1The author has previously published a shorter version of these research resultsregarding the suite BWV 996 in “Zum Notentext der Suite e-Moll (BWV 996)—Einetextkritische Untersuchung der Abschrift von Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber,” Bach-Jahrbuch 92 (2006): 295–302. Publication of the translated and expanded version ofthis article is by the kind permission of the Bach-Archiv, Leipzig.

HEINRICH NIKOLAUS GERBER’S REDISCOVERED MANUSCRIPT OF JOHANN

SEBASTIAN BACH’S SUITE IN E MINOR (BWV 996): A COPY OF BACH’S HITHERTO

UNKNOWN REVISED VERSION

Christoph Öhm-Kühnle

The Suite in E minor (BWV 996) by J. S. Bach has long been ofinterest to instrumentalists because evidence suggests (seebelow) that it may have been performed on a variety of

instruments, such as the lute, lute-harpsichord, or harpsichord.1Additionally, as with all of Bach’s harpsichord and clavichord works,today it is played on the modern piano; even more frequently,however, it can be heard performed on the modern guitar.

In this article, the author presents several new findings regardingthe music score of the suite, findings suggesting that Bach’s yetunknown final revision of the suite may be documented through H.N. Gerber’s manuscript copy of the composition. Gerber’s copy,rediscovered in 1984, has not been analyzed completely . This essayattempts to remedy that lack.

The autograph of the Suite in E minor (BWV 996) is lost. Justthree sources, written during the eighteenth century, exist. Two ofthem were certainly written during Bach’s lifetime: a copy by Bach’scolleague and relative Johann Gottfried Walther (1684–1748),identified here as Source A, and a later one by Bach’s student

2“Ein Bach-Doppelfund: Verschollene Gerber-Abschrift (BWV 914 und 996) undunbekannte Choralsammlung Christian Friedrich Penzels,” Bach-Jahrbuch 73 (1987):29–73.3See the edition of the Toccata in E minor (BWV 914): J. S. Bach, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicherWerke (in the following abbreviated as NBA for Neue Bach-Ausgabe), Ser. V, Vol. 9:1Toccaten (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1976; hereafter NBA V/10), and the edition of thechorale collection: Johann Sebastian Bach und seine Schule: Neu entdeckte Choral– undLiedsätze (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1985).4This is documented in sources such as Uta Henning, “Zur Frage des Lautenklaviersbei Johann Sebastian Bach,“Alte Musik als ästhetische Gegenwart: Bach–Händel–Schütz,”convention report (Stuttgart, 1985): 465-69; Hans-Joachim Schulze, “Wer intavolierte

Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber (1702–1775), identified as Source B.Gerber’s copy had been lost since the beginning of the twentiethcentury. In 1984 the manuscript was found at an antiquarian book-store by Wolfgang Wiemer. Wiemer subsequently described it in Bach-Jahrbuch.2 Wiemer’s main goal in the article was to document themanuscript’s particular ornamentation (appoggiaturas in the firstmovement are seen only in Gerber’s manuscript). This was seen as themost interesting aspect of Gerber’s copy.

Two other manuscripts were discovered together with the one inquestion: H. N. Gerber’s manuscript of the Toccata in E minor, BWV914 ( bound together with Gerber’s manuscript in the Suite in Eminor BWV 996), and a chorale collection. These two sources havebeen fully investigated; the results and music scores were publishedimmediately afterwards.3 After that, Gerber’s copy of BWV 996 wasdeemed of no further interest, and no further research on the Gerbermanuscript was done.

Almost two decades later, in 2006, the author of the article onhand was invited by a lute-harpsichord specialist and by the owner ofthe Gerber BWV 996 manuscript to investigate further the ornamen-tation in this copy, with a view toward determining its possiblesuitability for a keyboard instrument (namely the lute-harpsichord)rather than the lute. Although it became obvious during the researchthat the ornaments in Gerber’s copy suit keyboard instruments verywell, the idea that they are (also) suitable for lutes remains valid. Thisconclusion however, merely confirms other evidence that stronglysuggests the piece had been performed on lute-harpsichord and verylikely had been written specifically for this instrument.4 The numer

