New Research on Bach's "Musical Offering"

Author(s): Christoph Wolff

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Jul., 1971), pp. 379-408
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/740942 .
Accessed: 28/08/2012 11:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical
Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
 NEW RESEARCH ON BACH'S
MUSICAL OFFERING
By CHRISTOPH WOLFF

INworks
our familiarpictureof JohannSebastian Bach the yearsof his late
are surrounded a veil. His labors to be
by mysterious appear
closerto heaven than earth,and so, for instance,it is said that some of
his late compositions- among themThe Art of Fugue and the Musical
Offering- do not require any earthlyinstruments for theirrealization
in sound. They ratherrepresentpure, abstractmusic: musica sui generis.
And looking behind the mysteriousveil of the composer'sesotericlast
worksbecomes a kind of sacral act.
But one does not bringinto questionBach's greatnessby statingthat
this pictureis more in accord with a certain ideology,idolization,and
speculation than with reality.The prevailing'reasons for this miscon-
ception are groundedin some basic misunderstandings which arise to a
great extent from ignorance of the source material in its entirety.
Despite the many valuable discoveries and contributionsconcerning
Bach's last worksour effortshave been burdened with too many hypo-
theses,particularlyin the case of the Musical Offering.Though it has
undergone much scholarlyscrutiny,previous researchwas confinedto
only a part of the sources.Consequently,many questionshad to remain
open. Aiming at reliable answersto the centralquestions,new research
has had to startwith a completere-examinationof the knownsourcesin
connection with a thorough investigationof neglected or newly dis-
covered material. The project was undertakenfor the edition of the
Musical Offeringwithinthe Neue Bach-Ausgabe (Series VIII, Volume
1). While the resultswill be reportedin great detail in the forthcoming
KritischeBericht,I should like to presenthere the most importantfind-
ings of the recentsource studiesconcerninghistory,text,order,and per-
formanceproblemsof one of Bach's major late works,with particular
regard to controversialissues.'
I Exact source
descriptions, documentation, text critical and other particulars

379
380 The Musical Quarterly

I
The compositionof the Musical Offeringwas inspiredby a fugue
subject given by Frederick the Great to Bach when he visited the
Prussian court at Potsdam in May, 1747.' The work,consistingof two
ricercariof three and six parts, a trio sonata of four movements,and
ten canonic settings,is among the veryfew compositionsof Bach that
were printedin his lifetime.It was humbly dedicated to the King of
Prussia and became well-knownapart fromthe widely circulatedorig-
inal print,3in numerousmanuscriptcopies.4Parts of the work, mostly
canons, appeared in treatisesof the later eighteenthcentury,5 and unlike
most compositionsof Bach the entirework was even reprintedtwice in
the nineteenthcenturyprior to its publicationin the Bach-Gesellschaft
edition.6But no questions were raised about the homogeneityof the
work, its cyclical order, instrumentation, and chronologyuntil Philipp
studied
Spitta critically its historyand its naturewithspecial attentionto
the originalprintof 1747. Most scholarsmore or less closelyfollowed
the basic resultsof Spitta's research,'among them (to mentiononly the
most important) AlfredD6rffel,the editor of the Musical Offeringin
the Bach-Gesellschaftedition,8Ludwig Landshoffwith his new edition
and criticalcommentary,9 and Georg Kinskyin his book on the original
printsof Bach's works.'" Hans Theodore David was the firstone to

may be drawn fromthe KritischeBerichtof the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, Series VIII, Vol. 1
(hereafterKB, NBA VIII/1).
2 Cf. the contemporaryreports in Bach-Dokumente, ed. Werner Neumann and

