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 Music is currently published by Oxford University Press.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the 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 at
http://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 printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals 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 take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Sun Nov 11 11:59:01 2007
RussellStinson
J.P.Kellner'scopyofBach'ssonatasandpartitas
forviolinsolo
Johann Peter Kellner ( 1705-1 772): silhouette (~1770) (Bach
Museum, Eisenach)
Thesonatasandpartitasforsoloviolinswv1001-1006
areamongJ.S.Bach'smostfamouscompositionsfor
anymedium.Fortunately,theautograph faircopyof
all sixworks-bearing thedate 1720-has survived;
andnaturally,wearebestacquaintedwiththesetin
the version found in this source.' But these pieces
have also been handed down in a pre-1750source
whichpresentsthecollectioninaconsiderablydiffer-
entformat.
Thesourceinquestionisamanuscriptinthehand
oftheGrafenrodaKantor,JohannPeterKellner(1705-
1772), thatnowformsanindependentfascicleof the
huge Bach miscellanyD-B Mus.ms.BachP804.*In-
scriptions on the first page of the copy-'Scrips./
JohannPeterKellner/Anno1726JFrankenhayn.'-and
itslastpage-'Frankenhayn. d.3. Jul:/l726.'-indicate
not onlytheyear itwas made,but alsowhereitwas
prepared and even the exact day on which it was
completed.
Thecopyisincomplete,omittingthewholePartita
in B minor; the Allemande and Courante from the
PartitainDminor;andtheLoure,Menuett11,Bourree,
andGiguefromthePartitainEmajor.Furthermore,the
works aregiveninaverydifferentorderfromthatin
the autograph. Bach wrote out the set in the same
familiarsequenceprinted intheBach- Werke-Verzeich-
ni x3 G minorSonata,B minorPartita,AminorSonata,
D minor Partita,C major Sonata,E major Partita;in
Kellner's copytheorderis:Gminor Sonata,A minor
Sonata, C major Sonata, E major Partita, D minor
Partita.
However,themostimportantdiscrepancybetween
thetwomanuscriptsinvolvesvariantversionsofthree
of thebest-known movementsin thecollection:the
Chaconne fromthe D minor Partita and the fugues
fromthe G minorandC major Sonatas.The Kellner
copygives substantially shorterversions of allthree
movementsandprovidesmaterialforthetwofugues
not found inthe autograph. Thesevariants are also
noteworthybecausetheyaretheonlyversionsof any
of the movements from the collection, excluding
transcription^,^thatdiffersignificantlyfromtheauto-
graph.5Moreover,they differmore sharplythanany
versions-transcriptions included-with regard to
length. Our concernherewill be their authenticity.
Inadditiontobeingtheonlysourceforthemodified
versions, Kellner's copy is the only source which
presentstheworksinthefragmentarystateordisjunct
order outlined above. Evidently the source(s)from
whichthecopywas derivedhavenot s ~r vi ved. ~
ScholarshavelongbeenawareofKellner'scopy,but
eventhemostthoroughdiscussionsofthemanuscript
arequitesuperficialandinconclusive.Forexample,in
a recent essay Helmut Braunlichunhesitatingly ac-
cepts all three variants as authentic early versions,
EARLY MUSI C MAY 1 9 8 5 199
despite some fairly obvious clues to the ~ont r ar y. ~ fifth. 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 nt ur y. ~ This 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 ~~208- t he so-
called Grosso Mogul 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.I0 Secondly, his copy of
the Prelude and Fugue in C major ~ ~ ~ 5 3 1 (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
Mollersche Handschrift (D-B Mus.ms.40644), which
gives this Fugue in its standard form." Finally, Kellner's
copy of the Aria variata swv989 (B ~us.ms.Bach P 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.12 Since 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
200 EARLY MUSI C MAY 1985
swv1007-1012 (B Mus.ms.Bach P 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. l9 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.~' It
should also be pointed out that one of Kellner's
students, Leonhard Frischmuth (c1700?-64), arranged
six violin concertos by Tartini for harp~i chord, ~~
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
"LL&, >", . , 1
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
EARLY MUSI C MAY 1985 201
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 ma , Partita I ma,
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).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
(bars 89-120), and by the interruption of the Chacon-
ne's regular 4-bar phrasing and an extremely abrupt
modulation from G minor to D major arising from the
202 EARLY MUSI C MAY 1985
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 i ni st : ' ~ it 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 two arpeggiando
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-
I 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 G minor and C major sonatas-do
appear to represent authentic early versions of these
movements.
EARLY MUSI C MAY 1985 203
I (contd.) Kellner's copy of the Chaconne
(f.13r)
I
# I
.
J
. .. . .
