The sources

The main problem of the sources of the Six cello suites is that no autograph from the composer survives. We know the works today from four manuscript copies (generally indicated in the literature as A, B, C and D), two of which were made in Bach’s lifetime and within his immediate circle, and another two prepared within the German-speaking territories following the composer’s death, but still in the eighteenth century. Therefore the goal of the editors of the critical editions is, after a thorough study of the four sur-viving copies, to determine their significance, and based on the information judged to be authentic to reconstruct the lost autograph following the composer’s intentions as fully as possible. We can state with a high degree of probability that the autograph copy of the cello suites originally formed part of a two-part or two-volume collection togeth-er with Bach’s pieces for solo violin (Bach’s fair autograph copy of the violin works, written in a careful, almost calligraphic manner with numerous and clear articulation marks, survives to this day).¹

In case of the two earlier manuscripts, the identity of the copyist is known: the copy marked “A” was written by Anna Magdalena Bach (1701–1760), while the author of “B” is a personal acquaintance of Bach, the organist Johann Peter Kellner (1705–

1772).² There is no surviving data to confirm the date of their genesis, but based on the watermarks of the paper, analysis of the handwritings and references to other, dated copies, we can state with a fairly great degree of certainty that Kellner’s copy is the earliest, probably dating from 1726, while Anna Magdalena Bach copied the suites not much later, approximately between 1727 and 1731. Kellner’s copy is not complete: the Sarabande movement of the C minor suite is missing, and only the first nine bars of the Gigue are included. It is important to note that the C minor suite – in which Bach prescribes the A-string of the cello to be tuned down a major second – was notated by

1 The conclusion that the two groups of works belonged together can be drawn from the fact that Bach’s wife Anna Magdalena made copies of both the violin and cello suites, combining the pieces in a two-part collection of which the manuscripts survive to this day. The title page of Bach’s auto-graph of the violin solos bears the title “Libro Primo”, suggesting that – probably similar to Anna Magdalena Bach’s copies – it was followed by a “Libro Secondo” containing the suites for cello. See for example: J. S. Bach, Sechs Suiten für Violoncello Solo BWV 1007–1012 = NBA, VI/2, hrsg. von Hans Eppstein (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1988/1991), 18.

2 A: Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Mus. ms. Bach P 269; B: Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Mus. ms. Bach P 804.

Kellner in a manner differing from the other three sources, by transposing the scorda-tura notation into sounding pitch.³

Comparing the two manuscripts, we find ourselves confronting a peculiar situation whereby, although in all likelihood the earlier of the two, Kellner’s copy nevertheless contains a good number of unique solutions and apparently clearly deliberate, plausi-ble, and not “erroneous” variants which do not appear in Anna Magdalena Bach’s copy.

Given that, as the nature of the individual variants suggests, it is not very likely these are Kellner’s own additions, the only way to explain this situation is that while Anna Magdalena Bach prepared her version from the composer’s own autograph manuscript, Kellner may have used a working copy of Bach, or another copy derived from this pre-pared by someone within the composer’s circle.

If we compare A and B copies on Facsimile 1 presenting the opening of Menuet I of the G major suite, the congested nature of Kellner’s score is immediately apparent:

the line spacing is narrow, while the note heads are placed very close together. The overall appearance of the note stems and beams implies a rapid, hurried notational manner. Kellner obviously did not think ahead: he made no effort to ensure that the movements start at the beginning of a staff or page, economical use of space being for him a more important consideration. We can only guess at the goal of the copy, but the manuscript as a whole leads one to conclude that it was not essential for Kellner that the score should be intelligible to anyone other than himself or his close circle.⁴ In con-trast, Anna Magdalena Bach’s score is considerably clearer, and – in light of her other copies – its arrangement of staves and pages probably corresponds to the composer’s autograph manuscript from which she made her copy.⁵ At the same time, there is a no-table discrepancy in Anna Magdalena Bach’s work in that the accurately-placed, well-proportioned and legibly written notes are often accompanied by apparently carelessly drawn slurs placed far away – and by no means clearly – from the noteheads.

The two later manuscripts (C, D) and the first printed edition of the suites (E) are very closely related, representing a clearly separate group of sources.⁶ In the two

manu-3 The numerous corrected and uncorrected errors which Kellner committed in the process of transposi-tion suggest that he made his copy from a manuscript which employed the scordatura notatransposi-tion. For example we can see such a correction at the beginning of the fourth bar of the Courante, while there is an uncorrected error at the end of the eighth bar of the Allemande.

4 J. S. Bach, Suiten für Violoncello solo BWV 1007–1012, hrsg. von Ulrich Leisinger (Mainz/Vienna:

Schott/Universal, 2000) [hereinafter: Leisinger], 4.

5 J. S. Bach, Sechs Suiten für Violoncello solo. BWV 1007–1012, hrsg. von Kirsten Beisswenger (Wies-baden: Breitkopf & Hartel, 2000) [hereinafter: Beisswenger], 77.

6 C: Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Mus. ms. Bach P 289 Adnex 9; D: Öst er rei chi-sche Nationalbibliothek Wien. Mus. Hs. 5007; E: J. S. Bach, Sonates ou Etudes pour le Violoncelle Solo (Paris: Janet & Cotelle, 1824). The first printed edition contains a great quantity of additions (indications of tempo, fingering, dynamics and articulation marks), which are clearly the work of the editor, and do not derive from any manuscript. For this reason, no critical edition can rely upon it and I will not discuss it further in this paper.

