J.P.

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

Author(s): Russell Stinson
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Early Music, Vol. 13, No. 2, J. S. Bach Tercentenary Issue (May, 1985), pp. 199-211
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3126976 .
Accessed: 18/01/2013 13:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Early Music.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Russell Stinson
J.P.
for

Kellner's
violin

copy

of

Bach's

sonatas

and

partitas

solo

Johann PeterKellner/Anno1726./Frankenhayn.'-and
its last page-'Frankenhayn. d. 3. Jul:/1726.'-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
Partitain D minor;and the Loure,Menuett II, Bourr6e,
and Giguefromthe Partitain 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-Verzeichnis:3G minor Sonata, B minor Partita,A minor Sonata,
D minor Partita,C major Sonata, E major Partita;in
Kellner'scopy the order is: G minor Sonata, A minor
Sonata, C major Sonata, E major Partita, D minor
Partita.
However, the most importantdiscrepancy between
the two manuscriptsinvolves variantversions 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 materialfor the two fugues
not found in the autograph. These variants are also
Johann Peter Kellner (1705-1772): silhouette (cl770) (Bach
noteworthy because they are the only versions of any
Museum, Eisenach)
of the movements from the collection, excluding
The sonatas and partitasfor solo violin BWV
1001-1006 transcriptions,4that differ significantly fromthe autoare among J. S. Bach's most famous compositions for graph.s Moreover, they differ more sharply than any
any medium. Fortunately,the autograph fair copy of versions-transcriptions included-with regard to
all six works-bearing the date 1720-has survived; length. Our concern here will be their authenticity.
and naturally,we are best acquainted with the set in
In additionto being the only source for the modified
the version found in this source.1 But these pieces versions, Kellner's copy is the only source which
have also been handed down in a pre-1750 source presents the worksin the fragmentarystate or disjunct
which presents the collection in a considerably differ- order outlined above. Evidently the source(s) from
ent format.
which the copy was derived have not survived.6
The source in question is a manuscriptin the hand
Scholarshave long been awareof Kellner'scopy, but
of the GrifenrodaKantor,Johann PeterKellner(1705- even the most thorough discussions of the manuscript
1772), that now forms an independent fascicle of the are quite superficial and inconclusive. Forexample,in
huge Bach miscellany D-B Mus.ms.Bach P 804.2 In- a recent essay Helmut Braunlich unhesitatingly acscriptions on the first page of the copy-'Scrips./
cepts all three variants as authentic early versions,
EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

199

despite some fairly obvious clues to the contrary.'

Further,in the critical commentary to NBA VI/i the
only statement made regarding their authenticity is
that they should in no way be interpretedas the results
of 'unauthorized liberties' on Kellner's part, simply
because of his 'deep respectVfor Bach.8 Nowhere in
either of these discussions is the manuscript compared to other Bach copies by Kellner, nor are there
any remarkson his possible motives for preparingthe
source, two rather crucial issues in attempting to
determine the authenticity of the Kellnerversions.
Perhapsthe best way of approachingthis topic is to
consider Kellner'sactivities 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'scopy 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 exceedingly careless scribe; this aspect of his work has
received comment since the first half of the nineteenth
century.9 This carelessness is plainly evident in his
copies of the violin works, whose numerous errors
range from incorrect notation of pitch and rhythm to
inaccuracyof phrasingand 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
arbitrarilyexcised. Threecases will suffice for example.
Firstly,Kellner'scopy of the Bach organ transcription
of Vivaldi's D major violin concerto RV208-the socalled GrossoMogulBsw594-omits the lengthy cadenza of its first movement entirely and gives a
drasticallyabbreviatedand apparentlycorruptreading
for its last movement cadenza.1 Secondly, his copy of
the Prelude and Fugue in C majorBsw531 (B 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
M611erscheHandschrift (D-B Mus.ms.40644), which
gives this Fuguein its standardform.11Finally,Kellnefs
copy of the AriavariataswV989(BMus.ms.BachP 804)
omits the eighth and ninth variations as well as
inserting the tenth variation between the fourth and
200

fifth. This copy appears to derive from the same lost

manuscriptas Johann Tobias Krebs'copy of the work
(D-BdsMus.ms.BachP 801), which preservesthe set in
a much more conventional format.12Since none of the
exemplarsfor these three Kellnercopies are extant, it
is impossible to say with certaintyjust 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 preparedfrom his
copies.13