Hans-Joachim Schulze, Vol. II (Leipzig and Kassel, 1969), pp. 434f.; The Bach
Reader, ed. Hans Theodore David and Arthur Mcndel, rev. ed. (New York, 1966),
pp. 176, 220, 260 (van Swieten) 305f. (Forkel).
3 At least 100 copies were printed. Cf. Bach-Dokumente, ed. Neumann and
Schulze, Vol. I (Leipzig and Kassel, 1963), p. 117 (Bach's letter from Oct. 6,
1748).
4 For details see KB, NBA VIII/1.
5 Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, Abhandlung von der Fuge, Part II (Berlin,
1754); Johann Philipp Kirnberger,Grundsatze des.Generalbasses (Berlin, 1781) and
Die Kunst des reinen Satzes, Part II (Berlin, 1779); A. F. C. Kollmann, Essay on
Practical Musical Composition (London, 1799).
6 Ed. C. G. Miiller (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hiirtel, 1831); ed. F. A. Roitzsch
(Leipzig: Peters, 1866).
7 Philipp Spitta, J. S. Bach, Vol. II (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 671ff.,843ff.
8 BG, Vol. XXXI/2 (Leipzig, 1885).
9 Edition Peters No. 4202 (Leipzig, 1937); Beiheft zur Urtext-Ausgabe.Bemer-
kungenzur Textkritikund Darstellung des Werkes (Leipzig, 1937).
10 Die Originalausgaben der Werke Johann Sebastian Balchs. Ein Beitrag zur
Musikbibliographie (Vienna, 1937), pp. 62ff.
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 381

contradictSpitta's views on some crucial points in an article published

some thirtyyears ago in this periodicaln and later on in a remarkable
monograph supplementinghis practical edition of the Musical Offer-
ing."2There he laid the foundationfor later, smallerstudies by Rudolf
Gerber 3 and Wilhelm Pfannkuch."4
The many argumentsabout the Musical Offeringin the Bach litera-
tureto the presentday, makingthisone of the mostdifficult and delicate
issues in Bach researchconcerninga single work, boil down to the fol-
lowing essentialquestions: (1) What is the explanationforthe peculiar
and puzzling arrangementof the original print? (2) Is the work con-
ceived as a unity?(3) What is the originalorderof the pieces? (4) What
instrumentsare required for the performance?The firstquestion is
undoubtedlythe central one and its answer determinesthe solution to
most of the others.The printof 1747 offersthe key for understanding
as well as for misunderstanding the work. According to the criticalin-
vestigations since Spitta,the and layoutof the originalprinthas
structure
been describedas follows(see Table I on the nextpage and Plates I, II,
and IV-VI).15
It consistsof fiveseparate sectionsor printingunits (the lettersA-E
serveas referencecodes to them) that show a greatdeal of inconsistency,
especiallyin the use of different formats.(A, B, E: oblong; C, D: up-
right),pagination(B: 1-4; C: 1-4; E: 1-7), and numbering(D: canons
nos. 1-5). Section A, containingthe titleand preface (dedication), was
printedby Breitkopfin Leipzig. The bulk of the printcontainingthe
musical pieces was engravedby Johann Georg Schiiblerin Zella as his
signatureon the bottomof page 7 in E shows.B embodiesthe three-part
ricercarfollowedby a singlecanon; C, thethreeinstrumental partsof the
trio and anothersinglecanon; D, a group of fivecanons and a canonic
fugue with the acrosticprintedon a small stripof paper and pasted on
the blank folio1 recto; and E, the six-partricercarand two more canons.
The traditionalsource description,as well as all source studies,was
11
"Bach's 'Musical Offering,'" The Musical Quarterly, XXIII (1937), 314-32.
1 Edition SchirmerNo. 40062
(New York, 1944); 1. S. Bach's Musical Offering.
History,Interpretation,and Analysis (New York, 1945).
13"Sinn und Ordnung in Bachs 'Musikalischem Opfer,' " Das Musikleben, I
(1948), 65ff.; "Das Musikalische Opfer," Die Werke des Bach-Festes 1950 [G6ttingen]
(Kassel, 1950), pp. 20ff.
14 "J. S. Bachs 'Musikalisches Opfer,' " Die Musikforschung,VII (1954), 440ff.
440ff.
15
Cf.~Spitta, II, 843ff.; Landshoff, op. cit., pp. 7ff.,Kinsky, op. cit., pp. 63ff.;
Pfannkuch,op. cit., pp. 442ff.
 TABLE I
TraditionalDescriptionof theOriginalPrint

New Lieferung Section Paper Original

format Folio pagination BWV Contents
sigla (SpItta) (David)
A I * oblong 1 1079 MusicalischesOpf
1' (blank)
2 Ki
Allergniidigster
2' wo
bewerkstelliget

