of the Leipzig type of chorale setting in Bach
2. Basic principles of the critical editors
Eppstein regards the relatively faithful copy of Anna Magdalena Bach as the most re-liable copy of Bach’s lost autograph manuscript. Consequently he states as his basic principle:
The primary goal of a new critical edition is to reconstruct the lost autograph manuscript that served as the basis for source A, in which process A is to be regarded as the main source. However, this edition must not disregard the richer information on ornamentation and articulation contained in the C–D–E group of sources.12
Eppstein opines that if Anna Magdalena Bach’s version and the additions contained in the other sources – with the variants perhaps given as ossia passages – were to be published in a single score, then the overall picture would be rendered incomprehen-sible. For this reason he publishes two versions (Text I and Text II), the almost identical basic texts of which are primarily assembled from source A, but in certain instances al-so calling upon the other al-sources. In Text I, however, the articulation marks, ornaments and grace notes are given based on source A, while Text II contains specific features of the C, D, (E) group of sources. The deviations in the Kellner copy (B) appear in the footnotes or, in the case of articulation marks which “meaningfully complement source A”,13 in the text of the first score as well.
Regarding the articulation, Eppstein first describes in detail the features typical to each copyist’s handwriting and touches upon the significance of Anna Magdalena Bach’s copy of the autograph manuscript of the violin solos, before determining that because of the contradictions and innaccuracies in the sources “it is not possible to sim-ply transfer into this edition the slurs that appear in the sources”.14 In other words, in order to understand the articulation marks in the manuscripts, it is not enough to merely examine the facsimiles directly and in isolation; instead, it is also necessary to look at background information pertaining to the conventions of the age and Bach’s own
scor-12 “Eine kritische Neuausgabe muss zunächst versuchen, den Abschrift A zugrundeliegenden Text der
verlorenen Reinschrift zu rekonstruieren, wobei A die Hauptquelle ist. Sie wird aber nicht auf die reicheren ornamentalen und artikulatorischen Informationen der Quellengruppe C, D, E zu verzich-ten dürfen.” NBA, VI/2, 26.
13 “[…] [wo sie] Quelle A sinnvoll ergänzen.” NBA, VI/2, 26.
14 “[…] die Bogensetzung der Quellen nicht ohne weiteres in die Ausgabe übernommen werden kann.”
NBA, VI/2, 30.
ing practices and style. Based on these, Eppstein determines the following basic prin-ciples in interpreting the articulation marks: 1. As a general rule, we slur neighbouring notes together, while separating notes that are spaced at a greater distance apart. 2.
The downbeats and other accented points in each measure are to be played downbow (Abstrichregel), given that Bach generally employs such strokes, particularly in rapid movements. 3. Musically analogous passages are to be played with identical tion . (Although it cannot be ruled out that Bach specified deliberately varying articula-tion in certain instances of this kind, Eppstein contends that no unambiguous and gen-erally characteristic intention to this effect can be gleaned from Bach’s manuscripts).15 With regard to the sources, Leisinger – referring partly to the new data he has unearthed – has come to the conclusion that the two later sources (C, D) also quite probably took an autograph model as their basis. This hypothesis, presumed likely in Leisinger’s eyes, increases the value of the two copies prepared after Bach’s death to such an extent that – in his view – they must be regarded as equal in rank to the two ear-lier copies (A, B). Furthermore, he considers it unlikely that proof will emerge in future (for example, through the discovery of hitherto unknown manuscripts) showing that the two later copies do not reflect the intentions of J. S. Bach. And even if this were to hap-pen, he contends that the amendments in sources C and D reveal a “real knowledge” of the craft, are clearly the work of learned musicians, and thus certainly convey very im-portant and valuable information regarding the performance practices of the eighteenth century.16 Due to the poor legibility of the Anna Magdalena Bach and Kellner copies, Leisinger characterizes the reconstruction of the articulation marks in these scores as not merely difficult, but downright impossible.17 However, he sees no serious obstacle to drawing conclusions with a high degree of probability regarding the articulation of the model (in his view, presumably an autograph manuscript) which served as the basis for the far more easily decipherable sources C and D. For this reason, his edition relies primarily on the two later sources. Noteworthy differences in sources A and B are com-municated either as notes in the score or – in more important instances (such as, for example, the G major Menuet I) – as ossia passages, while less significant instances are mentioned in the critical notes.