Johann Sebastian Bachs Lautenkompositionen?” Die Musikforschung 19 (1966): 32 andfollowing. An article with greater emphasis on the technical aspects of a recon-structed lute-harpsichord is found in Uta Henning’s “The Most Beautiful among theClaviers: Rudolf Richter’s Reconstruction of a Baroque Lute-Harpsichord,” EarlyMusic 10/4 (1982): 477–86.5The writer of the third eighteenth-century manuscript of the Suite in E minor BWV996 transposed the composition a fourth higher, so that it perfectly fits the best-sounding range of the most common Baroque keyboard instruments, such as theharpsichord or clavichord; the manuscript is contained in a collection of keyboardworks, all by the same writer, possibly Bach himself or a student of Bach. See NBAV/10, Kritischer Bericht, ed. Hartwig Eichberg and Thomas Kohlhase (Kassel:Bärenreiter, 1982; hereafter NBA V/10, KB), p. 120; see also Thurston Dart, “Bach’sEarly Keyboard Music: A Neglected Source (Brussels, B.R., Fétis 2960),” ActaMusicologica 42 (1970): 236–38.6See Uta Henning, “Die ‘Laute auf dem Claviere’: Zur Rekonstruktion des Theorben-flügels nach Johann Christoph Fleischer (1718) durch Rudolf Richter (1986),” BaslerJahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis 12 (1988): 109–122.7Reinhold Jauernig, Johann Sebastian Bach in Thüringen (Weimar: Thüringer Volksverlag,1950), 99 (note 14).

ous technical difficulties encountered when it is attempted on theregular Baroque lute tuned in D minor (although today it is frequentlyperformed in transcriptions for modern bass lute, as well as forguitar), and the affinity the setting has for the keyboard (e.g, in theGigue) have made it a welcome piece for harpsichordists since theeighteenth century.5 These factors suggest convincingly that the suiteis eminently suitable for lute-harpsichord, an instrument that Bachalso owned (two lute-claviers were in his estate) and helped todevelop.6

The handwritten instrumentation notice (by an unknown writer,using eighteenth-century terminology) on the cover of J. G. Walther’scopy of the composition, “aufs Lauten Werck,” also suggests that itwas written for the lute-harpsichord; at least it shows that, in theeighteenth century, it was regarded as a composition suited for thisinstrument. Since there is a record of a lute-clavier bought in Weimar,(built in 1715 by Bach’s relative Johann Nikolaus Bach), 7 Bach likelyhad access to a lute-clavier during the time-frame in which thiscomposition must have been composed (the safest way of dating thecomposition’s origin is placing it in the time-frame when the earliercopy was written: between 1710 and 1717, with a slight possibility ofan earlier date of origin).

8NBA V/10.9J. S. Bachs Klavierwerke, vol. 7, ed. Hans Bischoff (Leipzig [1888]).

The author’s research results, which are the subject of this article,reveal not only a few more ornaments (differing from those in theknown versions of the composition), but also a large number ofpreviously over looked differences from the received version of theoriginal score itself. These differences and the reasons for them makean interesting subject for detailed study. In the following essay,Gerber’s copy is compared to the edition in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe8

and to Walther’s manuscript, which has been considered the mostauthoritative source—a view that should now be brought intoquestion by these new findings. 9

Unluckily, the music edition of BWV 996 in the Neue Bach-Ausgabewas published just before Gerber’s manuscript was rediscovered. Asa consequence, this otherwise highly valuable and thorough editionhad to be based mainly on the only known early copy, written by J. G.Walther (see SOURCES below). A nineteenth-century edition edited byHans Bischoff (which was based in part, but not fully, on Gerber’sversion before it was temporarily lost) then was used for the compari-son of Source A (Walther) and Source B (Gerber) in the criticalcommentary of NBA V/10. Despite the overall romantic approach ofBischoff’s edition, which added legato slurs and dynamic markings,and which did not document editorial additions of ornaments ortextual versions not contained in Gerber’s manuscript (althoughBischoff did state in the introductory notes to the score that he choseornaments according to his own taste, without noting their specificsources), scholars accepted the edition by Bischoff as a documenta-tion of the original source by Gerber.(This may have been caused byBischoff’s remark in the edition identifying the Gerber manuscript asone of his sources.)

