Kellner Sonatas y Partitas

8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas

1/14

J.P. Kellner's Copy of Bach's Sonatas and Partitas for Violin Solo

Russell Stinson

Early Music, Vol. 13, No. 2, J. S. Bach Tercentenary Issue. (May, 1985), pp. 199-211.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0306-1078%28198505%2913%3A2%3C199%3AJKCOBS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8

Early Musicis currently published by Oxford University Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/oup.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgSun Nov 11 11:59:01 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0306-1078%28198505%2913%3A2%3C199%3AJKCOBS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/oup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/oup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0306-1078%28198505%2913%3A2%3C199%3AJKCOBS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8


2/14

Russell Stinson

J.P.

Kellner's copy of Bach's sonatas and partita s

for violin solo

Johann Peter Kellner

1

705-1 772):silhouette ~1770)Bach

Museum, Eisenach)

The sonatas and partitas for solo violin swv1001-1006

are among J. S. Bach s most famous compositions for

any medium. Fortunately, the autograph fair copy of

all six works-bearing the date 1720-has survived;

and naturally, we are best acquainted with the set in

the version found in this source. But these pieces

have also been handed down in a pre-1750 source

which presents the collection in a considerably differ-

ent format.

The source in question is a manuscript in the hand

of the Grafenroda Kantor, Johann Peter Kellner (1705-

1772), hat now forms an independent fascicle of the

huge Bach miscellany

D B

Mus.ms.Bach P 804.* In-

scriptions on the first page of the copy- Scrips./

Johann Peter Kellner/Anno 1726JFrankenhayn. -and

its last page- Frankenhayn. d.

3 .

Jul:/l726. -indicate

not only the year it was made, but also where it was

prepared and even the exact day on which it was

completed.

The copy is incomplete, omitting the whole Partita

in

B

minor; the Allemande and Courante from the

Partita in

D

minor; and the Loure, Menuett

11,

Bourree,

and Gigue from the Partita in

E

major. Furthermore, the

works are given in a very different order from that in

the autograph. Bach wrote out the set in the same

familiar sequence printed in the

Bach Werke Verzeich

n i x 3 G

minor Sonata,

B

minor Partita,

A

minor Sonata,

D

minor Partita,

C

major Sonata,

E

major Partita; in

Kellner s copy the order is: G minor Sonata,

A

minor

Sonata,

C

major Sonata,

E

major Partita,

D

minor

Partita.

However, the most important discrepancy between

the two manuscripts involves variant versions of three

of the best-known movements in the collection: the

Chaconne from the

D

minor Partita and the fugues

from the G minor and C major Sonatas. The Kellner

copy gives substantially shorter versions of all three

movements and provides material for the two fugues

not found in the autograph. These variants are also

noteworthy because they are the only versions of any

of the movements from the collection, excluding

transcription^,^

that differ significantly from the auto-

graph.5 Moreover, they differ more sharply than any

versions-transcriptions included-with regard to

length. Our concern here will be their authenticity.

In addition to being the only source for the modified

versions, Kellner s copy is the only source which

presents the works in the fragmentary state or disjunct

order outlined above. Evidently the

source(s) from

which the copy was derived have not s ~ r v iv e d . ~

Scholars have long been aware of Kellner s copy, but

even the most thorough discussions of the manuscript

are quite superficial and inconclusive. For example, in

a recent essay Helmut Braunlich unhesitatingly ac-

cepts all three variants as authentic early versions,

E AR LY M U S I C M A Y 1 9 8 5 1 9 9


3/14

despite some fairly obvious clues to the ~ontrary.~

ifth. This copy appears to derive from the same lost

Further, in the critical commentary to NBA VI/i the

only statement made regarding their authenticity is

that they should in no way be interpreted as the results

of 'unauthorized liberties' on Kellner's part, simply

because of his 'deep respect for Bach.' Nowhere in

either of these discussions is the manuscript com-

pared to other Bach copies by Kellner, nor are there

any remarks on his possible motives for preparing the

source, two rather crucial issues in attempting to

determine the authenticity of the Kellner versions.

Perhaps the best way of approaching this topic is to

consider Kellner's activities as a scribe and musician.

He is without a doubt one of the most important

copyists represented in Bach sources. Besides his

personal acquaintance with Bach, Kellner was an

extremely prolific copyist of Bach's compositions. In

many instances Kellner's copy is the earliest-and in a

few cases the only-surviving source for a Bach work.

