Johann Sebastian Bach

by Christoph Wolff

  Bach’s Weimar cantata scores, but also his Orgel-Büchlein chorales and other keyboard works, show conclusive evidence of an increasingly abstract approach to composition, in which the compositional process moved away from the keyboard to the writing table. Probably in the later Arnstadt years and long before 1713, when composing his trial cantata for Our Lady’s in Halle at the Inn of the Golden Ring apparently presented no problem for him, the desk in his study or composing room (Componir-Stube, as the office of the Leipzig Thomascantor used to be called) had become his primary work space for writing music. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, in a letter to Forkel, mentions that “if I exclude some (but, nota bene, not all) of his clavier pieces, particularly those for which he took the material from improvisations on the clavier, he composed everything else without instrument, but later tried it out on one.”43 As for the instrument itself, Forkel related that Bach “considered the clavichord as the best instrument for study” and “the most convenient for the expression of his most refined thoughts,” as he preferred the “variety in the gradations of tone…on this instrument, which is, indeed, poor in tone, but on a small scale extremely flexible.”44

  Bach’s confrontation with the modern Italian concerto idiom in the years before 1714 ultimately provoked what became the strongest, most lasting, and most distinctive development toward shaping his personal style: the coupling of Italianism with complex yet elegant counterpoint, marked by animated interweavings of the inner voices as well as harmonic depth and finesse. Bach’s adaptation, integration, and command of both modern and traditional compositional approaches represent a systematic attempt at shaping and perfecting his personal musical language and expanding its structural possibilities and expressive powers.

  HIGH AND LOW POINTS

  Despite the fact that Bach had, in the younger Duke Ernst August, a devoted and supportive patron throughout his Weimar tenure of office, his court service as organist and concertmaster could hardly have remained unaffected by the ongoing bitter and steadily worsening feud between the two co-reigning dukes. Nevertheless, by all indications, both dukes ranked Bach as the court’s top musician. There is simply no other explanation for what happened on March 20, 1715, just a year after his concertmaster appointment: “Notice [was] given to the two Capellmeisters, Drese Senior and Junior, upon the order of His Most Serene Highness the Reigning Duke, that henceforth, in the distribution of perquisites and honoraria, the Concertmaster Bach is to receive the portion of a Capellmeister.”45 The idea was to bring Bach’s benefits and extra pay in line with those of the capellmeister and vice-capellmeister (the remaining in-kind differences were immaterial), increasing his total compensation beyond that of everyone else in the court capelle. His favorable treatment is particularly obvious in light of the arrangements made after his departure from Weimar in 1717, when the younger Drese was appointed capellmeister and Bach’s student Schubart took over the post of court organist (see Table 6.6).

  Bach’s function in the court capelle, however, must not be seen as one of supplanting or displacing the capellmeister and vice-capellmeister. True, the old Drese was ailing and basically emeritus, but his son received the same kind of music paper deliveries as Bach, a clear indication that the vice-capellmeister played an active role. Since none of his compositions have survived, we cannot judge his musical standing or stylistic orientation. But his Italian training must have borne some fruits in his works and perhaps also in his programming preferences. Already before his trip to Italy, the younger Drese had received a monetary supplement of 34 florins for copying services, a sum he continued to collect through 1717.46 The payments show that the vice-capellmeister was largely responsible for the acquisition and preparation of performing materials for the court capelle.

  TABLE 6.6. Comparison of Annual Base Salaries, 1708–18

  The vice-capellmeister acted in all likelihood as a loyal “joint servant”—as a court official who served both dukes, as the members of the court capelle were required to do. Bach fell into the same category, although he enjoyed a much closer relationship with the musically inclined Duke Ernst August and his younger half-brother, Prince Johann Ernst. Musical activities at the Red Palace were apparently abundant, much to the annoyance of Duke Wilhelm Ernst, who issued several orders that forbade the members of the court capelle to engage in separate services there. Trespassing servants could be fined and subject to arrest,47 yet there are no documentary traces of Bach having run into disciplinary problems with the older duke before his final months of service. He apparently managed to find a way out of the dilemma, perhaps by receiving some sort of limited special dispensation as private music instructor of Johann Ernst, possibly also of Ernst August. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain Bach’s extra pay of 50 florins in 1716–17 from the treasury of the Red Palace.48 He had received similar extra pay in 1709–10, and in 1714 he mentions in a letter “certain obligations at court in connection with the Prince’s [Johann Ernst’s] birthday,” on the previous December 25, celebrated at the Red Palace.