A

B

C

D

Facsimile 1: Opening of the Menuet I of the G major suite in sources A, B, C and D

script copies, the arrangement of staves and pages is evidently preconceived and almost identical. We can also state – also by looking at our chosen example – that the scores are much more legible and more loosely spaced out than any of the earlier copies – and for this reason are also spread out over substantially more pages (Anna Magdalena Bach’s copy ran to 36 pages and Kellner’s to 25, while the C and D manuscripts oc-cupy 41 pages each). Generally speaking, we can say that the positioning of the slurs – particularly in source C – is much more precise, and that not only do we encounter a greater number of slurs (and ornaments) than in either source A or B, but also a far more frequent use of staccato marks (see Table 2). Moreover, it is not unusual for sources C and D to contain not only a greater number, but also a radically different set of slurs than A and B. The latter phenomenon is well illustrated by the G major Menuet I featured in our sample score: while the copies of Anna Magdalena Bach and Kellner prescribe what are presumed to be slurred pairs of notes for the quavers in a great many bars of the movement, at these same points the C and D sources recommend three slurred notes followed by three separate quavers (as, for example, in bars 2, 3 and 6).

The critical editors concur that the two later sources – despite many similarities – can-not be copies of one acan-nother given that they both contain unique errors. Consequently,

Table 2: Staccato marks in the manuscripts E flat major Prelude 70, 71, 72, 73, 76 E flat major

Allemande 38, 39 E flat major Allemande 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 38, 39

C minor Prelude 22 (source C only) D major Gigue 29 D major Gigue 29 D major Gigue 27, 29, 54, 55 Total:

3 movements, 7 bars 3 movements, 4 bars 13 movements, 60 bars

they are both probably based on a shared model, now lost. (Hypothetical relationships between the sources are shown in Table 3).

Of key importance in determining the significance of the C and D copies would be the availability of more data than is currently at our disposal regarding the shared model, as well as the time and place of each copy’s creation and the identity of the copyists. The copies of Anna Magdalena Bach and – to a slightly lesser extent – Kellner must be regarded as authentic since they were made within the composer’s immediate circle, in all likelihood from an autograph manuscript. These earlier copies nevertheless raise a huge number of seemingly unanswerable questions due to the poor legibility and apparent inconsistency of the slur marks. Sources C and D, on the other hand, are much easier to interpret and in many places more polished, although we can only guess at the authorship of the articulation and other performance marks which are so much more numerous and sometimes different compared to sources A and B. The editors of the NBA and the critical editions discussed here – partly because of differing research results – give different evaluations of the pieces of information extant about C and D, and thus also of their importance among the sources of the Bach cello suites.

The copy designated C is the handwork of two people: starting from the end of the 12th bar of Bourrée I of the C major suite, the copy is clearly continued in another hand. The first part is uniformly attributed in Bach scholarship to the copyist known as Anonymus 402, who often turns up as author of other eighteenth-century Berlin manu-script copies. According to Hans Eppstein, who supplied the NBA volume with detailed annotations, the copyist of the second part is unidentified and no other work is known to be attributable to him/her. As far as the date of the manuscript’s genesis is concerned, Eppstein concludes – based on other, already dated activity of Anonymus 402 – that the copy was made in Berlin at the beginning of the second half of the eighteenth century.⁷ Ulrich Leisinger, the editor of Wiener Urtext, has suggested a new theory to com-plicate the picture of source C shaped by Eppstein. In his view, it is conceivable that af-ter Anonymus 402’s work was inaf-terrupted in Berlin, the manuscript was only completed at a much later date in Hamburg using the same model. He supports his hypothesis by pointing to certain features of the second portion of the manuscript that are typical of Hamburg.⁸ The model for the copy, meanwhile, could – in his theory – be none other than the manuscript of the suites which features in the catalogue of the estate of C. P. E.

Bach (1714–1788), who died in the same city in 1788. Although the catalogue does not mention that this might be J. S. Bach’s autograph, Leisinger nevertheless believes this is conceivable given that even with works that are clearly autograph manuscripts of the

7 NBA, VI/2, 15–16.

8 Leisinger, 5.

composer, the designation “in origineller Handschrift” is sometimes missing (such as, for example, in the case of the Orgelbüchlein).⁹

Regarding the D copy, Eppstein notes that the only certain fact is that it featured in the catalogue of the Viennese music dealer Johann Traeg (c.1747–1805) in 1799.

Citing the research of Yoshitake Kobayashi and the general characteristics of the script, Eppstein asserts that the manuscript, completed at the end of the eighteenth cen-tury, may have arrived in Traeg’s Vienna shop from Northern or Central Germany.¹⁰ Leisinger’s research, meanwhile, has unearthed some new details regarding this most difficult to date copy. He has succeeded in identifying the copyist of the manuscript as the same person who was commissioned by the heirs of C. P. E. Bach in 1795 to copy the parts of the latter’s harpsichord concerto (in G major, Wq 9, 1740–1742). In this way, Leisinger has on the one hand confirmed Eppstein’s hypothesis, while on the other hand adding the detail that the copy originates from the 1790s and perhaps from Hamburg itself, the site of C. P. E. Bach’s activity.¹¹ Aside from this, Leisinger has also established that the numbers on the title page (36/23) indicate that this manuscript was not a copy intended for sale, but a house copy of Traeg’s music trading firm from which other copies ordered by customers would be made. Given that Traeg offered the cop-ies for sale from 1804 at the latest, Leisinger does not rule out the possibility that the

9 Ibid., 7.

10 NBA, VI/2, 16.

11 Leisinger, 4.

Table 2: Hypothetical relationships between the sources Y: lost working copy of Bach; X: autograph fair copy of Bach, now lost;

G: the presumed shared model of sources C and D; A, B, C, D: the extant sources)

manuscript derived from the estate of Gottfried van Swieten (1733–1803), who died the previous year and who may have ordered the copy from the widow of C. P. E. Bach after the latter’s death, together with many other Bach works.