10Ernst Ludwig Gerber, Historisch-Biographisches Lexicon der Tonkünstler, vol. 1, (Leipzig1790), 491–92. E. L. Gerber also discusses the order in which H. N. Gerber studiedand copied Bach’s compositions during his studies; see, for example, Alfred Dürr,“Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber als Schüler Bachs,” Bach-Jahrbuch 64 (1978): 7–18.11Dürr, 17.12Dürr, 10.13Dürr, 13.14Wiemer, “Ein Bach-Doppelfund.”15Dürr, 12–13.

H. N. GERBER’S COPIES OF BACH’S COMPOSITIONS: THEIR QUALITY AND DATES OF ORIGIN

Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber was Bach’s student in Leipzig from thesecond half of 1724 until at least 1725. Gerber’s son’s account saysthat he studied with Bach until 1727,10 but Alfred Dürr lists sourcessuggesting 1725 as the year when Gerber finished his studies withBach.11

Numerous copies of Bach’s compositions made by HeinrichNikolaus Gerber during the time of his studies with Johann SebastianBach exist.12 They include all of the Inventions and Sinfonias, all ofthe French Suites, four of the English Suites as well as the suitesBWV 818 and BWV 819, the Partita in E minor, BWV 830, acollection with music for organ containing BWV 662a, the Well-tempered Clavier I (although a different writer finished the score fromBWV 864)13 as well as the Toccata in E minor BWV, 914 (which, untilrecently, was bound together with Gerber’s manuscript of BWV996),14 the Toccata in G major, BWV 916, and the Suite in E minor,BWV 996, which is the subject of this article.

It is possible to date the manuscripts by comparing examples ofGerber’s handwriting, especially with regard to the shape of theaugmentation dots.15 The point in time at which the shape of theaugmentation dots changed from a rather ornamental shape (which isopen toward the top) to the regular shape used nowadays is (accord-ing to his own dating of his manuscript copy of the Well-temperedClavier I) November 21, 1725, at the latest, since all later manuscriptsdisplay the modern form of the dots. The much greater number ofaugmentation dots in Gerber’s copy of BWV 996 employ the (early)ornamental shape; therefore the manuscripts was probably written

16Dürr , 14–15.17NBA, ser. 5, vol. 8, Kritischer Bericht : 72–74.18NBA, ser. 5, vol. 3, vi.

before 21 November 1725. Since Gerber’s son Ernst Ludwig statesthat his father first copied Bach’s Inventions and Sinfonias, which H.N. Gerber dated on the manuscript as 22 January 1725, the lowerlimit of the time frame also is determined, assuming E. L. Gerber’sinformation is authoritative (although E. L. Gerber sometimespresents incorrect information, as in Bach’s Albinoni thoroughbasssettings),16 it still seems appropriate to place the Inventions andSinfonias at the beginning of someone’s studies, leaving the Suites fora later time.

H. N. Gerber’s manuscript copies of Bach’s compositions are allof high quality, and are reliable sources; indeed a few of them are theonly copies of Bach’s revised versions of his works (as is the case withhis copy of the French suites, in particular, Suite No. 5 in G major(BWV 816).17 His manuscript copy of Bach’s Inventions and Sinfoniasis one of the most accurate sources for these works. Sinfonia No. 5 inE flat major (BWV 791) even contains ornamentation signs in Bach’shandwriting that were probably added during Gerber’s lessons withBach.18

In Gerber’s manuscript copy of BWV 996 several ornaments arewritten in a kind of red color, most likely made with red chalk. Thecolor of these red chalk markings is less opaque than and visiblydifferent from the dark red ink used in most of the manuscript. Theornaments in red chalk appear only on the first page of the prelude;in the suite, however, several corrections in the same red chalk appear.The exemplifying ornamentation (appearing just at the beginning ofthe composition) suggests that the ornaments were probably writtenduring a lesson, and that the student was expected to prepare the restof the composition in the same manner. A comparison to Gerber’smanuscript copy of the Inventions (which has added ornamentationsigns written by Bach himself) would seem to be called for; however,the ornaments in Gerber’s copy of BWV 996 can not be identified

19This may also be seen in Gerber’s manuscript copy of the English Suite BWV 806(previously in the Landes- and Universitätsbibliothek Halle, now owned privately)and the Partita BWV 830 (Bach-Archiv Leipzig, Sign. Go. S. 8). His appoggiaturasare usually very similar in form, with stems (going in different directions) that areusually rather long (but sometimes short), and always with particularly small noteheads and very short beams, making them look somewhat like snail horns.

clearly as written by Bach, and are probably in Gerber’s handwriting19

(see facsimile below).

