Once Again on the Authorship of BWV 907 and BWV 908

Abstract

Once Again on the Authorship OF BWV 907 AND BWV 908 Maxim Serebrennikov Introduction Thesmall(alongenormouslypolyphonicwithcompositionsrichpairings,keyboardconsistingofotheroutputgenres)ofofapreludeJ.S.moreBachorthanaincludesfantasiasixty (alongwithcompositionsofothergenres)morethansixty smallpolyphonicpairings,consistingofapreludeorafantasia andafugueorfughetta.Theexclusionfromthisnumberoftwoor threecyclesbecauseofmisattributionwouldseemunlikelytohave muchofanimpactontheoverallpictureofBach'skeyboardworks, thatis,itisunlikelytochangedrasticallyhowtheoutputistobe viewed.Notso,however,inthecaseoftheFantasiaandFughetta BWV907andFantasiaandFughettaBWV908.Formanyyears,these pieces,writtendownintraditionalthoroughbassnotation,servedas theonly(therefore,veryvaluable)evidenceofBach'streatmentofthe Italianimprovisationpracticeofpartimento}Forthisreason,the questionofauthorshipforthesetwoworksisveryrelevant. The Sources The Fantasia and Fughetta BWV 907 and Fantasia and Fughetta BWV 908 have reached us in five manuscript copies.2 It is significant, ^he term partimento is used in modern music theory and practice in two meanings. Broadly, partimento means the art of solo keyboard improvisation based on the thoroughbass technique (see J. -A. Bötticher; J. B. Christensen, Generalbaß ' in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Musik , Sachteil, vol. 3 [Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1995], col. 1241). More narrowly, partimento signifies an exercise or piece notated as a solo thoroughbass. 2See Goettingen Bach Catalogue : Sources of ]. S. Bach's Works [website], URL: http://www.bach.gwdg.de/bach_engl.html (accessed 11/04/2012). 52 Authorship of BWV 907 and BWV 908 53 that Bach is given as the author in each manuscript, but in source - manuscript Am. B. 531 from the estate of Princess Amalia of Prussia - the name "Jean Sebast. Bach" is crossed o corrected to "Kirchhof' in handwriting that is clearly not original copyist (Figure 1). This one correction alone has brough fact of Bach's authorship under scrutiny. Figure 1. Fantasia in B major (BWV 907/1). Am. B. 531. Fol. 1 (fra In 1978, important clarifications were introduced concerning surviving sources of BWV 907 and BWV 908. On the one Yoshitake Kobayashi established that the correction found manuscript Am. B. 531 is in the hand of Bach's pupil Johann Ph Kirnberger (1721-1783).3 On the other hand, Hans-Joachim S identified the scribe of one of the earliest copies of BWV 9 BWV 908 (now held in the Brussels Royal Library under the mark Fétis 7327 C Mus). It was another of Bach's pupils Gotthelf Gerlach (1 704-1 761).4 In contrast to Kirnberger, Gerlach was not only Bach's pupil also a copyist of his "original manuscripts."5 This status suggest we regard his testimony as more trustworthy than Kirnber 3Yoshitake Kobayashi, "Neuerkenntnisse zu einigen Bach-Quellen an hand kundlicher Untersuchungen," Bach-Jahrbuch , 1978, 51. 4Hans-Joachim Schulze, '"Das Stück in Goldpapier' - Ermitdungen zu einig Abschriften des frühen 1 8. Jahrhunderts," Bach-) ahrbuch , 1978, 36-37. ^he concept of an "original manuscript" ("Originalhandschrift") involv with Bach's autographs themselves, the copies, prepared by order of the mas under his direct supervision or even with his participation. See Yoshitake Ko and Kirsten Beißwenger, Die Kopisten Johann Sebastian Bachs. Katalog und Dokume Textband (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2007), xix. 54 Bach However, Fétis 7327 does not contain trac contrast) in the man and harpsichord) fr prepared by Gerlach and the end of 172 question about the seems correct and wise: "If one refrains from conclusions based on style, then this question is unlikely to be resolved without the discovery of new sources."7 As for Kirnberger, his reputation as musician and theorist as well as his studies under J. S. Bach similarly do not allow us to disregard the correction he made to the name on the manuscript Am. B. 531. At the same time, there are no strong reasons to trust unconditionally his revision of the original attribution. We do not know what led Kirnberger to make the correction. Whether Kirnberger was acquainted with any of Kirchhoffs works is also unknown. At any rate, Kirnberger never mentions Kirchhoff or his music in his own theoretical writings. On the other hand, as an educated and erudite musician, Kirnberger must have known the Abhandlung von der Fuge (1 753- 1 754) by Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg - his major opponent on some theoretical issues.8 Kirnberger undoubtedly knew this progressive and encyclopedic work on fugue. In particular, he must have been familiar with the passage on Kirchhoffs fugues, notated as figured bass: If the late Musikdirektor Kirchhof of Halle used figures alone to indicate the contrapuntal parts in his well-known "fugues in all twenty-four...