Despite his prominence in the transmission of

Bach's music, Kellner is also unquestionably an ex-

ceedingly careless scribe; this aspect of his work has

received comment since the first half of the nineteenth

~ e n t u r y . ~his carelessness is plainly evident in his

copies of the violin works, whose numerous errors

range from incorrect notation of pitch and rhythm to

inaccuracy of phrasing and the omission or duplication

of whole bars.

Of greater significance than Kellner's less than

meticulous scribal methods is the fact that a few of his

Bach copies transmit versions of works in which

sizeable sections of material seem to have been

arbitrarily excised. Three cases will suffice for example.

Firstly, Kellner's copy of the Bach organ transcription

of Vivaldi's D major violin concerto ~ ~ 2 0 8 - t h e o-

called Grosso ogul swv594-omits the lengthy cad-

enza of its first movement entirely and gives a

drastically abbreviated and apparently corrupt reading

for its last movement cadenza.I0Secondly, his copy of

the Prelude and Fugue in C major ~ ~ ~ 5 3 1B Mus.ms.

Bach P 274) presents

a

shortened version of the Fugue

which must be considered corrupt. In addition to this,

recent research has shown that the manuscript is

derived from the same lost source as the copy in the

Mollersche Handschrift (D-B Mus.ms.40644), which

gives this Fugue in its standard form. Finally, Kellner's

copy of theAria variata swv989 (B ~u s.ms .B ac h 804)

omits the eighth and ninth variations as well as

inserting the tenth variation between the fourth and

manuscript as Johann Tobias Krebs' copy of the work

D-Bds

Mus.ms.Bach P 801),which preserves the set in

a much more conventional format.12Since none of the

exemplars for these three Kellner copies are extant, it

is impossible to say with certainty just how responsible

he was for these versions. But the conclusion that he

modified them himself is suggested by the lack of any

other sources except manuscripts prepared from his

copies.

Kellner's unreliability as a copyist aside, we should

address the question of why he prepared his copy of

the violin works. According to the autobiography of

his son, Johann Christoph (1736-1 803), Kellner did

play the violin, but to what degree of proficiency is

unclear.14 Kellner was better known to his contem-

poraries as an organ virtuoso; Johann Christoph's

autobiography is the only source-contemporary or

posthumous-which mentions his father in connect-

ion with the violin. The only surviving instrumental

compositions by Kellner are solo keyboard and organ

piece^, ^ and he mentions no works for other instru-

mental media in the work-list of his autobiography.16

Furthermore, only four of his Bach manuscripts, of

which over forty survive, are copies of works other

than solo keyboard and organ pieces. It should also

be mentioned that four of Kellner's pupils, including

Johann Christoph and Johann Philipp Kirnberger, are

reported to have studied keyboard and organ with him,

but violin with others1' (implying that Kellner lacked

experience as a violinist?). Thus, it is obvious that

Kellner's interest in the violin was subordinate to his

activities in the realm of keyboard and organ music. It

soon becomes a matter of considerable doubt that

Kellner had the technical ability to have performed

these works-among the most demanding in the violin

repertoire-nor is there evidence that he might have

prepared a copy from which someone else could

perform.

Assuming that Kellner copied out the sonatas and

partitas for purposes other than violin performance,

we should offer speculation as to other motives. While

all that can be offered is unfortunately purely con-

jectural, certain clues can be garnered from other

Kellner copies as well as further details of biographical

data.

The most intriguing clue we have comes from

Kellner's copy of another set of unaccompanied string

compositions by Bach, the suites for solo cello

2

EARLY MU SIC MAY 9 8 5


4/14

swv1007-1012 B Mus.ms.Bach P804).On the basis of

its script, the copy of the cello suites, like that of the

solo violin works, appears to date from c1726. It is

complete, with the exception of the fifth suite C

minor) in which Bach calls for the a string to be tuned

down a whole tone, and to judge from numerous pitch

errors in his copy, Kellner's exemplar must have

utilized this tuning. Instead of retaining thescordatura

in his copy, Kellner laboured to notate at sounding

pitch all passages on the a string. Evidently the task

proved to be so troublesome that the Sarabande was

completely omitted and only the first nine bars of the

Gigue were copied.

