued, but rather the P 803, P 1100, AmB 531, ND VI 3327e, Peters IIb original’s freely polyphonic, characteristic style is still further enhanced. In doing so, Hahn 1, P 595, P 1071, Bach to a large degree retains the ‘staccato’-like accompanying parts of the violin Rara II 134, Le 21081 model. The result is a unique, dynamic organ fugue, exploring new sound possibili- ties of the organ. It is evident from this that the fantasia ends in the major in all relevant sources. Only The fugue was at some point (probably around the end of the 18th century) supple- one single, rather late source gives it in minor, which must probably be seen as a mis- mented by a short manualiter prelude (BWV 539/1). We are acquainted with this form take. However, the situation is rather different with the fugue. Although here too the only by 19th-century sources. However, remarkably enough, this paired work was major close dominates in the sources, there is an important source group transmitting included in Forkel’s thematic catalogue of large two-part organ works, while several a minor ending. Located here are various sources important for the earlier versions, other works with obbligato pedal, such as BWV 532, 536, 550, and BWV 542, are, on including P 288/5 (Kellner), as well as the F-minor tradition dependent on the second the other hand, missing there. That the pairing goes back to Bach himself seems autograph (represented here by P 287 and P 320). Agricola (P 598) and Krebs (P 803) highly unlikely, for the manualiter-pedaliter combination would be singular in Bach’s read, however, major. But that not only for the fantasia, but also for the fugue, a major case, and the proportions would also be very unusual for Bach (the fugue is nearly five times the length of the prelude). Based on the source situation, the fugue is therefore edited as a single work, whereas the prelude appears in the appendix.

82 Recalled in this connection should be the theory by Hans Klotz (Bachs Orgeln und seine Orgelmusik, Die Musikforschung 3, 1950, p. 202), that the single-standing Trio in D minor BWV 583 could have been intended as the middle movement for BWV 542, a claim based on its (indeed striking) the- 84 Cf. Andrew Talle, Die „kleine Wirthschafft Rechnung“ von Carl August Hartung, Bach-Jahrbuch 2011, matic relationship with the G-minor fugue. Although long since disproven (cf. Dietrich Kilian, pp. 51–80; Peter Wollny, Carl August Hartung als Kopist und Sammler Bachscher Werke, Bach-Jahrbuch Dreisätzige Fassungen Bachscher Orgelwerke, in: Bach-Interpretationen, ed. by Martin Geck, Göttingen, 2011, pp. 81–101. 1969, p. 14), the possibility that a middle movement was present in AmB 531 remains. (The copy of 85 Ulrich Siegele, Kompositionsweise und Bearbeitungstechnik in der Instrumentalmusik Johann Sebastian BWV 583 coming from the same collection, AmB 501,4, does not in any case fit the removed pages.) Bachs, Neuhausen-Stuttgart, 1975, pp. 86f; Dietrich Kilian, Präludium und Fuge d-moll, BWV 539. Ein 83 Cf. on this topic also Hans Musch, Dur- oder Mollterz? Zum Schlussakkord der Fantasia g-Moll BWV Arrangement aus dem 19. Jahrhundert?, Die Musikforschung 14 (1961), pp. 323–328. 542, Ars Organi 30 (1982), pp. 160–162. 86 Cf. on this particularly Williams 1980 (see fn. 9), pp. 99–103. 30

CD-ROM authenticity is in considerable doubt. The CD-ROM also includes the individual The CD-ROM provides on the one hand versions of three works of the main body: commentaries on the relevant works there. the synopsis of variants in the G-minor fugue BWV 542/2, its F-minor version from P 287 (accessible hitherto only with difficulty), as well as the “Erselius” Fugue in To be warmly thanked for valuable advice and helpful information are the Mssrs. Jean- B-flat major (BWV 955) in the ornamented version from P 425. Four works, on the Claude Zehnder, Werner Breig, Russell Stinson, Rodolfo Zitellini, and Peter Wollny. other hand – BWV 561, 576, 580, and BWV Anh. [appendix] 90 – are, in fact, present here in sources from the 18th century, with attribution to J. S. Bach, though their Culemborg, Spring 2016 Pieter Dirksen

The English translation of the “Kommentar” (pp. 145ff.) can be found on the CD- ROM or downloaded under www.breitkopf.com.