B I 1 oblong 1 (blank)
1' 1 1 Ricercara 3, mm
2 2 mm. 60b-110
2' 3 mm. 111-156
3 4 2 mm. 157-185;Can
3' (blank)
D I 2 upright 1 Regislussu Canti
1' 3 Canonesdiversisu
a 1. a 2 (cancrican
b 2. a 2 Violin:in U
c 3. a 2 perMotum
d 4. a 2 perAugme
e 5. a 2 (per tonos)
4 Fuga canonicain
2 mm. 9b-78
2' (blank)
New Lieferung Section Paper Original-
sigla (Spitta) (David) format Folio pagination BWV Contents
C III 3 upright 1-2 1-4 8, 9 Traversa.(Trio) ;t
1-2 1-4 8, 9 Violino.(Trio) ;t
1-2 1-4 8, 9 Continuo.(Trio);t
E II 4 oblong 1 1 5 Ricercara 6, mm
1' 2 mm. 18-33a
2 3 mm.33b-51a
2' 4 mm.51b-67a
3 5 mm.67b-79
3' 6 mm.80-95
4 7 6, 7 mm.96-103; Cano
Canon a 4; J.G. S
4' (blank)

*David (op. cit.,pp. 8f.) assumedthattheblankpage at thebeginning

sectionB was intendedto r
printedtitle (sectionA) was perhapsa later idea of Bach.
tTitle unknown.
 utificalifdW)c

a tu
ithnt
~r+ tb3igli~tde
M il rculc

30o1a1tn
(e'lBiauat 3ad).

PlateI
Originalprintof1747:SectionA, folio1recto.
 JOEL&
IL
A
it

fr4
A-rLJ im
l
r---4---

I ALI 13 1

Plate II

Original printof 1747: Section B, folio 1

386 The Musical Quarterly

based exclusivelyon the followingcopies of the original print: the so-

called dedicationcopy, which was presentedto Frederickand contained
all fivesections (nos. 1 and 2 of Table II, page 388, below), a second
copy in Berlin with sectionsA, B, and E, and a third in Berlin with
sectionC only (nos. 3 and 4 of Table II). Though Kinsky16listsseven
additional copies of the original print,nobody has ever collated them.
Even David, who apparentlyknew the copy in the Libraryof Congress
containingsectionsA, B, C, and E (no. 17 of Table II),"7 did not make
use of it for the chapter on textual criticismin his book."1Thus the
dedicationcopy, as the only completesource,played a major role. Un-
like the othersthis special copy contains the sectionsA, B, and D on
luxurious paper of unusually large size (ca. 29 X 45 cm.) and fine
quality; C and E, however,are of the same size and quality as the
ordinarycopies (ca. 22.5 X 36 cm.). A and B are bound togetherin
elegant brown leather,whereas the remainderconsistsof loose leaves
(D and E) or bifolios (C), as the followingschematic layout may
demonstrate:19

Am.B. 73 A
A + B (luxurious
paper): bound B

annextoA + B
paper): separate,
D (luxurious D

annextoA + B
paper): separate,
E (ordinary E

Am.B. 74
C (ordinary
paper): separate _t
C

The dedicationcopy also showssome calligraphicinscriptions:on folio 1

recto of B the R-I-C-E-R-C-A-R acrostic and in D on folio 1 recto
(the place of the acrosticin the ordinarycopies) ThematisRegii Elabo-
rationesCanonicae, on folio 1 verso at the margin the complimentary
annotationsNotulis crescentibus Fortuna Regis and Ascenden-
.crescat
teque Modulatione ascendat Gloria Regis (belonging to canons 4 and
5). There are further differences between the dedication copy and the
ordinarycopies,2obut we can disregard them here.
16
Op. Cit.,pp. 124.
17 David used the Washington copy for some facsimilereproductionsin his book.
18Op. cit.,pp. 153ff.
19Cf. Spitta, II, 843f.; Landshoff, op. cit., p. 7f.; Kinsky, op. cit., pp. 63ff.;
op. cit.,pp. 442ff.
Pfannkuch,
20oSee KB, NBA VIII/1, for details.
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 387