It seems impossible that Kellner copied out the fifth

suite for it to be performed on a cello. If one chooses to

play the work without the scordatura, certain alter-

ations have to be made in the chordal writing which

Kellner did not incorporate into his copy.20

Keyboard or organ transcription suggests itself as a

possible reason for the preparation of the copy.

Kellner appears to have had a keen interest in this

practice. He copied out a large number of Bach's

keyboard transcriptions of concertos and more impor-

tantly, there is evidence that he prepared organ

arrangements of a lost Bach chamber work him~elf .~'t

should also be pointed out that one of Kellner's

students, Leonhard Frischmuth (c1700?-64), arranged

six violin concertos by Tartini for harp~ichord ,~~

implying that Kellner may have used transcription as a

pedagogical tool. In addition to Kellner's obvious

interest in transcription, there is the fact that it is

advantageous to work from a source which uses

normal tuning when preparing a keyboard arrangement

of a string composition.

I

am not proposing by any means, however, that

Kellner planned on preparing keyboard and/or organ

transcriptions of all six suites. The sheer size of such

an undertaking would have made it prohibitive, coupled

with the realization that newly-composed material

would have had to have been added to provide

harmonic support and contrapuntal interest if the

arrangements were to have resembled the surviving

keyboard and organ arrangements of the unaccom-

panied violin pieces (see fn.4). It is far more plausible

that Kellner wrote out the manuscript primarily to have

a copy of the collection for reference purposes. Such

study copies were common in the period.

Whatever the motives, it seems quite clear that the

fifth suite was not copied out with cello performance

L L & , > , . ,

Violinist: engraving Nurernberg.

c

1720)

in mind. No source mentions Kellner in connection

with the cello, which, coupled with the sizeable

technical demands posed by the set, makes it very

doubtful that he wrote out the suites to be performed

by himself or anyone else.23

The same is likely to be true of the violin works. The

first of Kellner's modifications to be discussed-the

Chaconne from the

D

minor Partita-presents more

evidence to corroborate this theory.

But first, a note on ordering in Kellner's copy of the

violin works. When Bach altered the length of a

composition in the process of revising it, he almost

always made it 10nger.~'One might conjecture, ere-

fore, that Kellner's copy represents Bach's first draft of

the collection, since three of its movements are

considerably shorter than the versions in the auto-

graph. Following this line of reasoning, one might also

E RLY MU SIC M Y 1985 201


5/14

be tempted to speculate that Bach changed substan-

tially the ordering of the set when he revised these

movements because of the huge ordering discrepancies

between the two sources. It is possible that Bach s

original scheme was of two distinct halves-sonatas

and partitas-the decision to alternate being taken in

the revised plan. However, certain peculiarities in the

ordering and numbering of the pieces in Kellner s copy

suggest that his manuscript is derived from a source or

sources which presented the works in the same order

as found in the autograph.

The ordering of the sonatas in Kellner s copy agrees

entirely with the autograph; the ordering of the

partitas, on the other hand, does not in any way agree.

Though Bach uses the same numerical designations

for the sonatas as the partitas: Sonata I m a , Partita I m a ,

Sonata 2 d 0 , Partita z d a , etc., Kellner uses different

numerical designations for the two. He numbers the

sonatas on the title page of his copy as well as in the

individual work headings exactly as does Bach, where-

as with the partitas no numbers are given in work

headings, and those used on the title page appear after

the respective titles: Partie in E . I . and Partie in Db.2.

These discrepancies imply that whoever arranged the

works in the order found in Kellner s copy decided to

retain numerical designations only for those pieces

whose ordering agreed with the autograph s. From the

previous discussion of Kellner s scribal methods, it is

not beyond possibility that he chose to divide his copy

into two distinct halves for whatever reasons, despite

the numerical designations in his exemplars.

The Chaconne from the D minor Partita in Kellner s

manuscript (see illus. 1 is roughly three-fifths the size

of the standard 257-bar version found in the autograph,

omitting five passages that vary in length from four to

forty bars 21-24,89-120,126-140,177-216 and 241-

244).25The first (bars 21-24) and the last (bars 241-

244) of these omissions, each comprising an entire

variation, can easily be explained as straightforward

copying errors. But, because of the large amount of

material lost and the type of passage-work entailed,

the remaining three excluded sections do not appear

to have been omitted through mere carelessness.