Kellner'sunreliabilityas a copyist aside, we should

address the question of why he preparedhis copy of
the violin works. According to the autobiographyof
his son, Johann Christoph (1736-1803), Kellner did
play the violin, but to what degree of proficiency is
unclear.'4 Kellner was better known to his contemporaries as an organ virtuoso; Johann Christoph's
autobiography is the only source--contemporary or
posthumous--which mentions his father in connection with the violin. The only surviving instrumental
compositions by Kellnerare solo keyboardand organ
pieces,"' and he mentions no works for other instrumental 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 keyboardand organ pieces.17It should also
be mentioned that four of Kellner'spupils, including
Johann Christophand Johann Philipp Kirnberger,are
reportedto have studied keyboardand organwith him,
but violin with others18(implying that Kellnerlacked
experience as a violinist?). Thus, it is obvious that
Kellner'sinterest in the violin was subordinate to his
activities in the realm of keyboardand organ music. It
soon becomes a matter of considerable doubt that
Kellner had the technical ability to have performed
these works- amongthe most demandingin 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 conjectural, certain clues can be garnered from other
Kellnercopies as well as furtherdetails of biographical
data.
The most intriguing clue we have comes from
Kellner'scopy of another set of unaccompanied string
compositions by Bach, the suites for solo cello

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bwv1007-1012(BMus.ms.BachP 804). 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.'9Insteadof retainingthescordatura
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 Sarabandewas
completely omitted and only the first nine bars of the
Gigue were copied.
It seems impossible that Kellnercopied out the fifth
suite for it to be performedon a cello. If one chooses to
play the work without the scordatura,certain alterations have to be made in the chordal writing which
Kellnerdid not incorporate into his copy.2"
Keyboardor organ transcriptionsuggests 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
keyboardtranscriptionsof concertos and more importantly, there is evidence that he prepared organ
arrangementsof a lost Bach chamberworkhimself.2' It
should also be pointed out that one of Kellner's
students, LeonhardFrischmuth(c1700?-64), arranged
six violin concertos by Tartini for harpsichord,22
implyingthat Kellnermay have used transcriptionas 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
normaltuning when preparinga keyboardarrangement
of a string composition.
I am not proposing by any means, however, that
Kellnerplanned on preparingkeyboard and/or organ
transcriptionsof all six suites. The sheer size of such
an undertakingwould 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
arrangementswere to have resembled the surviving
keyboard and organ arrangements of the unaccompanied violin pieces (see fn.4). It is far more plausible
that Kellnerwroteout the manuscriptprimarilyto have
a copy of the collection for reference purposes. Such
study copies were common in the period.
Whateverthe motives, it seems quite clear that the
fifth suite was not copied out with cello performance

Vrct
r
LrVrs
Violinist engraving (Nuremberg,c1720)

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."3
The same is likely to be true of the violin works. The
first of Kellner'smodifications to be discussed-the
Chaconne from the D minor Partita--presents more
evidence to corroboratethis theory.
But first, a note on orderingin Kellner'scopy of the
violin works. When Bach altered the length of a
composition in the process of revising it, he almost
always made it longer.2"One might conjecture, therefore, that Kellner'scopy represents Bach'sfirst draftof
the collection, since three of its movements are
considerably shorter than the versions in the autograph.Followingthis line of reasoning, one might also

EARLYMUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

201

be tempted to speculate that Bach changed substantially the ordering of the set when he revised these
movementsbecause of the huge orderingdiscrepancies
between the two sources. It is possible that Bach's
original scheme was of two distinct halves-sonatas
and partitas-the decision to alternatebeing taken in
the revised plan. However,certain peculiarities in the
orderingand numberingof the pieces in Kellner'scopy
suggest that his manuscriptis derivedfroma source or
sources which presented the works in the same order
as found in the autograph.
The orderingof the sonatas in Kellner'scopy 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:Sonata1ma,Partita1ma,
Sonata 2da, Partita 2da, 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
individualworkheadings exactly as does Bach,whereas with the partitas no numbers are given in work
headings, and those used on the title page appearafter
the respective titles: Partiein E#.1.and Partiein Db.2.
These discrepancies imply that whoever arrangedthe
works in the orderfound in Kellner'scopy decided to
retain numerical designations only for those pieces
whose orderingagreed with the autograph's.Fromthe
previous discussion of Kellner'sscribal 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 Partitain Kellner's
manuscript(see illus. 1) is roughly three-fifths the size
of the standard257-barversion 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 241244).25 The 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
(bars89-120), and by the interruptionof the Chaconne's regular 4-bar phrasing and an extremely abrupt
modulation from G minor to D majorarising from the
202

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

the cuts (bars 177-216), on the other hand, does not
show these weaknesses: there is a smooth and convincing 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
majormusical shortcomingswhich cannot be ignored.
Anotherreason for questioning the authenticityof this
version is the type of passageworkin the three omitted
segments just discussed, and it is in this regardthat
Kellner'smotives for preparinghis copy of the movement 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 violinist:26it is an argumentnot without
basis. The three large segments missing from Kellner's
copy unquestionably contain some of the most demanding passages in the entire movement, most
notably the famous arpeggiandomaterial in bars 89120 and 201-208, but also the difficult quadruple
stopping in bars 126-130. Butwe cannot presume that
Kellner sought to produce a simplified performing
score because his copy also preserves some of the
most technicallychallengingpassages of the Chaconne,
includingthe demi-semiquaverfigurationof bars65-88.
One might more successfully attempt to explain
these omissions by arguing that Kellnerpreparedhis
copy of the Chaconne to transcribe it for keyboardor
organ.Undoubtedlythe two sections of the movement
that pose the greatestproblemin being transferredto a
keyboard,being least idiomatic,arethe two arpeggiando
passages (unless transcribedas 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 characterizedby extensivemultiplestop writing, a feature common throughout Kellner's
copy.
Faced with this puzzling state of affairs,yet another
possibility should be offered:that Kellnerintended his
copy of the sonatas and partitas to serve as nothing
more than a 'study copy', perhaps complementingthat
of the cello suites, deleting certain passages from the
Chaconne simply because of its length.
This brief excursion must conclude with the admis-

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1 Kellner'scopy of the Chaconne from

Bach's Partitain D minor BWV1003,D-B
P 804, fasc.22 f.12v

I~-?0

ki

Aw
-N
,=

-- KM
A-V

INKA

KI

%W

-- rI

-Alta
j

0?

?~

I -a---2

'-Ie.L

#::L
-an- -

A
W32L~--~

V Ato'
10-10p

r?_c

-IMEMMUT
I

shr_-ApQ;
h-7

-W lot,

-A.k
Wj-m

00?
Oro
144,
.04.00

'0

wv
Q40

Kellner'spossible motives for abbreviatingthe Chasion that it is by no means certain that Kellnerhimself
is responsible for these omissions; the scribe of conne are of course not nearly as important as the
Kellner's exemplar may have excluded material for realizationthat this variant,obviously corrupt,cannot
whatever reasons, Kellner thereafter preparingwhat be authentic Bach. The two variantsthat remain to be
he thought to be an unabridgedcopy of the movement. discussed, however- abbreviated versions of the
The evidence would, however, lead us to suspect that, fugues from the G minor and C major sonatas-do
for one reason or another, Kellnerknowingly excised appear to represent authentic early versions of these
movements.
portions of the Chaconne as he copied it.
EARLYMUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

203

_Ts
V_

1 (contd.) Kellner'scopy of the Chaconne

(f.13r)

MAWSIasi
PIENNW,

m
LM"Nc

lood'_

tog

4:
vrx-

Kellner'scopy of the Fugue from the G minor Sonata

(illus.2)omits only a single 7-barsegment of the standard autograph version: bars 35-41. The multiple
stopping in this passage makes it one of the most
problematic in the movement to perform, substantiating at first glance Moser'sview that Kellnerexcluded
materialfrom the Chaconne because of its technical
difficulty. If one accepts David Boyden's theory that,
204

beginning with the third beat of bar 35, this passage

was probably meant to be arpeggiatedbecause of its
chordal nature, a further parallel to the Chaconne
copy would appear to exist."
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