Spitta and his followersdrew the followingconclusionsfrom their

source examinations.21 Bach sent to Frederickin July,1747 (the pref-
ace is dated: "7. Julii 1747"), a volume containingthe title,the pref-
ace, and the three-partricercar (i. e., sections A and B) bound in
leatheralong with the two loose canon leaves (C). These threesections
form the firstinstallment(Lieferung I) of the work, the respective
sectionsof the ordinarycopies correspondingto the sectionsof luxurious
paper in the dedication copy. "All the rest of the music which is now
included under the title Musical Offeringdoes not strictlyspeaking
belong to it, but was composed by Bach afterwardsand sent to the king
without any formal dedication."22 Thereforethe sectionsC and E of
the dedication copy consistof the same ordinarypaper as all the other
copies. Accordingto Spitta,E formedthe second and C the thirdinstall-
mentwhich were issued in the later monthsof 1747 or possiblyin 1748.
"As the whole collectionnow existsit is a strangeconglomerateof pieces,
lacking not only internalconnectionbut externaluniformity.... In this
workBach renouncedthe introductionof any comprehensiveidea which
would unifythe separate artisticcreations."23 While most later authors
agree with Spitta's view about the sources,theybelieve in the possibility
of a hidden artisticconceptunifyingthe entirework despitethe peculiar
and disconcertinglayout of the original print,and this they take as a
point of departurefor the constructionof grand hypotheseson the in-
ternal and externalorder of the Musical Ofering and as justification
for all sorts of arrangementsfor practical performances.24
David also emphasizesthroughouthis book the structure,scope, and
integrationof the work as a whole; he is, however,the firstscholar to
21See note 19, above. Cf. the numberingof the movementsand the brief source
descriptionin Schmieder'sBWV (see Table I, pp. 382-83, above).
22Spitta (Eng. ed.), III, 293.
23Ibid.
24See the literature mentioned in notes 9, 12-14, above; also Hans Joachim
Moser and Hermann Diener, "Bachs 'Musikalisches Opfer' und 'Kunst der Fuge,' "
Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Akademie fiir Kirchen- und Schulmusik Berlin, II (Kassel,
1929), 56ff. (obviously inspired by David's arrangementof the Musical Offeringand
Art of Fugue for the Leipzig Bach-Feier, 1928, and for a Kiel performance in the
same year); Alfred Orel, "Johann Sebastian Bachs 'Musikalisches Opfer,'" Die
Musik, XXX, 83ff., 165ff.; Erich Schenk, "Das 'Musikalische Opfer' von Johann
Sebastian Bach," Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der OsterreichischenAkademie der
Wissenschaften(Vienna, 1953), pp. 51ff.Cf. also the concert arrangementsby Roger
Vuataz (Zurich, 1937), and Igor Markevitch (London, 1952) as well as the various
recordings of the entire work: Angel S-35731 (Menuhin), London STS-15063
(Miinchinger), DGG ARC-198320 (Richter), Music Guild S-840 (Scherchen),
and Bach Guild BGS-5070 (Bibttcher).
388 The Musical Quarterly

TABLE II
SurvivingCopies of the OriginalPrint
Included
Library sections
1 Berlin(DDR), DeutscheStaatsbibliothek A, B, D, E
Am.B. 73
2 Berlin(DDR), DeutscheStaatsbibliothek C
Am.B. 74
3 Berlin(DDR), DeutscheStaatsbibliothek A, B, E
Mus. 0.9525 R
4 Berlin(DDR), DeutscheStaatsbibliothek D
Mus. 11531 R
5 Fulda, HessischeLandesbibliothek A, B, E
K.W.F. 138/84
6 der StadtLeipzig
Leipzig,Musikbibliothek A, B, D, E
111.6. 17
7 der StadtLeipzig
Leipzig,Musikbibliothek A, B, D, E
PM 5696
8 Munich,BayerischeStaatsbibliothek C
Mus.pr. 20,777
9 van Hoboken
Ascona,BibliothekAnthony A, B, D, E
Exemplar A
10 van Hoboken
Ascona,BibliothekAnthony A, B, E
Exemplar B
11 Ascona,BibliothekAnthonyvan Hoboken B, E
ExemplarC
12 MemorialBach Library A, B, E
Berea (Ohio), Riemenschneider
13 Bologna,CivicoMuseo Bibliografico B, C, D, E
BibliotecaMusicaleG. B. Martini,DD73, 75,76
14 The Hague, GemeenteMuseum B, D, E
Bach-Doos,Nr.III
15 London,BritishMuseum A, B, E
K. lo b.28
16 Rochester(New York), SibleyMusic Library B, E
M3.3.B 118
17 Washington,Libraryof Congress A, B, D, E
M 3.3.B 2
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 389