The musical success of the modified form with so

many bars missing is diminished by an unsatisfactory

cadence resulting from the second omitted section

(bars 89-120), and by the interruption of the Chacon-

ne s regular 4-bar phrasing and an extremely abrupt

modulation from minor to D major arising from the

2 2 E A R L Y M U S I C M A Y 985

third (bars 126-40). The fourth and most substantial of

the cuts (bars 177-2 16), on the other hand, does not

show these weaknesses: there is a smooth and con-

vincing transition between bars 176 and 217 in

continuous semiquavers with a V-I cadence virtually

identical to that at bars 244-5.

Despite this, Kellner s copy is plagued by some

major musical shortcomings which cannot be ignored.

Another reason for questioning the authenticity of this

version is the type of passagework in the three omitted

segments just discussed, and it is in this regard that

Kellner s motives for preparing his copy of the move-

ment are pertinent.

In an article published in 1920, the violinist and

musicologist Andreas Moser proposed that Kellner

excluded certain passages from his copy of the

Chaconne because of the technical difficulties they

pose for the ~i ol in is t: ~t is an argument not without

basis. The three large segments missing from Kellner s

copy unquestionably contain some of the most de-

manding passages in the entire movement, most

notably the famous arpeggiando material in bars 89-

120 and 201-208, but also the difficult quadruple

stopping in bars 126-1 30. But we cannot presume that

Kellner sought to produce a simplified performing

score because his copy also preserves some of the

most technically challenging passages of the Chaconne,

including the demi-semiquaver figuration of bars 65-88.

One might more successfully attempt to explain

these omissions by arguing that Kellner prepared his

copy of the Chaconne to transcribe it for keyboard or

organ. Undoubtedly the two sections of the movement

that pose the greatest problem in being transferred to a

keyboard, being least idiomatic, are the twoarpeggiando

passages (unless transcribed as blocked chords). Fast

scale passagework like that found in bars 65-88, on

the other hand, is a hallmark of baroque keyboard

writing. Further, the transcription hypothesis can in

no way account for the omission of bars 126-140 and

177-200, passages which are easily adaptable to a

keyboard. Both are characterized by extensive multiple-

stop writing, a feature common throughout Kellner s

COPY.

Faced with this puzzling state of affairs, yet another

possibility should be offered: that Kellner intended his

copy of the sonatas and partitas to serve as nothing

more than a study copy , perhaps complementing that

of the cello suites, deleting certain passages from the

Chaconne simply because of its length.

This brief excursion must conclude with the admis-


6/14

Kellner's copy of the Chaconne Rom

Bach's Partita in

D

minor BWV1005.D B

P

804

fasc.22 f 12

sion that it is by no means certain that Kellner himself

is responsible for these omissions; the scribe of

Kellner s exemplar may have excluded material for

whatever reasons, Kellner thereafter preparing what

he thought to be an unabridged copy of the movement.

The evidence would, however, lead us to suspect that,

for one reason or another, Kellner knowingly excised

portions of the Chaconne as he copied it.

Kellner s possible motives for abbreviating the Cha-

conne are of course not nearly as important as the

realization that this variant, obviously conupt, cannot

be authentic Bach. The two variants that remain to be

discussed, however-abbreviated versions of the

fugues from the minor and C major sonatas-do

appear to represent authentic early versions of these

movements.

E RLY MU SIC M Y 1985

203


7/14

(contd.) Kellner s copy of the Chaconne

(f.13r)

#

.

.

.

4

- * -

-..*. *& . , - -

- . .

, . . -

-

Kellnefs copy of the Fugue from the minor Sonata

(illus.2)omits only a single 7-bar segment of the stand-

ard autograph version: bars 35-41. The multiple

stopping in this passage makes it one of the most

problematic in the movement to perform, substanti-

ating at first glance Moser s view that Kellner excluded

material from the Chaconne because of its technical

difficulty. If one accepts David Boyden s theory that,

beginning with the third beat of bar 35, this passage

was probably meant to be arpeggiated because of its

chordal nature, a further parallel to the Chaconne

copy would appear to exist.27

Unlike the copy of the Chaconne, however, this

variant gives material not found in the autograph

version in the bars immediately adjacent to the

omitted passage (ex.1) which in no way raises doubt

204

E RLY MUSI M Y

1985


8/14

I (contd.) Kellner s copy of the Chaconne

I

t

13v)

0

pq < . d . - < r --e ..f l

4 r

. t

,J--

Ex.] Kehels modified reading from the Fugue. Sonata no.1

movement-especially in the upper two voices of bars

G

minor)

WIOOI

58 62

of the autograph version-and they lead to a

perfectly effective cadence on the downbeat of bar

35.