Three ornaments in the prelude display a different style ofhandwriting, one that is rather vague and less accurate (see thecomparison below); they point to possible time pressure at the timeof notation, such as during a lesson, while the teacher performs thepiece at the instrument. Probably Bach actually performed and/ordictated these ornaments during one of Gerber’s lessons, with Bachperforming and Gerber writing at a table—this would explain a fewmistakes in Gerber’s copy; Bach may just have looked through thebeginning of the copy and then performed the suite in the lesson so thatGerber could write down the other corrections and revisions himself.It is unlikely that Gerber wrote the ornaments entirely without Bach’ssupervision (as a homework or a later revision), considering the majorcorrections in the sarabande and the prelude (made in the same redchalk color)—revisions that Gerber, as a thorough copyist (see above)and admiring Bach student, would surely not have undertaken withoutconsultation. Additionally, some ornaments in the prelude areidentical to those in Walther’s copy (see Summary below), furtherincreasing the likelihood that Gerber had the original autograph as amodel for making corrections or that the author of the music advisedhim to make the corrections.

Facsimile 1. Johann Sebastian Bach, Suite in E minor (BWV 996), Praeludio.Facsimile excerpt of the manuscript copy by Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber:added ornaments in red chalk (visibly lighter), page turn marking prestissimovolti instead of Presto marking, different handwriting style of a trill on the noteG-sharp in measure 9 (the measure in the upper right corner of the excerpt).Original in private possession, facsimile printed with permission of theowner.

Facsimile 2. A closer view of measure 9 (see description above).

COMPARISON

The following new discoveries are listed in a format similar to thatfound in the commentary of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe. The versions inBischoff’s edition are also listed whenever they are the source ofincorrect information in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe. Sometimes theversions of the third manuscript source (Source C, see descriptionbelow) is also listed, since Gerber’s manuscript displays manysimilarities to this source. To illustrate the significant differences ofGerber’s version, several music excerpts are provided. In someinstances (Examples 4, 5, and 6), the Neue Bach-Ausgabe does notfollow Walther’s copy, because his manuscript is rhythmicallyincorrect; in such cases Walther’s version is described in the text.

20 Bischoff, introductory notes to the music score of the Suite in E minor (BWV 996)in J. S. Bachs Klavierwerke, vol. 7, ed. Hans Bischoff (Leipzig, [1888]), 54.

The music examples of Gerber’s copy show the originalpolyphonic setting of his copy, with mostly separate rests for eachvoice and separate stems for each note in a chord. By contrast, theexamples from the Neue Bach-Ausgabe show that edition’s general styleof presentation, which foregoes polyphonic notation for the sake ofreadability. In our musical examples of Gerber’s manuscript, noadditions or corrections have been made (e.g., added courtesyaccidentals, changed stem directions, or regrouping of notes), with theexception of a clef change in the upper system (from C clef to violinclef).

Example 1 (Praeludio, measure 12) shows several characteristics ofGerber’s copy: appoggiaturas (unique to Gerber’s copy), which enrichthe sound and harmonies of the composition, and mordent trills,which appear so often (mostly where regular trills appear in Walther’smanuscript) that they cannot simply be mistakes (as Bischoffthought).20 Rather they are of a different kind of ornamentation,resulting in a homogenous sound that stresses the primary notes. Theexample also shows longer slurs than in Walther’s manuscript, anadditional characteristic of Gerber’s copy.

Example 1. Praeludio, measure 12, in the version of Heinrich NikolausGerber.

21For a further description of this problem in Walther’s copy, also see: NBA 5/10,KB, 123 and following.

Example 2. Praeludio, measure 12, in the version of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe andWalther.