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

1 (contd.)Kellner'scopyof the Chaconne

(f.13v)
/,
"ilk

rowe

at O--i oar(&-low

Tlow

i??~0(

?rt~~s

t4L

Ex.1 Kellner's modified reading from the Fugue, Sonata no.1I

(G minor) BWV1001
bar 34

6rf~

movement--especially in the uppertwo voices of bars

58-62 of the autograph version-and they lead to a
perfectly effective cadence on the downbeat of bar35.
Still more significant are the striking similarities
between the latter half of bar 34 from Kellner'scopy
and the last two beats of the uppervoice in bar63 from
the autograph. Both of these cadential figures share
the same rhythm-two quavers, four semiquavers-

F-4

about its authenticity. The parallel sixths in bars 3435 of Kellner'scopy are in abundance throughout the

EARLYMUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

205

2 Kellner'scopy of the Fugue from Bach's

Sonata in G minor BWVl001,D-B P 804,
fasc.22 f.2v

-I

wc

I L9

IAtAL-

..

ob

ww

|
--

IL)

La-k

thi1mu
C~ I

7t.....

?-,rL

-I

o'S

4.

4t

and general melodic contour. The two quavers in both

involve a downwardleap: in Kellner'scopy a sixth, in
bar63 of the autographa perfect fourth. Moreover,the
second quaverin each passage is immediatelyfollowed
by a semiquaver a second lower. Finally, the semiquavers in both lead to a lower pitch, concluding the
206

downwarddescent. It is also worth noting that both

passages immediately precede episodes which are
exactly ten bars long and comprise semiquavers
exclusively.
The only major difficulty in accepting the authenticity of this variantstems fromour thoroughfamiliarity

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 (contd.) Kellner'scopy of the G minor

Fugue (f.3r)

ugo?
-,

4L

po

-a
?
w

3**

"

r7

f-F.

'"

60o

-AU

Im

.I

-NWAr
-,m
I

al

AI

'
_:i
d

'1
,,
.

.T

with the autographversion. We are so accustomed to

hearingbars 35-41 that we inevitably miss them upon
hearing a version of the fugue in which they are
absent. This is particularlytrue of bars 38-41, where a
series of quavers in parallel thirds and sixths is
introduced over a tension-generating pedal point,

makingthe passage surely one of the most unforgettable in the movement. But this, obviously, does not
constitute sufficient reason to question the authenticity of the variant.
Kellner'scopy of the fugue from the C major Sonata
EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