Still more significant are the striking similarities

between the latter half of bar

34

rom Kellner s copy

and the last two beats of the upper voice in bar

63

rom

about its authenticity. The parallel sixths in bars 34

the autograph. Both of these cadential figures share

35

of Kellner s copy are in abundance throughout the the same rhythm-two quavers, four semiquavers-

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985 205


9/14

2 Kellner s copy of th e Fugue from Bach s

Sonata in minor BwV1001 -B P 804

fasc.22 f.2v

and general melodic contour. The two quavers in both

downward descent. It is also worth noting that both

involve a downward leap: in Kellner s copy a sixth, in passages immediately precede episodes which are

bar 63 of the autograph a perfect fourth. Moreover, the exactly ten bars long and comprise semiquavers

second quaver in each passage is immediately followed exclusively.

by a semiquaver a second lower. Finally, the semi-

The only major difficulty in accepting the authen-

quavers in both lead to a lower pitch, concluding the

ticity of this variant stems from our thorough familiarity

206

E R LY M U S I C M Y

1985


10/14

2

(con td.) Kellner s copy of the minor

Fugue (f.31)

with the autograph version. We are so accustomed to

making the passage surely one of the most unforgett-

hearing bars 35-41 that we inevitably miss them upon

able in the movement. But this, obviously, does not

hearing a version of the fugue in which they are

constitute sufficient reason to question the authen-

absent. This is particularly true of bars 38-41, where a

ticity of the variant.

series of quavers in parallel thirds and sixths is

introduced over a tension-generating pedal point.

Kellner s copy of the fugue from the

major Sonata

EARLY MUSIC MAY 985 2 7


11/14

(illus.3)while also evidently representing an authentic

early version, is far from an accurate transmission of

such a version. It omits bars 188-200, 256-270 and

277-286, but in each instance presents material not

found in the autograph version, just as in the variant of

the G minor fugue. The excluded segments are all

clearly derived from material included in the variant

and are not among the movement s most technically

challenging passages.

The passage beginning with bar 186 in Kellner s

copy (see ex.2) is plainly corrupt since it provides only

two beats for bar 187. The subsequent bar, which leads

directly to one identical to bar 201, does not appear in

the autograph. Evidently, Kellner or the scribe of his

exemplar glanced from the second beat of bar 187 to

the downbeat of this bar, its first two beats being

identical to the last two of bar 187.

Ex 2

Kellner s modified reading from the Fugue, Sonata no.3

C major) BW1005

bar

18.91

LU

autograph bar

2OlJ

later passage from Kellner s copy which corre-

sponds to ex.2 is a good clue as to the amount of missing

material. (See ex.3, beginning with the notes beneath

the asterisk.) In ex.3 this passage is five bars long, with

the fugue subject stated once, followed by cadential

material. The last beat of the bar corresponding to bar

276 and the downbeat of that corresponding to bar 287

differ from the autograph. Although the cadence in

ex.3 sounds to us premature, because of our familiarity

with the autograph version, there is nothing in the

reading which might lead us to question its authen-

ticity. It would seem then that Bach expanded this

passage by ten bars when he prepared the autograph

version.

In the autograph the passages which correspond to

exx.2 and 3 are both exactly fifteen bars long, in

addition to using virtually the same material. It is not

unreasonable to assume that they were the same

length in the early version too and that two and a half

bars are missing from ex.2.