oppose stronglySpitta's source interpretationand correctsome of the

latter'sconclusionsregardingthe dedicationcopy. For example,he proves
that the leather binding was not provided by Bach but done much
later for the libraryof PrincessAnna Amalia, Frederick'ssister.Thus
the main argumentfor Spitta's so-called Lieferungstheorie was based
on the wrongassumption,at least so far as sectionsA, B, D, and E are
concerned. David offers,in addition, a new hypothesisto explain the
change of paper quality in the dedication copy, suggestingthat this
might be the resultof a lack of fine paper furnishedby the Prussian
court for the print.He also points out that the odd and messyappear-
ance of the print must have been primarilySchiibler's fault rather
than Bach's, because Schiibler tried to save expenses by fillingempty
spaces left on the plates (e. g., at the end of the two ricercari) with
canons, misunderstandingBach's intentionsand mixing up the origi-
nally well-plannedorder. "Schiibler tried hard to do his best although
he did not realize that here for once the order of movementsin a col-
lection of independent compositionswas a matter of importance." 5

II
David's plausible argumentsfor the artisticunityof Bach's concep-
tion as evident in the "original" comprehensivestructureand order
must remain hypothesestoo, as long as they fail to explain major
details of the appearance of the original print. For instance,why does
it have separate paginationforsectionsB and E? Could Schiiblerreally
have so mixed up the workwithoutBach's having correctedit in proof?
As a possiblesolutionforthisquestionit was suggestedthat the Musical
Offeringwas published piecemeal (the installmenttheory) so that its
individualsectionscould be sold separately.26But why then is the com-
poser's name found only on the title page and not at the beginningof
each section?The distributionand sale of pieces withoutmentionof the
author is unthinkable.Finally, the explanation has been offeredthat
Bach obviouslyintendedto publish the work with a deliberatelack of
order, ratherlike a puzzle correspondingto the enigmaticnotation of
the canons. In this connectionBach's use of the term "Ricercar" (Ital-
ian, "ricercare"= English,"to search") was understoodas an important
25 David, op. cit., p. 94. Cf. the
chapter on "Erroneous conclusions" (pp. 94ff.)
for his general criticismof Spitta's research conclusions. As to the quality of paper
and the binding,see pp. 91-92.
26 Cf. Joel Sheveloff,Quaerendo Invenietis
(Masters thesis, Brandeis University,
1964).
390 The Musical Quarterly

hint." But why then the clear originalnumbering1 to 5 of the canons

in sectionD?
The list of questionsand doubts is indeed endless,because explana-
tions of the odd appearance of the print still remain unsatisfactory
despite so many sharp-wittedand penetratingattempts.The failure
arose from the methodologicalassumptionthat collating all traceable
copies of the same printwas unnecessary.But it is now commonknowl-
edge that source criticismoftenmeetsthe same difficulties with original
-
printingsas it does with original manuscripts as e. g., in the case
of the Frescobaldi sources. Since all previous editions and studies
of the Musical Offeringhave used as a basis only the Berlin copies
with theirvaryingstatesof completenessand incompleteness, theycame
inevitablyto erroneousconclusions.The weakness of this basis can be
fullyrealized only aftercollatingthe eighteenextant copies (see Table
II), eleven of which were already listedby Kinsky.28 The total number
of copies per sectionis: eleven forA, fourteenfor B, threefor C, eight
forD, and fourteenforE.
The existenceof three copies of the trio parts is surprising,since
copies of this section of the Musical Offeringhave been considered
lost."9The two unknowncopies provide an originalengravedtitlecover
forthe trio,which the Berlincopy does not have. Here we learn forthe
firsttime the full titlefor the piece that was cautiouslyentitled"Trio"
in the Bach-Gesellschaftedition: Sonata sopr' il SoggettoReale a Tra-
ersa, Violino e Continuo. The title cover for the sonata parts formsa
bifolioand belongsas such to sectionC:

uprightformat,fol. 1 : Sonata .. (title)