207

(illus.3)while also evidently representingan authentic Ex.3 Kellner'smodified reading from the Fugue,,Sonatano.3
early version, is far from an accurate transmission of (Cmajor)BWVO105
such a version. It omits bars 188-200, 256-270 and [autograph bar 254]
277-286, but in each instance presents material not
found in the autographversion, just as in the variantof
the G minor fugue. The excluded segments are all [autograph bar 271]
clearly derived from material included in the variant
and are not among the movement's most technically
challenging passages.
[autograph bar 276]
The passage beginning with bar 186 in Kellner's
copy (see ex.2) is plainly corruptsince it provides only
two beats for bar 187. The subsequent bar,which leads
directlyto one identical to bar 201, does not appearin [autograph bar 2871
the autograph. Evidently, Kellner or the scribe of his
exemplar glanced from the second beat of bar 187 to
Da Capo
the downbeat of this bar, its first two beats being
identical to the last two of bar 187.
-in the autograph, which, in turn, leads to a bar
Ex.2 Kellner's modified reading from the Fugue, Sonata no.3
identical to 271. The bar unique to Kellner'scopy uses
(C major) BWV1005
1
86r
[ba
a figurewhich appearsfive times in the autograph(see
the
figure in bars 43, 79, 81, 83 and 331),
and inLZ[.
each case, as here, is immediatelypreceded by
motive. Consideringthe
four quavers or a
[autograph bar 201]
the
manner
of
uncontrived
plus its motivic
passage,
A
4
al riverso
derivation,one is hard-pressedto point to any musical
shortcomings of the reading. One feature of ex.3,
however, does arouse suspicion. Beginning on the
A later passage from Kellner's copy which corre- third beat of bar 288, Bachrepeats the opening bars of
sponds to ex.2 is a good clue as to the amountof missing the movement as far as the downbeat of bar 65, and in
material.(See ex.3, beginning with the notes beneath his fair copy he writes out all the notes of the repeat,
the asterisk.)In ex.3 this passage is five bars long, with instead of using a da capo indication. But Kellner
the fugue subject stated once, followed by cadential writes out only the first minim of the restatement and
material.The last beat of the bar correspondingto bar in the bar corresponding to 289 provides a 'Da Capo'
276 and the downbeat of that correspondingto bar287 inscription. If the fugue involved a literal repeat from
differ from the autograph. Although the cadence in bar 289 until the end, Kellner's da capo indication
ex.3 sounds to us premature,because of ourfamiliarity would barelymatter,but bars 289-296 are in no way a
with the autograph version, there is nothing in the literal restatement of 1-8. Bach adds counterpoint to
reading which might lead us to question its authen- the first two statements of the subject, beginning with
ticity. It would seem then that Bach expanded this the third beat of bar 289 and extending to the second
passage by ten bars when he preparedthe autograph beat of 296, from which point until bar 353 the repeat
is literal; only the final chord differs.
version.
This discrepancy between Kellner's copy and the
to
In the autographthe passages which correspond
in
bars
exx.2 and 3 are both exactly fifteen
autographled HelmutBraunlichto maintainthat Bach
long,
is
not
It
material.
the
same
addition to using virtually
originally conceived this movement as containing a
unreasonable to assume that they were the same literal da capo, and that he added counterpoint to the
length in the early version too and that two and a half first several bars of the restatement only when he
bars are missing from ex.2.
prepared the autograph version.28While this theory
A few observations on the first system of ex.3 should seems logical enough on the surface, a more careful
also be offered. It begins with two bars identical to examination of Kellner's copy leads to a different
254-255 and then proceeds directly to a barnot found conclusion.
208

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

3 Kellner'scopy of the Fugue from Bach's Sonata in C major BWVl005,D-B P 804, fasc.22ff, 6v-8r

&
IT"

-V-

WWII

-Wl

.=tML-

tof

-A.,-

'Z

lb?

Pm

VVE

:...Q?L~

.Bp

u-q

J, j?

..........

L.IL

ja

*l

.@

r
_
.rr

w -I
IFo ow

4b

Mail
XI

J~i: ,?? '?'

(~7

:1

;I

. v

cr

1~ Ik~

I~?~

.?

r
?~??7+'

hL
I
iq-*kr

_'

.Ir

i.

-----

`--?.

-P

-x--

??_?

. .

,,?
----

??I
??
-- ~--

~-

------

------ -

--- -- - ----~

?~f???

--??-----?=-~-~-

Ir
~----~--.~
- ----- '----'-.----- ~~_------~.~lcrr--~2----?r1C?

- ----;

-----'.--~--i7~ .-,;L~tST_--~--~
r.
r

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

209

In the custos immediately prior to his 'Da Capo'

inscription, Kellnershows that the repeatbegins on a';
yet there is no segno on the downbeat of bar 1, nor is
there a fermataon 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
restatementof the earlyversion was identical to that in
the autographbecause the rest clearly belongs only in
bar 289: neither in Kellner'scopy nor in the autograph
does a rest appearin bar 1. It is also significant that in
Kellner'scopy 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 repeatuntil the
third beat of the bar corresponding to 296 and then
provide the da capo indication for the materialwhich
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. Copyingmusic 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 explanation 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. Bars38-41 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 through 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 terminusante quem of 1720.
210