few observations on the first system of ex.3 should

also be offered. It begins with two bars identical to

254-255 and then proceeds directly to a bar not found

208 EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

Ex 3

Kellner s modified reading from the Fugue, Sonata 110.3

C major)~ ~ 1 5

autograph bar

2541

autograph bar

2711

autograph bar

2761

-

autograph bar

2.971

1 1

I

in the autograph, which, in turn, leads to a bar

identical to 27 1. The bar unique to Kellner s copy uses

a f igur~whkhppears five times in the autograph (see

the

f fJ r

figure in bars 43, 79, 81, 83 and 331),

and in each case, as here, is immediately preceded by

four quavers or a motive. Considering the

uncontrived manner of the passage, plus its motivic

derivation, one is hard-pressed to point to any musical

shortcomings of the reading. One feature of ex.3,

however, does arouse suspicion. Beginning on the

third beat of bar 288, Bach repeats the opening bars of

the movement as far as the downbeat of bar 65, and in

his fair copy he writes out all the notes of the repeat,

instead of using a da capo indication. But Kellner

writes out only the first minim of the restatement and

in the bar corresponding to 289 provides a Da Capo

inscription. If the fugue involved a literal repeat from

bar 289 until the end, Kellner s da capo indication

would barely matter, but bars 289-296 are in no way a

literal restatement of 1-8. Bach adds counterpoint to

the first two statements of the subject, beginning with

the third beat of bar 289 and extending to the second

beat of 296, from which point until bar 353 the repeat

is literal; only the final chord differs.

This discrepancy between Kellner s copy and the

autograph led Helmut Braunlich to maintain that Bach

originally conceived this movement as containing a

literal da capo, and that he added counterpoint to the

first several bars of the restatement only when he

prepared the autograph version.** While this theory

seems logical enough on the surface, a more careful

examination of Kellner s copy leads to a different

conclusion.


12/14

5

Kellner s copy of the Fugue from Bach s Sonata in

C

major BwV1005.D B

804

fasc.22ff

6v 81

E RLY

M U S I C

M A Y

1985

2 9


13/14

In the custos immediately prior to his 'Da Capo'

inscription, Kellner shows that the repeat begins on a ;

yet there is no segno on the downbeat of bar 1, nor is

there a

fermata

on the downbeat of bar 66, indicating

the conclusion of the movement. But both of these

omissions, suspicious as they are, could be explained

as copying oversights.

The minim rest which appears directly beneath the

custos, though, strongly suggests that the da capo

restatement of the early version was identical to that in

the autograph because the rest clearly belongs only in

bar 289: neither in Kellner's copy nor in the autograph

does a rest appear in bar 1. It is also significant that in

Kellner's copy the rest is obviously intended for the

lower voice, occupying the lowest space of the system,

as it does in bar 289 of the autograph.

Evidently, Kellner (or possibly the scribe of his

exemplar) realized that the movement was a da capo

fugue immediately after notating the rest. Following

this line of reasoning, the scribe guilty of the omission

must have also realized that the repeat was not literal,

but decided to spare himself the trouble of writing it

out, since only a short passage differed. What is

puzzling is why he did not copy out the repeat until the

third beat of the bar corresponding to 296 and then

provide the da capo indication for the material which

is a literal restatement. Lack of space was no problem

in Kellner's case because his 'Da Capo' inscription

appears on the top system of a page. Copying music is

a more or less mechanical process, and though

I

may

be assuming more discernment on the part of a scribe

than is normally done, there seems little other expla-

nation for the minim rest.

To judge from the surviving evidence, Bach revised

the C major and G minor Fugues by interpolating

passages which share common features. Bars 38-41 of

the

G

minor Fugue and 188-200 and 277-286 of the C

major Fugue play a crucial structural role in these

movements and they achieve this status thqough very

similar means. All three passages involve extensive

pedal points that lead to major cadences, cadences

which in each instance are dramatically delayed by

repetition or sequence in the upper voices. It seems

that Bach also changed the metre of both movements

from

C

to .29 These similarities imply that the Fugues

may have been revised at around the same time.

Regrettably, it is impossible to determine when these

revisions might have been made. The autograph-a

fair copy rather than a composing score-supplies

only a

terminus ante quem

of 1720.

21

E AR L Y MU S I C MA Y

1985

Johann Peter Kellner's copy of Bach's sonatas and

partitas for solo violin not only preserves what appear

to be early versions of two movements from the

collection. It also reminds us how cautious we ought

to be in gauging the value of secondary sources and

how many various aspects of these sources we should

weigh in measuring their worth. It is hoped that this

essay has demonstrated how necessary and potentially

valuable both considerations are.

This study is a revised version of a paper delivered at the

1983 fall meeting of the midw est cha pter of the American

Musicological Society (Chicago). I would like to thank

Professor Robert L. Marshall (Brandeis University) or ma ny

helpful commen ts and suggestions.