  To what extent the Red Palace maintained a musical establishment separate from the court capelle remains unclear, but there is sufficient evidence for a vigorous musical scene in which both ducal brothers participated as performers, Ernst August as violinist and trumpeter and Johann Ernst as violinist and keyboard player. Ernst August also continued to pursue his father’s interests in the collection of musical instruments at the Red Palace. In May 1715, he acquired a Lautenwerk (gut-strung harpsichord type) from Johann Nicolaus Bach, its inventor and maker, and it is hard to imagine that Johann Sebastian did not have a leading hand in this musical business transaction with his cousin in nearby Jena. The regular members of the capelle were, as joint servants, statutorily limited to functions accommodating both ducal families, so the Red Castle had to rely on outside forces for its musical projects. Johann Gottfried Walther, the town organist, was certainly available, particularly since he had taught the young Johann Ernst the basics of composition. Moreover, as the increasingly famous court organist and concertmaster Bach attracted a growing number of capable private students—among them Johann Tobias Krebs and Johann Gotthilf Ziegler—his students also seem to have been drawn into opportunities provided at the Red Palace. Schubart, for example, was paid for copying services and was also sent on a special mission to Prince Johann Ernst in Frankfurt.49

  On receiving the news in August 1715 of the untimely death of his eighteen-year-old brother, Duke Ernst August declared a six-month, duchy-wide mourning period through February 2, 1716. Every kind of music was banned, though church music was allowed to resume prematurely on November 10, the twenty-first Sunday after Trinity.50 Bach, like all members of the court capelle, received 12 florins for buying mourning clothes. On April 2, two months after the mourning period was lifted, a memorial service was conducted at the Himmelsburg, with the performance of an elaborate funeral piece. The lengthy text for the multimovement work, “Was ist, das wir Leben nennen,” BC [B19], has survived, but not the music. Two days after the performance, Duke Ernst August’s treasury paid out 45 florins 15 groschen “for presented Carmina.” Among the four recipients were the “Consistorial Secretary Franck” and the “Concertmaster Bach”—suggesting that Salomo Franck wrote the text and Bach the music for this special occasion.51

  Three other events of 1716 related to Red Palace affairs held particular significance for Bach. On January 24—still during the mourning period—Duke Ernst August married Princess Eleonore Wilhelmine of Anhalt-Cöthen at Nienburg Palace on the Saale River. Salomo Franck’s collection of poems Heliconische Ehren-Liebes-Und Trauer-Fackeln, published in 1718, contains the text of the wedding cantata performed on the occasion; the music has not survived, but again, Bach remains its most likely composer. Three months later, Ernst August celebrated his twenty-eighth birthday, an event for which the treasury of the Red Palace paid for two horn players from Weissenfels, who lodged in Weimar from April 23 to 27. Bach’s Hunt Cantata, BWV 208, commissioned for Duke Chr
istian of Saxe-Weissenfels and first performed at Weissenfels in 1713, now received a performance in Weimar, with the original congratulatory text references to “Chri-sti-an” in Bach’s autograph score replaced by the three syllables “Ernst Au-gust” (BC G3). Only a few weeks later, as the new Duchess Eleonore Wilhelmine of Saxe-Weimar celebrated her first Weimar birthday, Franck wrote another allegorical cantata text, Amor, die Treue und die Beständigkeit, published in the same 1718 collection. Once again the work was “musically performed,”52 and once again the music is lost—yet here, too, the most plausible composer is Bach.

  Ernst August’s brother-in-law, Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Cöthen, surely attended the wedding of his sister in January and perhaps also the birthday celebrations in April and May, but there can be no doubt that on either one, two, or all three occasions he had the opportunity to hear and admire the Weimar concertmaster Bach. Even if Bach did not compose the 1716 wedding and birthday cantatas, his participation as concertmaster would have been indispensable. At any rate, it seems clear that the prince knew Bach before 1717 and that the connections were made through Duke Ernst August, probably as soon as he learned that his new brother-in-law eagerly pursued similar musical interests.53 And when the Cöthen capellmeistership fell vacant in 1717, Leopold promptly proceeded to hire Bach.

