+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Kellner Sonatas y Partitas

Kellner Sonatas y Partitas

Date post: 02-Jun-2018
Upload: fakeiaee
View: 281 times
Download: 8 times
Share this document with a friend

of 14

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    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:


    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

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    Russell Stinson


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

    for violin solo

    Johann Peter Kellner


    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


    The copy is incomplete, omitting the whole Partita



    minor; the Allemande and Courante from the

    Partita in


    minor; and the Loure, Menuett



    and Gigue from the Partita in


    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,


    minor Partita,


    minor Sonata,


    minor Partita,


    major Sonata,


    major Partita; in

    Kellner s copy the order is: G minor Sonata,





    major Sonata,


    major 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


    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


    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

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    EARLY MU SIC MAY 9 8 5

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    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.


    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.



    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


    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

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    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


    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-

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    Kellner's copy of the Chaconne Rom

    Bach's Partita in


    minor BWV1005.D B



    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


    E RLY MU SIC M Y 1985


  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    (contd.) Kellner s copy of the Chaconne







    - * -

    -..*. *& . , - -

    - . .

    , . . -


    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




  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    I (contd.) Kellner s copy of the Chaconne





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

    4 r

    . t


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

    movement-especially in the upper two voices of bars




    58 62

    of the autograph version-and they lead to a

    perfectly effective cadence on the downbeat of bar


    Still more significant are the striking similarities

    between the latter half of bar


    rom Kellner s copy

    and the last two beats of the upper voice in bar



    about its authenticity. The parallel sixths in bars 34

    the autograph. Both of these cadential figures share


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

    EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985 205

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    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


    E R LY M U S I C M Y


  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas



    (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

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    (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




    autograph bar


    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


    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


    autograph bar


    autograph bar



    autograph bar


    1 1


    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


    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


  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas



    Kellner s copy of the Fugue from Bach s Sonata in


    major BwV1005.D B



    6v 81

    E RLY

    M U S I C

    M A Y


    2 9

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    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


    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



    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



    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



    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.


    E AR L Y MU S I C MA Y


    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


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

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



    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


    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


    of individual works rather than a copy of the entire

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


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

    Partitas for Violin Solo by J. S. 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




    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.

  • 8/10/2019 Kellner Sonatas y Partitas


    I2The copy.


    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,


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


    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


    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,



    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 ,


    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


    minor ~WV53311,whose early

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


    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',


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

    D. Boyden,

    The History of Vio lin Playing from its Origins to


    (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


    passages from the Chaconne.

    28Braunlich,op cit, p.4

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



    E R L Y M U S I C M Y 19 85 21 1