Russell Stinson is a doctoral candidate in musicology at the

University of Chicago, where h e is completing a dissertation

on the Bach manuscripts of Johann Peter Kellner and his

circle.

ID B Mus.ms.Bach P 967. A facsimile of the manuscript can be

found in G. Hausswald, ed., Johonn Sebastian Bach: Sonaten und

Partiten

fiir

Violine allein (Frankfurt am Main, 1962/R1982, with Eng.

trans. of foreword).

complete inventory of the manuscript can be f ound in NBA

V/V, KB, pp.24-35.

3WW chmieder, Thematisch-systematischesVerzeichnis der rnusihal

ischen Werhe von Johann Sebastian Bach

(Leipzig, 1950), pp.559-562

Vhese include keyboard arrangements of the A minor Sonata

BWV964, and the first movement of the C major Sonata BWv968;

what is most probably a transcrip tion for lute of the E major Partita

Bwv1006a; an arrangement of the Preludio from the E major Partita

for orchestra with organ obbligato swv29/1 and 1200/1; and organ

and lute transcriptions of the Fugue from the

G

minor Sonata

~ ~ ~ 5 3 9 1 2nd 1000, respectively. Only in the last instance i s there

any discrepancy in length of the movement, with both arrangements

being two bars longer than the violin version. On the question of

medium in BWv1006a see NBA V/x, KB, pp.167-170.

5For detailed listings of discrepancies among the sources for the

set , se e NBA VI/i, KB, pp.35-117.

6According to Hausswald and Gerber, the fragmentary state of

Kellner's copy as well as its ordering shows that it was prepared from

copies

of individual works rather than a copy of the entire

collection; s ee NBA VI/i, KB, pp.34f.

H.

Braunlich, 'Johann Peter Kellner's Copy of the Sonatas and

Partitas for Violin Solo by J. S. Bach',

Bach

[The Quarterly Journal of

the Riemenschneider Bach Institute], xii (1981), no.2, pp.2-10

8NBA, VI/i, KB, pp.28f

9Friedrich Konrad Griepenkerl(l782-1849), one of the co-editors

of the Peters edition of Bach's complete organ works, is reported to

have referred to Kellner as 'ein sehr nachlassiger Abschreiber'; see

BG, XLVf, p.lv.

Karl-Marx-Universitat, Leipzig, Inv.5137; cf. NBA IV/viii, KB,

pp.44f and 49f.

Kilian tentatively assigns

B

Mus.ms.Bach

P

274 to Wolfgang

Nicolaus Mey, a copyist whose script is remarkably similar to the

last two phases of Kellner's handwriting: watermark as well as

handwrit ing evidence reveals that Kellner was the scribe, See NBA

IV/v-vi, KB, pp.284-285 [for another view see G. Stauffer's ar ticle,

this issue, p. 1951.


14/14

I2The copy.

D-Bds

Mus.ms.Bach P 801 also omits variation 9, but

gives the variations in th e same sequence as all the other sources for

the work; see NBA V/x, KB, pp.43-47. Plath (NBA Vlv, KB, p.29) an d

Kilian (NBA IV/v-vi, KB, p.196) qu estio n whether Kellner is th e scr ibe

of this copy too; b ut again it appears certain that Kellner prepared

this source, a conclusion which Eichberg accepts (NBA V/x, KB,

p.41).

'3Kellner's copies of swv 53 1 and 594 served as exemplars for

D-B

Mus,ms.Bach P 286: se e NBA IV/v-vi, KB, pp.285f [BWV531] and NBA

IV/viii, KB, p.46 [Bwv594]. Kellner is reported to have prepared a

copy of t he Prelude and Fugue in G major BWV550, which omitted

many bars from the conclusion of the Prelude, so this lost

manuscript may represent yet ano ther example of a co rrupt

abbreviated version. Peter Williams offers this as a possibility in

The

Organ Music of J S. Bach, i (Cambridge, 1980), p.176. Kellner's lost

copy of swv550 appears to have been the exemplar for copies inD-B

Mus .ms.Bach 642 and 924: see NBA IV/v-vi,

KB

pp.421f.