In Examples 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the sarabande, Gerber’s versiondiffers rhythmically in the upper voice. Walther’s inaccurate versionof the upper voice has been changed in the Neue-Bach-Ausgabe (seeExamples 4 and 6). In these cases Gerber’s manuscript contains arhythmically correct version.21 Even if Gerber himself corrected aseemingly inaccurate rhythm here (as in Walther’s copy)—onecontained in the original from which he copied (most likely anautograph by Bach or a lost, fourth copy)—Gerber’s copy (Source B)is an authoritative revised version, since he was a student underBach’s supervision when he wrote it. Still, it is unlikely that Gerberhimself would have changed significant melodic phrases as has beendone here—phrases that are now accented differently (and, it seemsto the author, are improved musically):

Example 3. Sarabande, measure 10, in the version of Heinrich NikolausGerber and Source C (in Source C transposed to A minor).

Example 4. Sarabande, measure 10, in the version of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe,in which the note values have been changed (in Walther’s copy, the uppervoice is set as: quarter note g', eighth note f<', eighth note e', dotted half notee', then five sixteenth notes: e', f<', g', a', b').

Example 5. Sarabande, measure 13, in the version of Heinrich NikolausGerber and Source C (in Source C it is transposed to A minor; also the firstslur is missing but the note values are identical to Gerber’s copy).

Example 6. Sarabande, measure 13, in the version of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe,in which the note values have been changed. (In Walther’s copy, the upper voice is set as: dotted quarter note a<',sixteenth note g<', sixteenth note a<', dotted half note b', then seven thirty-second notes: a', g', f<', e', d', c<', b. In contrast to the Neue Bach-Ausgabe,Walther’s copy also contains a slur above the first two notes of the uppervoice).

Examples 7 and 8 show another difference between Gerber’s andWalther’s manuscripts: in Gerber’s version, the upper voice turns tothe major key earlier, with a g<' appearing already on beat 2 of themeasure for the final chord of the movement. Such an early turn tothe major key occurs several times in this suite (in the allemande andthe gigue; in both cases the reading is found also in Sources A and C).This sharp sign in the Courante in Gerber’s manuscript is another oneof several similarities to Source C, therefore suggesting an identicalorigin for Gerber’s manuscript (Source B) and Source C (possiblyBach’s revised autograph) and also suggesting that Walther’smanuscript (Source A) is inaccurate in this case. Since C also containselements only appearing in Walther’s copy, such as the arpeggio signin measure 11 of the Courante, Source C cannot be a copy of Gerber’manuscript, where the sign is missing.

Example 7. Courante, measure 22, in the version of Heinrich NikolausGerber and Source C (in Source C transposed to A minor; Source C alsocontains a slur over the second to fourth notes in the upper voice, but isidentical otherwise).

Example 8. Courante, measure 22, in the version of the Neue Bach-Ausgabeand Walther: missing sharp sign before g'.

22According to the dating system for Walther’s writing styles applied by HermannZietz, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen an den Bach- Handschriften P 801, P 802 und P 803aus dem, “Krebs’schen Nachlaß” unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Choralbearbeitungen desjungen J. S. Bach, Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft, ed. Georg von Dadelsen(Hamburg: Wagner, 1969), 1:210.

LIST OF ALL NEWLY FOUND DIFFERENCES IN THE PRAELUDIOBETWEEN GERBER’S COPY AND THE EDITION OF THE SUITE IN

THE NBA AND WALTHER’S COPY

In the following discussion, the author presents a complete list ofall newly discovered differences in the first movement (Praeludio) ofGerber’s manuscript (Source B), when compared with Walther’smanuscript (Source A) and the edition in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBAV/10). In significant cases, Gerber’s manuscript copy is alsocompared with the edition of Bischoff and/or with Source C. Thedifferences are listed according to the system applied in thecommentary of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe: measure number (Arabicnumeral); voice layer, counted from the top (Roman numeral);rhythmic symbol (Arabic numeral, NB: appoggiaturas are not countedbut all other notes, rests, and notes connected through slurs arecounted as rhythmic signs); description of the differences.

SOURCES

A: Manuscript copy written by Johann Gottfried Walther containedin a collection from the estate of Johann Ludwig Krebs. Location:Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Signature: Mus. ms. Bach P 801. Date oforigin: ca. 1710–1717.22 The first edition by Peters is based on SourceA. The Neue-Bach-Ausgabe (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1982) is based mainlyon Source A.