  How long had Bach actually pondered leaving Weimar? His rejection of the attractive Halle offer of 1713 indicates that he saw at least something of a future for himself at the Weimar court. But his experiences there must have grown increasingly frustrating: the reduction in format of his cantatas in 1715–16 may reflect difficulties with the performing ensemble at his disposal; his working relationship with the two Dreses as his immediate superiors may have prevented further advancement; and the hostile atmosphere between the ducal cousins may have discouraged him from developing a positive long-term outlook in Weimar. But regardless of what caused his disenchantment with Weimar, Bach had reason to believe that his reputation in the outside world was growing steadily. In 1716, for example, he was invited back to Halle, where church and town officials apparently harbored no ill feelings. He made the trip in order to examine, along with Johann Kuhnau of Leipzig and Christian Friedrich Rolle of Quedlinburg, the recently completed Cuntzius organ at Our Lady’s Church. The five-day visit included a dedication recital by Bach, and ended with a celebratory dinner on Jubilate Sunday, May 354—complete with fish and four kinds of meat (beef, ham, mutton, and veal), in addition to plenty of vegetables, fruit, and other delicacies. Though not listed on the menu, a good supply of beer, wine, and liquors would have complemented the meal and reminded Bach of the opulent treatment he had received in Halle a few years earlier at the Inn of the Golden Ring.

  The following year, Bach was asked to present a musical Passion at the palace church in Gotha, where the capellmeister to the duke of Saxe-Gotha lay dying. On Good Friday, March 26, Bach substituted for the fatally ill Christian Friedrich Witt. He received 12 talers for this guest performance, and although “20 bound [text] booklets for the Passion to be performed this year were delivered to the princely chapel,”55 no copies have survived, leaving us in the dark about the exact nature of the text as well as the music. However, a later reference to a Passion composed by Bach in 1717 corroborates the Gotha documents,56 and at least some musical portions of this Gotha or Weimar Passion (BC D1) were probably absorbed into the second version of the St. John Passion of 1725.57 Bach’s guest performance in Gotha also raises the question of his possible candidacy for the capellmeistership at the ducal court.

  But another ploy was in the works, and it would have been surprising if Bach had not learned about it sooner or later. Duke Ernst August of Saxe-Weimar came up with the idea of offering Georg Philipp Telemann a kind of “super-capellmeistership” at three Saxe-Thuringian courts: the capellmeistership at Saxe-Eisenach (which Telemann had held from 1708 to 1712) was still unoccupied, while Saxe-Weimar had become vacant in December 1716 and Saxe-Gotha in April 1717.58 But Telemann eventually declined, preferring to stay as music director in Frankfurt. In the meantime, Bach had traveled to Cöthen that summer, and while there, he signed an agreement on August 5 to accept the post of capellmeister to the prince of Anhalt-Cöthen, collecting 50 talers as “most gracious recompense upon taking up the appointment.”59

  Bach himself could hardly have initiated the contact with the Cöthen court, well outside the Saxe-Thuringian realm. More likely, the whole scheme was directed by Duke Ernst August, who would have been eager to block Johann Wilhelm Drese’s appointment as Weimar capellmeister and, at the same time, to find a suitable station for Bach elsewhere, since he realized that he would not be able to force Bach’s appointment for the Weimar post against the will of his cousin, the co-reigning duke. The General Capellmeister solution with Telemann was arguably devised to circumvent the Drese appointment in Weimar and to make up for the loss of Bach. While that ingenious plan ultimately failed, having placed Bach with the duke’s brother-in-law, Prince Leopold of Anhalt-Cöthen, was a good deal for both. For Prince Leopold, hiring Bach was a real coup, and for Bach, the newly expanded Cöthen court capelle provided a much more attractive and promising situation than Weimar, Gotha, or Eisenach had. Actually, Telemann must have understood that as well. He might also have gotten an earful about the quarreling dukes in Weimar from a reliable source—none other than his friend Bach.