Egon Voss and Kirsten Beisswenger, respectively editors of the Henle score and the Breitkopf edition, do not dispute that the two later sources are interesting documents from the point of view of eighteenth-century performance practice, but – for differing reasons – do not deem them relevant to the task of preparing an Urtext edition. Citing his own research, Beisswenger considers Leisinger’s conclusions somewhat unlikely (seeing no firm basis to the assumption that the model for the C and D copies was a
15 For more on Bach’s consistency and the articulation of analogous passages, see the example of the
D minor Prelude below.
16 Leisinger, 7.
17 Leisinger, 5.
Bach autograph manuscript).18 For his part, Voss, in analysing the marks in the two later manuscripts that pertain to performance (staccato dots and strokes, ties and slurs, dynamics) and certain note variants, raises several arguments – in my opinion, ques-tionable on many points – to the effect that these are not in keeping with Bach’s general scoring practices or musical style.19
Voss and Beisswenger eventually reach the same conclusion: namely, to take Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript alone as the basis in preparing their editions. As far as the pitch and length of notes is concerned, they agree that alongside Anna Magdalena Bach’s manuscript, it is necessary and legitimate to take into account the other sources – for example, in order to correct obvious errors in the principal source.20 With respect to articulation, Voss declares his intention to decipher the marks and symbols exclu-sively with reference to the copy by Anna Magdalena Bach. At the same time – some-what inconsistently – he adds that in order to clarify the “meaning” of certain slurs, it is sometimes necessary to study marks of this kind in other sources which he says do not necessarily lack authenticity.21 With regard to doubtful cases, similarly to Eppstein, he refers to the Abstrichregel, the rule of playing the accented notes downbow, and likewise deems it necessary – to a certain degree – to standardize the articulation of analogous musical passages and repeated motifs.
In the Henle publication, Voss supplements his critical edition of the score pre-pared according to the above principles with an additional booklet containing another version of the cello suites. In this, the text edited by Voss is supplied with additional articulation marks and fingering by the cellist Reiner Ginzel (indicated in parentheses to distinguish them from the main score). The score of this second booklet, therefore, simultaneously displays both the version completed using a critical approach and an instructive version supplied with the performance directions of a practising cellist.22 Although Ginzel’s suggestions are sometimes inventive and logical, they are also often only functional, placing practical considerations ahead of musical ones. In addition, his method of elaboration reflects the modern-Romantic approach to bowing (Ginzel is as-sociated with the Russian school, having completed his studies as a student of Natalia Shakhovskaya). Consequently, the version of the cello suites elaborated by Ginzel may be primarily of interest to cellists who wish to perform the works according to this
ap-18 Beisswenger, 78.
19 J. S. Bach, Sechs Suiten. Violoncello Solo. BWV 1007–1012, hrsg. von Egon Voss. Fingersatz und
Strichbezeichnung von Reiner Ginzel (Munich: Henle, 2000) [hereinafter: Voss], viii-xi.
20 Beisswenger, 78; Voss, xi.
21 “Zu Deutung der Artikulationsbögen in A wurden die anderen Quellen mitherangezogen, deren
Lesart selbstverständlich nicht prinzipiell als unauthentisch anzusehen sind.” Voss, xii.
22 In the concept of the Henle publisher, it is not entirely clear why there is a need for two separate
booklets, since the critical and instructive versions can be perfectly separated from the text of the second booklet. Perhaps it is the publisher’s intention for the first, exclusively critical version to be used for an own personal solution by the owners?
proach. Given that my goal is to examine critical decisions taken by the editors of criti-cal editions of the suites, I will not deal further with Ginzel’s version – since, by their very nature, his decisions do not fall within this category.