fol. 1': blank
fol.2 : blank
fol.2': blank

Of similarimportancewas the discoverythat one copy (Table II,

no. 9) showssectionA consistingof a bifolio,i. e., the titleand preface
on one piece of paper with the fold on the upper long side. All other
copies of section A were cut on the fold for binding purposes in the
later eighteenth,nineteenth,or even twentiethcentury,thus destroying
the originallayout. In some copies section D which also formedorig-
inallya bifoliosufferedthe same mutilation.
27Cf. Gerber, op. cit., pp. 22f.
28 Op.
cit., p. 124.
29Kinsky,op. cit., p. 66; David, op. cit., p. 91.
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 391

It followsthat the 1747 printmust have shown uncut bifoliosfor

A, C, and D, as well as loose single leaves for B and E. This can be
verifiedby checkingthe paper and its watermarksin all copies. Without
going into the details here,"3the threediverseuses of the paper for the
printingcan be describedin the followingway (X and Y markingthe
two foliosof a double leaf) :

doubleleaves(bifolios)

forC andD
upright,

X t Y
fold

oblongforA

singleleaves(folios)
oblongforB and E

X Y

This at firstpuzzling use of double and single leaves in oblong

and uprightposition actually turns out to be very efficient.We have
three unbound fascicles arranged in the followingmanner: A func-
tions as main title for the entirework and provides the cover for B.
Now we reallyunderstandthe prefacewhich strangelyenough mentions
only the three-partricercarand none of the other settings,thus dem-
onstratingthat these two items (A and B) belong together.Section
30 For diplomatic see KB, NBA VIII/1.
investigations
392

rcr~'il
e~l~$tolRcoa
cA a

n1ihn0
Cd.o

Plate III

Original printof 1747:

Section C, folio 1 recto (cover).
 L
393

h.

''''
I ara
L"',
Jaw ~ -,~~

(an 071361
Fil

I
MAIr3
C3

-I- ~ r

Plate IV

Original printof 1747:

Section C, folio 1 recto (flutepart).
394 The Musical Quarterly

C, the second fascicle,containsin a titlecover the parts of the sonata.

The publication of the sonata in parts was much betterfor practical
use than a score would have been. For this reason Bach gave up the
printingof an open score which would have facilitatedthe publication
of the entire Musical Offeringin a simple standard volume like the
Clavier-Ufbungen, the SchiiblerChorales,or The Art of Fugue. D is the
third title cover, containingE. The acrostic"3 functionsas a subtitle
explainingthat the enclosed six-partricercarrepresentsthe piece that
the kingwanted Bach to play afterhe finishedthe three-partfugue.But
not daring to improvisea six-partkeyboardfugue on the complicated
royal theme,Bach chose a subject himself32and deliveredthe required
piece laterwiththe ingeniouswordsof the acrostic: "At the king'scom-
mand, the song [referring to the fugue] and the remainder [referring
to the canons of section D] resolved with canonic art." The fascicle
structurealso explains the use of threeindependentpaginationsfor the
two ricercariand the sonata.
What seemed previouslyonly peculiar now appears as an admir-
able solutionto the difficultassignmentof findingan appropriateway
to publish a work which representsa mixed repertoireof keyboardand
ensemble pieces, a problem which Bach and his printersdid not face
when planning the publicationof pure keyboardmusic. There was no
piecemeal deliveryof the separatesectionsof the work,no errorsby the
engraver,no puzzle, and no mysteriousintentions,but, on the con-
trary,a verysmartand practicallayout (the arrangementshown in the
diagramon the facingpage).
It is necessaryto returnbrieflyto the special case of the dedication
31 The acrostic is printed on a small paper strip and pasted on fol. 1' of section
D in all copies. Spitta and David assumed that the acrostic was a later idea of
Bach and was thereforesubsequently added to the already finished printing. This
cannot be upheld. A comparison between the engraved sonata title shows the prac-
tical purpose of the extra paper strip. Like the sonata title the acrostic was engraved
on a much smaller plate (sonata: ca. 12.5 X 17 cm; acrostic: ca. 5.5 X 20 cm.)
than the musical parts (average size: ca.,20 X 34 cm.). In order to avoid damag-
ing the paper by pulling two plates of very differentsizes for fol. 1' and fol. 1V of
section D, the acrostic was printed on an extra piece of paper and neatly pasted on
the proper place.
32 Cf. Forkel's report (according to Wilhelm Friedemann Bach): "... The king
admired the learned manner in which his subject was thus executed extempore; and,
probably to see how far such art could be carried, expressed a wish to hear also a
fugue with six obbligato parts. But as not every subject is fit for such full harmony,
Bach chose one himself and immediately executed it to the astonishment of all
present in the same magnificentand learned manner as he had done that of the
king." (The Bach Reader, pp. 305f.)
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 395