B: Manuscript copy written by Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber. Accordingto the later handwritten title page, owned in 1877 by Dr. W. Rust,Berlin. Later it was owned by Dr. Erich Prieger, then it was lost.Today it is in a private collection. Date of origin: between January 22and November 21, 1725 (see above regarding H. N. Gerber’s copiesof Bach’s compositions: their quality and dates of origin). The editionby Bischoff (Steingräber, [1888]) is based mainly on Source B and thefirst edition by Peters.

23Wiemer, 32.

C: Manuscript copy in a compilation volume (written probably duringthe second half of the eighteenth century) that contains earlycompositions by J. S. Bach for keyboard instruments. In 1836 it wassold by Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, to the musicologist Fétis. Fromhis estate it came to the Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels. Location:Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels, Signature: II. 4093.

Note that since all differences listed below are not contained inthe edition of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (in the following abbreviated asNBA), this fact is not continuously mentioned. Some of theornaments mentioned below from Source B were first described inthe article by Wolfgang Wiemer.23

Praeludio

4/I/13–14

5/I/3–10

5/I/11

5/I/14

6/I/1

7/I/9

In Source B the short trill sign is placed visibly after thedotted eighth note, between the note and thefollowing sixteenth note, possibly suggesting a trillstarting from the main note and therefore emphasizingthe main note and the fifth in the cadence (since mostother ornaments in this manuscript are placed veryneatly).

The slur is missing in Source B.

In Source B there is an appoggiatura inserted frombelow (in red chalk).

In Source B there is a mordent trill instead of the shorttrill sign.

The short trill sign also appears in Source B (in redchalk).

In Source B an appoggiatura has been inserted fromabove (in red chalk); additionally, in Source B amordent trill stands above the main note, in contrastto the short trill in the edition by Bischoff. In the

8/I/4

8/I/3–5

9/I/1

9/I/5

10/I/1–2

12

12/I/1

NBA, the short trill sign from Bischoff is mentioned asthe version from Source B. Therefore, it wronglyaccepts Bischoff’s edition as a correct depiction ofGerber’s copy.

The accidental before c<' in Source B is in red chalk(because it is a correction).

In Source B there is a slur; the slurs over the followingnote groups also appear in Source B, but those aboverhythmic signs 6–9 and 10–14 are imprecisely drawnand could also be interpreted as slurs above 6–10 and11–14.

In Source B a short trill sign appears (in red chalk) ina different hand writing style (possibly written byGerber under time pressure during the lesson); it isdrawn rather imprecisely and is directed towards theupper right side (as seen in the ornaments on 14/I/17and 15/I/4).

In Source B an appoggiatura note has been insertedfrom below (in red chalk).

In Source B there is a mordent sign clearly placedbetween the dotted eighth note and the followingsixteenth note (since the other ornaments in Gerber’scopy are placed very accurately, this could suggestholding the main note a bit longer before starting thetrill).

For measure 12, see also Examples 1 and 2.

In Source B there is a clearly visible mordent trill (inred chalk); in Bischoff’s edition the mordent trill isprinted small (without a reason given, the small fontwould suggest that the sign is less authoritative or notstemming from Gerber’s copy).

12/I/1-3

12/I/11

13/I/1–3

13/I/6–8

14/I/1

14/I/3

14/I/3–12

14/I/12ff.

14/I/17

In Source B the slur appears on rhythmic signs 1–3instead of 2–3.

In Source B there is a mordent trill with Nachschlag (theNachschlag is written in red chalk) instead of the shorttrill sign. In Source B the slur appears on rhythmic signs 1–3instead of 2–3.

In Source B the slur appears on rhythmic signs 6–8instead of 7–8. In Source B there is a mordent trill instead of the shorttrill sign; additionally, Source B contains anappoggiatura from above (in red chalk).

In Source B there is an appoggiatura inserted frombelow (in red chalk).

In Source B there is a long slur over rhythmic signs3–12 (eighth note b to eighth note e').

In Source B the upper voice has the correct rhythmicnote values: dotted eighth note e', thirty-second noteg, sixty-fourth note a, sixty-fourth note b (in Walther’scopy the rhythmically inaccurate note values are dottedeighth note e', thirty-second note g, thirty-second notea, and thirty-second note b).

In Source B there is a short trill sign (in red chalk), butin a different handwriting style (also see measure 9 andmeasure 15); 14/I/17 must be read as 14/I/16according to Gerber’s copy because of the differentnote values in it, resulting in different numbering ofthe rhythmic signs (14/I/17 is just the place of thisnote according to the version in NBA).