Johann Peter Kellner'scopy of Bach's sonatas and

partitasfor 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 demonstratedhow necessary and potentially
valuable both considerations are.
Thisstudy is a revisedversionof a paperdeliveredat the
1983 fall meetingof the midwestchapterof theAmerican
MusicologicalSociety (Chicago).I would like to thank
ProfessorRobertL Marshall(BrandeisUniversity)
formany
helpfulcommentsand suggestions.
RussellStinsonis a doctoralcandidatein musicologyat the
Universityof Chicago,wherehe is completinga dissertation
on the Bach manuscriptsof JohannPeterKellnerand his
circle.
1D-BMus.ms.Bach P 967. A facsimile of the manuscript can be
found in G. Hausswald, ed., Johann SebastianBach:Sonaten und
Partitenfiir Violineallein (Frankfurtam Main, 1962/R1982, with Eng.
trans. of foreword).
'A complete inventory of the manuscript can be found in NBA
V/v, KB,pp.24-35.
Verzeichnisdermusikal3W.Schmieder,Thematisch-systematisches
ischen WerkevonJohannSebastianBach (Leipzig, 1950), pp.559-562
4These include keyboard arrangements of the A minor Sonata
BWV964,and the first movement of the C major Sonata BWV968;
what is most probablya transcriptionfor lute of the E majorPartita
BWV1006a;an arrangementof the Preludiofrom the E majorPartita
for orchestra with organ obbligato BWV29/1and 120a/1; and organ
and lute transcriptions of the Fugue from the G minor Sonata
BWV539/2and 1000, respectively. Only in the last instance is there
any discrepancyin length of the movement,with both arrangements
being two bars longer than the violin version. On the question of
medium in BWV1006asee NBAV/x, KB,pp.167-170.
5Fordetailed listings of discrepancies among the sources for the
set, see NBAVI/i, KB,pp.35-117.
6Accordingto Hausswald and Gerber,the fragmentarystate of
Kellner'scopy as well as its orderingshows that it was preparedfrom
copies of individual works rather than a copy of the entire
collection; see NBAVI/i, KB,pp.34f.
7H. Braunlich, 'Johann Peter Kellner'sCopy of the Sonatas and
Partitasfor Violin Solo by J. S. Bach',Bach [TheQuarterlyJournal of
the Riemenschneider Bach Institute], xii (1981), no.2, pp.2-10
8NBA,VI/i, KB,pp.28f
9FriedrichKonradGriepenkerl(1782-1849), one of the co-editors
of the Peters edition of Bach's complete organ works, is reportedto
have referredto Kellneras 'ein sehr nachlissiger Abschreiber';see
BG,XLV/i,p.lv.
'0Karl-Marx-Universitit,Leipzig, Inv.5137; cf. NBA IV/viii, KB,
pp.44f and 49f.
1"Kiliantentatively assigns B Mus.ms.Bach P 274 to Wolfgang
Nicolaus Mey, a copyist whose script is remarkablysimilar to the
last two phases of Kellner's handwriting; watermark as well as
handwritingevidence reveals that Kellnerwas the scribe. See NBA
IV/v-vi, KB,pp.284-285 [for another view see G. Stauffer's article,
this issue, p. 195].

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12Thecopy, D-BdsMus.ms.BachP 801 also omits variation 9, but