  The watershed year 1717 also saw the first printed reference to Bach—another sign of his growing reputation. Johann Mattheson relates in Das beschützte Orchestre that he had “seen things by the famous organist of Weimar, Mr. Joh. Sebastian Bach, both for the church and for the fist [that is, vocal and keyboard pieces], that are certainly such as must make one esteem the man highly.”60 At around the time when this short yet significant statement was published, Bach’s fame received a further boost by one of the most notable events in his life, an aborted contest at the electoral court in Dresden with the keyboard virtuoso Louis Marchand of Paris. The captivating story of the contest was first published during Bach’s lifetime and by the end of the eighteenth century had become one of the most popular musical anecdotes circulating in Germany.61 It was frequently embellished and cited as proof of the supremacy of German over French music or an example of German profundity versus French superficiality. The earliest literary reference to the incident was made in 1739 by Johann Abraham Birnbaum, who claimed that Bach had “fully maintained the honor of Germans, as well as his own honor.” But Birnbaum was in fact making a different point: he was defending Bach’s musicianship against accusations by Johann Adolph Scheibe, who ranked Handel’s keyboard art over that of Bach and, in the course of the argument, declared that there was no Frenchman of particular adroitness on both clavier and organ. It is here that Birnbaum calls up his hero Bach, who is said to have held his own against “the greatest master in all France on the clavier and organ.”

  As Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach put it in 1788, his father was not “a challenging musical braggard” and “anything but proud of his qualities and never let anyone feel his superiority. The affair with Marchand became known mainly through others; he himself told the story but seldom, and then only when urged.”62 The event is not independently documented, so its details cannot be verified. Dresden, however, had previously been the site of another famous keyboard contest arranged in the mid-1650s by the then electoral crown prince Johann Georg II, Augustus the Strong’s grandfather, for the prize of a golden chain; the contestants were Johann Jacob Froberger, organist at the Viennese imperial court, and Matthias Weckmann, court organist in Dresden.63

  Louis Marchand is indeed known to have traveled to Dresden in 1717, but his performances there could not have taken place before October because the state mourning period after the death of the queen mother extended through St. Michael’s Day, September 29. According to undated treasury records, Marchand received for his playing at the court two medals worth 100 ducats64—the only documentary evidence of his presence in Dresden. On the other hand,
the substance of the legendary affair is transmitted consistently enough to warrant the authenticity of a story whose most comprehensive account is found in the Obituary:

  The year 1717 gave our Bach, already so famous, a new opportunity to achieve still further honor. Marchand, the clavier player and organist famous in France, had come to Dresden and let himself be heard by the King with exceptional success, and was so fortunate as to be offered a highly paid post in the Royal service. The concertmaster in Dresden at the time, [Jean-Baptiste] Volumier, wrote to Bach, whose merits were not unknown to him, at Weymar, and invited him to come forthwith to Dresden, in order to engage in a musical contest for superiority with the haughty Marchand. Bach willingly accepted the invitation and journeyed to Dresden. Volumier received him with joy and arranged an opportunity for him to hear his opponent first from a place of concealment. Bach thereupon invited Marchand to a contest, in a courteous letter in which he declared himself ready to execute ex tempore whatever musical tasks Marchand should set him and, in turn, expressed his expectation that Marchand would show the same willingness—certainly a proof of great daring. Marchand showed himself quite ready to accept the invitation. The time and place were set, not without the foreknowledge of the King. Bach appeared at the appointed time at the scene of the contest, in the home of [Joachim Friedrich Count Flemming,] a leading minister of state, where a large company of persons of high rank and of both sexes was assembled. There was a long wait for Marchand. Finally, the host sent to Marchand’s quarters to remind him, in case he should have forgotten, that it was now time for him to show himself a man. But it was learned, to the great astonishment of everyone, that Monsieur Marchand had, very early in the morning of that same day, left Dresden by a special coach. Bach, who thus remained sole master of the scene of the contest, accordingly had plentiful opportunity to exhibit the talents with which he was armed against his opponent. And this he did, to the astonishment of all present. The King had intended to present him on this occasion with 500 talers; but through the dishonesty of a certain servant, who believed that he could use this gift to better advantage, he was deprived of it, and had to take back with him, as the sole reward of his efforts, the honor he had won…. For the rest, our Bach willingly credited Marchand with the reputation of fine and very proper playing. Whether, however, Marchand’s Musettes for Christmas Eve, the composition and playing of which is said to have contributed most to his fame in Paris, would have been able to hold the field before connoisseurs against Bach’s multiple fugues: that may be decided by those who heard both men in their prime.65