15/I/4

16

In Source B, the mordent trill (which is also containedin Source A!) appears in red chalk (in the other hand-writing style—likely written by Gerber under timepressure; see also measures 9 and 14), suggesting thatthe corrections and additions in red chalk were madewith a knowledge of Bach’s autograph (whichobviously still contained many details of the earlierversion that Walther copied) or under Bach’ssupervision.

The Presto marking does not appear in Source B. (Itdoes not appear in Source C either, strongly suggestinga (lost) common source for B and C, very likely Bach’srevised autograph.) Instead, after measure 16 (whichby coincidence appears on the bottom of the firstpage), the page-turn advice prestissimò volti appears. Thisinstruction appears again in Source B at the page-turnof the Gigue: therefore, it is possible that Gerber’s copyreproduces the original version and that Walthermistakenly deciphered the page-turn instruction as aPresto marking, since Bach often abbreviates the page-turn advice in different ways (which, written in hisgenerous hand, are hardly readable). Note: Althoughone would expect this section of the overture-likeprelude to be performed in a flowing (not slow)tempo, Bach usually does not add additionalperformance instructions, such as in the FrenchOverture, BWV 831; furthermore, Walther’s Prestomarking changes the musical expression of the section.On the other hand, Gerber could have copied thecomposition from a lost additional copy (see Summarysection below) in which the Presto marking wasmistakenly omitted. However, most of Gerber’s copiesof Bach’s works were made from autographs, andBach probably supervised Gerber’s work closely. Thisstrongly speaks for the first theory, which suggests thatGerber here documented the more correct (revised)version of the composition.

16/I/1

57/I/1

58/II/2

59/I/2

73/I/4

74/I, V/1

In Source B there is an appoggiatura inserted fromabove (in red chalk).

The first note of the measure in Source B is incorrectlywritten as a sixteenth note. However it is placedcorrectly (as is the following note).

In Source B there is a tie, according to the voice-leading, from the quarter note a to the first rhythmicsign of the lower voice in measure 59 (eighth note a),instead of a tie in the upper voice from rhythmic signI/5 (sixteenth note a) to rhythmic sign II/1 in measure59 (eighth note a) in the lower voice (as in the NBA,where Walther’ copy has been misunderstood, since healways writes short slurs and ties, so that it is oftendifficult to determine where they belong exactly).

In Sources B and A there is a tie from quarter note e'to the first note in the upper voice of measure 60(eighth note e', rhythmic sign I/1), which is missing inthe NBA (although it is appears correctly in Walther’scopy).

The last note of the measure in Source B is incorrectlywritten as an eighth note (the previous note howeveris written correctly).

In Source B there are fermata signs.

SUMMARY

The newly discovered differences between the Gerber manuscriptand the currently accepted score of BWV 996 (and to the edition inthe Neue Bach-Ausgabe) are as follows:

1) The Gerber manuscript offers correct or more preciseversions of certain passages (see, for example, the Courante,measure 22; the Sarabande, measures 10 and 13).

24Bach’s revisions of the Suite in E minor (BWV 996) (for example, the adding ofappoggiaturas) happened during the very months of 1725 when Bach entered twosimilarly ornamented partitas (BWV 827 and BWV 830) into the second musiccollection for his wife Anna Magdalena. The Partita in E minor (BWV 830) especiallydisplays enormous similarities in its Sarabande to the French Overture-like Praeludioof BWV 996. The comparison of these two compositions might have influenced therevision of BWV 996.

2) The Gerber manuscript contains variants with respect toornamentation (see Praeludio, measure 12), articulation (seePraeludio, measure 12), and the main body of the score (seeSarabande, measures 14, 18, and 20).

3.) It contains additions (see for example, the appoggiaturas in thePraeludio).