I4Johann Christoph makes only t he following statement about his

father's violin playing, apropos of his own desire to learn the

instrument: Mein Vater, der de n Nutzen der prak tischen Kenntnisse

dieses In struments fiir einen kunstigen Tonsetzer kannte, stimmte

sehr gern mit meiner Neigung uberein' (p.43 ). See F. W. Strieder,

Grundlage zu einer Hessischen Gelehrten und SchrifsteNer Geschichte, vii

(Kassel, 1787),pp.41-8; an excerpt is publi shed in B-Dok iii, p.435.

I5Kellner also composed numerous church cantatas, none of

them published; many survive in the Stadt- und Universitats-

bibliothek Frankfurt am Main.

16Kellner's autobiography is in Marpurg's Historische-

kritische Beytriige zur Aufnahme der Musik, i (Berlin, 1754/R1970),

pp.439ff. See B-Dok iii, p.77, for an excerpt.

The copy of the violin works and copies of the six cello suite s

~ ~ ~ 1 0 0 7 - 1 0 t he Prelude in C2, the E minor flute Sonata ~ ~ ~ 1 0 3 4 ,

minor for lute BwV999, all found inB Mus.ms.Bach P 804. Kellner

was also the scribe for the soloist's part, and the beginning and end

of the first violin part of the D minor Harpsichord Concerto swv1052

B Mus.ms.Bach St 125).

I8InJohan n Christoph's case this is clear from his autobiography;

concerning Kirnberger, see B-Dok iii, pp.75f. The other two stud ent s

were Joha nn Valentin Scherlitz (1732-93) an d Jo han n Georg

Gressler (1732-?). On Scherlitz, see E. L. Gerber, Neues historisch-

biographisches Lexikon der Tonkunstler, iv (Leipzig, 1814/R1966),

pp.52f; on GresSler, see J. G. Bruckner, Sammlung verschiedener

Nachrichten zu einer Beschreibung des Kirchen- und Schulenstaates i m

Herzogthum Gotha, iii (Go tha, 1761), pp.70f.

19This s noted bv Alfred Dorffel in hi s edition of th e cello suite s

for the BG, xxvii, p.xxxlv.

ZoHugoBecker, in his International Music Company edition of the

cello suites (New York, 1946). includes a version of th e fifth suite

with normal tuning which clearly shows these necessary alterations.

These transcr iption s, which survive in B Mus.ms.Bach P 804 ,

fasc.12,

and P 288, fasc.4, will be discussed at len gth in my

dissertation o n th e Kellner-circle Bach manu scripts (U, of Chicago).

M. Dounias, Die Violinkonzerte Giuseppe Tartinis (Wolfenbuttel,

1935), p.198

231 hould also mention here that nowhere in Kellner's copy of the

sixth cello suite (D major) is there any indication that t he work is

intended for an instrument with five strings, implying that he copied

out the cello suites for reasons other than cello performance.

240 ne xception is the Prelude in

E

minor ~WV53311,whose early

version is two bars longer tha n its revised form. See NBA IV/v-vi, KB,

p.382f.

ZVor he sake of conven ience, the bar numbers here correspond

to tho se in NBA VI/i, even tho ugh t he first two beats of the

movement are counted as bar one there.

%ee A. Moser, 'Zu Joh . Seb. Bachs Sonaten und Partiten fur

Violine allein',

BJb,

xvii (1920), pp.30-65; esp. p.35 fn.1.

D. Boyden,

The History of Vio lin Playing from its Origins to

176

(London, 1965), p.439, fn.19. Had Kellner realized th at bars 35-41

were meant to be played arpeggiando-perhaps because of an

'arpeggio' inscription in his exemplar-it is not too difficult to

suppose that he could have omitted the passage and inserted his

own material to bridge from bars 34 to 42. But it appears doubtful

that Bach intended this passage t o be arpeggiated since he does not

indicate any kind of arpeggiation in th e autograph ( nor is arpeg-

giation prescribed in any of th e other so urces for the movement). It

seems rather unlikely that Bach would have omitted such an

important indication-in what is undoubtedly one of his most

meticulously prepared holographs-when he provides such detailed

indications for the

arpeggiando

passages from the Chaconne.

28Braunlich,op cit, p.4

29While Kellner's copy gives C for both Fugues, th e autograph

gives

4

E R L Y M U S I C M Y 19 85 21 1
http:///reader/full/fasc.12http:///reader/full/fasc.12

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	fakeiaee
View:	281 times
Download:	8 times

Kellner Sonatas y Partitas

Documents