gives the variations in the same sequence as all the other sources for
the work;see NBAV/x, KB,pp.43-47. Plath (NBAV/v, KB,p.29) and
Kilian(NBAIV/v-vi,KB,p. 196)question whether Kellneris the scribe
of this copy too; but again it appears certain that Kellnerprepared
this source, a conclusion which Eichberg accepts (NBAV/x, KB,
p.41).
"Kellner'scopies of BWV531and 594 served as exemplarsfor D-B
Mus.ms.BachP 286: see NBAIV/v-vi,KB,pp.285f [BWV531]
and NBA
IV/viii, KB, p.46 [BWV594].Kellner is reported to have prepared a
copy of the Prelude and Fugue in G major BWV550,which omitted
many bars from the conclusion of the Prelude, so this lost
manuscript may represent yet another example of a corrupt
abbreviatedversion. PeterWilliams offers this as a possibility in The
OrganMusic ofJ. S. Bach, i (Cambridge,1980), p.176. Kellner'slost
copy of BWV550appearsto have been the exemplarfor copies in D-B
Mus.ms.Bach P 642 and 924: see NBA IV/v-vi, KB,pp.421f.
"Johann Christophmakes only the following statement about his
father's violin playing, apropos of his own desire to learn the
instrument:'MeinVater,der den Nutzen der praktischenKenntnisse
dieses Instrumentsfiir einen kiinstigen Tonsetzer kannte, stimmte
sehr gem mit meiner Neigung tiberein' (p.43). See F. W. Strieder,
zu einerHessischenGelehrten
undSchriftsteller
Geschichte,vii
Grundlage
(Kassel, 1787), pp.41-8; an excerpt is published in B-Dok iii, p.435.
'SKellner also composed numerous church cantatas, none of
them published; many survive in the Stadt- und Universitttsbibliothek Frankfurtam Main.
16Kellner'sautobiography is printed in Marpurg'sHistorischekritischeBeytrdgezur Aufnahmeder Musik, i (Berlin, 1754/R1970),
pp.439ff. See B-Dok iii, p.77, for an excerpt.
"1Thecopy of the violin works and copies of the six cello suites
BWV
1007-1012, the E minor flute Sonata BWV1034,the Preludein C
minor for lute BWV999,all found in B Mus.ms.Bach P 804. Kellner
was also the scribe for the soloist's part, and the beginning and end
of the firstviolin partof the D minorHarpsichordConcertoBWV
1052
(B Mus.ms.Bach St 125).
8"InJohann Christoph'scase this is clearfrom his autobiography;
concerning Kirnberger,see B-Dokiii, pp.75f. The other two students
were Johann Valentin Scherlitz (1732-93) and Johann Georg
Gressler (1732-?). On Scherlitz, see E. L. Gerber,Neues historischbiographischesLexikonder Tonlinstler, iv (Leipzig, 1814/R1966),

pp.52f; on Gressler, see J. G. BrUickner,Sammlungverschiedener

Nachrichtenzu einerBeschreibungdes Kirchen-und Schulenstaatesim
HerzogthumGotha,iii (Gotha, 1761), pp.70f.
"9Thisis noted by AlfredD6rffel in his edition of the cello suites
for the BG, xxvii, p.xxxiv.
20HugoBecker,in his InternationalMusic Companyedition of the
cello suites (New York, 1946), includes a version of the fifth suite
with normaltuning which clearly shows these necessary alterations.
21Thesetranscriptions, which survive in B Mus.ms.Bach P 804,
fasc.12, and P 288, fasc.4, will be discussed at length in my
dissertation on the Kellner-circleBach manuscripts(U. of Chicago).
22M.Dounias, Die Violinkonzerte
GiuseppeTartinis(Wolfenbtittel,
1935), p.198
231 should also mention here that nowhere in Kellner'scopy of the
sixth cello suite (D major)is there any indication that the work is
intended for an instrumentwith five strings, implyingthat he copied
out the cello suites for reasons other than cello performance.
240ne exception is the Prelude in E minor BWV533/1,whose early
version is two bars longer than its revised form. See NBAIV/v-vi,KB,
p.382f.
25Forthe sake of convenience, the bar numbershere correspond
to those in NBA VI/i, even though the first two beats of the
movement are counted as bar one there.
26See A. Moser, 'Zu Joh. Seb. Bachs Sonaten und Partiten fiir
Violine allein', BJb,xvii (1920), pp.30-65; esp. p.35 fn.1.
27D. Boyden, TheHistoryof ViolinPlayingfrom its Originsto 1760
(London, 1965), p.439, fn. 19. Had Kellnerrealized that bars 35-41
were meant to be played arpeggiando--perhapsbecause 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 materialto bridge from bars 34 to 42. But it appears doubtful
that Bach intended this passage to be arpeggiatedsince he does not
indicate any kind of arpeggiation in the autograph (nor is arpeggiation prescribedin any of the other sources 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 preparedholographs-when he providessuch detailed
indications for the arpeggiandopassages from the Chaconne.
28Braunlich,op cit, p.4
29WhileKellner's copy gives C for both Fugues, the autograph

gives4.

PYRAM

IDD

STRINGS
for All Historical Bow
and Plucked- String
Instruments

EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985

This content downloaded on Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:21:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

211