In particular, the rhythmically correct upper voice and the addednotes in the Sarabande strongly suggest a revision of the score by J. S.Bach after Walther’s copy was made. The revisions recognizable bythe use of red chalk—the changes in the Sarabande and theappoggiaturas in the Praeludio—were made during the same stage ofrevision (which was, perhaps, already a second revision, made duringGerber’s lesson; see below). Since it is unlikely that Gerber made thered chalk-corrections in the Sarabande without supervision by histeacher, J. S. Bach, the appoggiaturas were probably also written underBach’s supervision or dictated by Bach.24 Two significant trill signs(which are not placed at obvious places, such as cadences), written inred chalk in Gerber’s copy (in measures 6 and 15 of the Praeludio), alsoappear in Walther’s manuscript (their authenticity presumablytraceable back to a lost Bach autograph). These trill signs furnishfurther evidence that Gerber made the corrections under thesupervision of Bach rather than later in life.

The general character of the suite’s revision documented inGerber’s copy is characterized by two different features: on the onehand, it has a new sound character that either tends to stress theprimary notes more (with mordent trills) or enriches the harmonies(with appoggiaturas); on the other hand, it displays a more exactnotation through the corrections in the upper voice of the Sarabande.

25Dart, 236 and following..26Wolfgang Dömling and Thomas Kohlhase, “Kein Bach-Autograph: DieHandschrift Brüssel, Bibliothèque Royale, II 4093 (Fétis 2960),” Acta Musicologica(1971): 108-09.27NBA V/10, KB, 120.

The accuracy and high quality of Gerber’s other known copies ofBach’s compositions is generally known (as stated above). It is veryunlikely that Gerber, as a young and admiring student of Bach, wouldhave changed the music score himself manner without the approvalor direction of Bach himself. The very accurate copy of theInventions and Sinfonias that Gerber made just prior to copyingBWV 996, suggests a similar quality in the case at hand.

Furthermore, Gerber’s copy (Source B) reveals numerouspreviously unknown similarities with the third source of the compo-sition (Source C), such as the missing Presto marking in measure 16 ofthe Praeludio, the earlier turn to the major tonality in measure 22 of theCourante, and the upper voice in measures 10 and 13 of theSarabande (see examples above). These similarities suggest a commonorigin for both sources, such as Bach’s autograph or perhaps a fourthsource, which now is lost.

Another possibility previously suggested by Thurston Dart25 (butquestioned by Dömling and Kohlhase)26 is that Source C (containingearly compositions by Bach) is indeed an early Bach autograph (in ourcase with a transposed version of Bach’s revised Suite BWV 996) butnot the model for Gerber’s copy, since Source C is transposed to Aminor (Gerber would then have had to transpose the compositionback to E minor).

Indeed, the most likely possibility is that Source C is a copy of anearly autograph collection by Bach that was possibly owned by astudent of Bach (although, as Kohlhase stated earlier, it could also bea copy by an unknown writer who assembled early Bach manuscriptslater).27 In any case, it contains authentic early compositions of J. S.Bach, which might be revisions in some instances (as in the case ofBWV 996).

28Among these similarities is the following: Courante, measure 11 (arpeggio signbefore first chord of the upper system—although it is missing in the score of theNBA).

Several identical details in Source C and Source A (Walther)28

further support the theory that Source C is an autograph or a copy ofan early collection autograph, for these similarities are not found inSource B (Gerber). This fact also suggests that Source C is not a copyof B (Gerber). Although the differences between A and C are muchmore numerous than the similarities (because the composition hadbeen revised), it is likely that Bach’s revised autograph still containedthe details shared by A and C, especially if the corrections were justadded to the original autograph score (which is almost certain, sincemore substantive revisions, such as added measures, do not appear inGerber’s copy). Another reason why Source C could not be a copy ofSource B is that all corrections of Source B in red chalk (such as in theSarabande) are missing in Source C.

A particular, important, and basic difference between Walther’sand Gerber’s copies derives from the different personal backgroundsof the writers. Walther was a colleague of Bach in Weimar and wasalmost the same age as Bach; Gerber was a young student.Exemplified ornamentation of parts of a composition (done so thatthe student can add similar ornaments to the rest of the work) istypical for a pedagogical situation, as in the case on hand. Bach thenprobably used this occasion to revise the score once more (his earlierrevision being documented in Gerber’s copy by variant readingswritten in regular ink—for example, the different note values in theSarabande’s upper voice) by dictating the improvements andcorrections to Gerber (such as the amendments made with red chalkin the Sarabande), or by performing the suite during a lesson andhaving Gerber write down the corrections in red chalk according toBach’s performance.