With respect to the articulation in the suites, Beisswenger likewise relies only on the copy by Anna Magdalena Bach, but in the case of problematic or dubious points he seeks assistance not in the other sources but in Anna Magdalena Bach’s copy of the violin solos. By comparing this copy with J. S. Bach’s surviving autograph manuscript, Beisswenger makes an attempt to map out the generally prevalent regularities in Anna Magdalena Bach’s handwriting and copying practices. Given that the characteristics and typical errors in Anna Magdalena Bach’s writing style were presumably the same as when she copied the cello suites, the results of this examination constitute an important reference in deciphering slurs that are otherwise difficult to understand. Beisswenger summarizes the established general tendencies under eight points, justifying his edito-rial decisions by citing these in his notes. According to Beisswenger, the eight most frequent and typical copying errors committed by Anna Magdalena Bach are:
1. Unclear slurring at largely unchanging motivic activity;
2. Reduction of long slurs;
3. Shifting slurs to the right;
4. Short and imprecisely placed slurs at groups of three notes;
5. Separation of slurs at changes of staff;
6. Slurs placed too high above notes;
7. Syncopated slurs (misunderstanding or “straightening out” of Bach’s slurs that span over a beat or barline);
8. Open slurs, where the beginning and end are not indicated precisely.23
In the Bärenreiter Urtext edited by Bettina Schwemer and Douglas Woodfull-Harris, which meets the demands of a critical edition while also addressing practising musicians,24 the four manuscript sources are featured besides a facsimile of the first printed edition. The expansive accompanying text booklet, based on the NBA but writ-ten in a more easily intelligible style, communicates the most detailed information pos-sible on the sources and provides an overview of the performance practice of Bach’s time. The editorial basic principle is entirely unique among the critical editions of the cello suites in that
23 Beisswnger, 80-81.
24 J. S. Bach, 6 Suites a Violoncello Solo senza Basso. BWV 1007–1012. Scholarly Critical Performing
Edition / Quellenkritische Ausgabe für die Praxis, hrsg. von Bettina Schwemer and Douglas Woodfull-Harris (Kassel: Barenreiter, 2000), title page.
[…] they decided that they would not attempt an appraisal of the various surviving sources, but instead endeavour to display them as neutral as possible.25
Although the basis for the score published here is provided by Anna Magdalena Bach’s copy, all deviations of the three other sources – where not obviously erroneous – appear in the appropriate place in a smaller size (essentially as ossia passages), but as an integral part of the score (see Ex. 4.c). In this way, variants of the basic text and ornamentation in all the sources are basically made transparent at a glance. An even more unusual solution is to have the slurs entirely absent from the published score; the editors leave it to the user/performer to work out their own solutions independently based on the facsimiles and background information provided and relying on their own taste and knowledge.
Returning to the G major Menuet I – whose manuscript sources we have already encountered – we can see in the various editions that Eppstein’s Text I, as well as Beisswenger’s and Voss’s score that likewise rely on the copy of Anna Magdalena Bach, coincide in terms of the dominance of slurred pairs of notes within bars contain-ing six quavers (see Ex. 1). In Leiscontain-inger’s edition, this is one of the (not too frequent) instances when not only sources C and D, but also the articulation from A and B appear in the main text of the score. The slurs above the staff, similarly to Eppstein’s Text II, follow the 3+3 slurred quavers from the two later sources, while beneath the note heads we see slurred pairs. However, apart from the two aforementioned, clearly separate versions of the articulation (which continue throughout the movement), we can also state that of the five printed scores there are not two in which the ties/slurs in the first eight bars agree in every detail, not even among those which were based on an identical source or sources (see, for example, the variations in articulation of the seventh bar or of the bar-end motifs comprised of a quaver and two semi-quavers).
By surveying the sources and ascertaining the basic principles of the editors, we have received an answer to our first question of why the critical editions differ to such a great degree. On the one hand, the discrepancies are due to the editors’ varying meth-ods of assessing sources that are shrouded in obscure detail, and the different basic principles they formulate as a result. And on the other hand, starting from the articula-tion marks that appear in the various manuscripts, it is often not possible – even with identical basic principles – to determine a single, authentic reading of the score. In awareness of all this, let us now look at a number of additional noteworthy examples, in which – naturally as reflected in the sources – we shall compare the alternative versions of articulation adopted by the different critical editors. We can learn the background
25 “[…] haben sich die Herausgeber dazu entschlossen, von einer Wertung der einzelnen Lesarten
abzusehen und diese möglichst neutral darzustellen.” Ibid., iv (preface to published sheet music booklet).
a) Eppstein I
b) Eppstein II
c) Leisinger
d) Beisswenger
e) Voss
Example 1: Bars 1–8 of the G major Menuet I in the Eppstein, Leisinger, Beisswenger and Voss editions
to their decisions in their critical notes: in almost every instance, Eppstein attaches an exhaustively detailed justification for his choices, while Leisinger and Beisswenger publish shorter but highly informative notes. In most cases, however, one can only guess at Voss’s motives.