- 4
-*- - +
-..*.! $*&!. ,!- - -
. -
-.. , . . - .. -
Kellnefs copy of the Fugue from the G 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 EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985
I (contd.) Kellner's copy of the Chaconne
I -
--
(t 13v)
/ ' 0
pqW ' < . d . - < r --e,,..f,l
4 w r .-t ,J-- $,
Ex.] Kehel s modified reading from the Fugue. Sonata no.1 movement-especially in the upper two voices of bars
(G minor) BWIOOI
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 from Kellner's copy
and the last two beats of the upper voice in bar 63 from
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 MUSI C MAY 1985 205
2 Kellner's copy of the Fugue from Bach's
Sonata in C minor BwV1001. D-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 EARLY MUSI C MAY 1985
2 (contd.) Kellner's copy of the C 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 C major Sonata
EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985 207
(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
ILU u
[autograph bar 2OlJ
A 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.
A 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 MUSI C MAY 1985
Ex.3 Kellner's modified reading from the Fugue, Sonata 110.3
(C major) ~ ~ 1 0 0 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 fi gur~whkh appears 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.
5 Kellner's copy of the Fugue from Bach's Sonata in C major BwV1005. D-B P 804. fasc.22ff 6v-81
EARLY MUSIC MAY 1985 209
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.
210 EARLY MUSI C MAY 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
1983fall meeting of the midwest chapter of the American
Musicological Society (Chicago). I would like to thank
Professor Robert L. Marshall (Brandeis University) for many
helpful comments and suggestions.
Russell Stinson is a doctoral candidate in musicology at the
University of Chicago, where he 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 found in NBA
V/V, KB, pp.24-35.
3WW. Schmieder, 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 transcription 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 2 and 1000, respectively. Only in the last instance is 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, see 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; see 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
handwriting evidence reveals that Kellner was the scribe, See NBA
IV/v-vi, KB, pp.284-285 [for another view see G. Stauffer's article,
this issue, p. 1951.
I2The copy. D-Bds Mus.ms.Bach P 801 also omits variation 9, but
gives the variations in the same sequence as all the other sources for
the work; see NBA V/x, KB, pp.43-47. Plath (NBA Vlv, KB, p.29) and
Kilian (NBA IV/v-vi, KB, p.196) question whether Kellner is the scribe
of this copy too; but again it appears certain that Kellner prepared
this source, a conclusion which Eichberg accepts (NBA V/x, KB,
p.41).
'3Kellner's copies of swv53 1 and 594 served as exemplars for D-B
Mus,ms.Bach P 286: see 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 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
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 in D-B
Mus.ms.Bach P 642 and 924: see NBA IV/v-vi, KB, pp.421f.
I4Johann Christoph makes only the following statement about his
father's violin playing, apropos of his own desire to learn the
instrument: 'Mein Vater, der den Nutzen der praktischen Kenntnisse
dieses Instruments fiir einen kunstigen Tonsetzer kannte, stimmte
sehr gern mit meiner Neigung uberein' (p.43). See F. W. Strieder,
Grundlage z u einer Hessischen Gelehrten und SchrifsteNer Geschichte, vii
(Kassel, 1787), pp.41-8; an excerpt is published 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 suites
~ ~ ~ 1 0 0 7 - 1 0 the Prelude in C 12, the E minor flute Sonata ~ ~ ~ 1 0 3 4 ,
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 first violin part of the D minor Harpsichord Concerto swv1052
(B Mus.ms.Bach St 125).
I8In Johann Christoph's case this is clear from his autobiography;
concerning Kirnberger, see B-Dok iii, pp.75f. The other two students
were Johann Valentin Scherlitz (1732-93) and Johann 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 z u einer Beschreibung des Kirchen- und Schulenstaates im
Herzogthum Gotha, iii (Gotha, 1761), pp.70f.
19This is noted bv Alfred Dorffel in his edition of the cello suites
for the BG, xxvii, p.xxxlv.
ZoHugo Becker, in his International Music Company edition of the
cello suites (New York, 1946). includes a version of the fifth suite
with normal tuning which clearly shows these necessary alterations.
"These transcriptions, 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-circle Bach manuscripts (U, of Chicago).
"M. Dounias, Die Violinkonzerte Giuseppe Tartinis (Wolfenbuttel,
1935), p.198
231 should also mention here that nowhere in Kellner's copy of the
sixth cello suite (D major) is there any indication that the work is
intended for an instrument with five strings, implying that he copied
out the cello suites for reasons other than cello performance.
240ne exception is the Prelude in E minor ~WV53311, whose early
version is two bars longer than its revised form. See NBA IV/v-vi, KB,
p.382f.
ZVor the sake of convenience, the bar numbers here correspond
to those in NBA VI/i, even though the 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 Violin Playing from its Origins to 1760
(London, 1965), p.439, fn.19. Had Kellner realized that 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 to be arpeggiated since he does not
indicate any kind of arpeggiation in the autograph (nor is arpeg-
giation prescribed in 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 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, the autograph
gives 4.
EARLY MUSI C MAY 1985 21 1