A: fol.1 Title: Musicalisches

Opfer...
B: fol. 1
fol. 2 Ricercar a 3, Canon (pp. 1-4)
fol.3
A: fol. 2 Dedication (preface)
C: fol.1 Subtitle: Sonata...
Sfol.
2 Traversa(pp. 1-4)
fol.
2
Sfol.
2 Violino (pp. 1-4)
fol. 1
Sfol.
2 Continuo(pp. 1-4)
fol.
2
fol. 2

D: fol. 1 Subtitle: Regis Iussu. ../Canons

E: fol. 1
fol. 2
a 6, Canons (pp. 1-7)
fol. 3 Kicercar
fol. 4
D: fol.2

copy mentioned above.33 In addition to David's findingsit can be

shown that the presentsectionsE and C did not originallybelong to
the dedication copy but were later replacementsfor the lost originals.
These must also have been printedon luxuriouspaper like the present
sectionsA, B, and D, but were somehow lost, veryprobablybeforethe
dedication copy was given to the libraryof PrincessAmalia. The fine
paper used forthis special copy was available only in singlesheetsand
not in bifolios.Thus therewas no possibilityfor formingthreefascicles
with separate title covers as in the ordinarycopies. We see now the
reasons for the differentmakeup and particularlyfor the handwritten
inscriptionsthat are to be found only in the dedication copy. Since the
fascicle structurewas inapplicable and consequentlythe acrostic could
no longerfunctionas subtitleforthe thirdfascicle,Bach put the acros-
tic on the blank folio 1 recto of section B, at the beginningof the
entirework. He obviouslydid not want to abandon the brilliantidea of
the acrostic. Because the paper strip with the engraved acrostic was
disproportionately small forthe large folio,the calligraphichandwriting
was substituted.As a resultof this shift,folio 1 recto of section D re-
ceived a new inscriptionavoiding any referenceto the six-partricercar,
namely,ThematisRegii ElaborationesCanonicae.
33For detailssee KB, NBA VIII/1.
396 The Musical Quarterly

One of the crucial points in connectionwith the original printhas

alwaysbeen the date of the compositionand publication.Spitta surmised
that several monthsor perhaps a year elapsed fromthe firstto the last
installment.David rejectedthis,but he himselfremainedunclear about
the chronology.Three exact dates have been known for a long time:
May 7, 1747, the day of the visit in Potsdam, as the terminuspost
quem; July7, the date of the preface; July10, a date in the recordsof
Breitkopfsayingthat Bach had to pay two Thaler and twelveGroschen
for two hundred copies of a title "Musicalisches Opfer genannt."34
But thesedates do not indicatewhen the publicationactuallyappeared.
The engraved sections show without any doubt that the printing
was done hurriedly.For example, we find an unusual number of un-
clean spots on the pages, originatingfromscratcheson the plates where
the engraver'stools slipped. If there had been time, this could easily
have been correctedon the plates beforeprintingbegan. More impor-
tant, however,is the fact that therealso was obviouslyno time to cor-
rectmistakesin the musical text.Thus the finalproofreadingtook place
afterthe plates went to press,the correctionsbeing made in handwrit-
ing with brown ink. Most of these correctionsas. well as many other
details about the engraving(etching) have not yet been noted.35Here,
find-
too, only the collation of all extant copies could yield satisfactory
ings.
The proofreadingand correctingproceduresshow how hastilythe
edition was prepared and published. Furthermore,the paper proves
that the printingwas done in one workingprocedureand, surprisingly,
not at two differentplaces but obviouslyat one, since the paper used
for sectionA (set up in type by Breitkopfin Leipzig) and for the mu-
sical sections (engraved by Schiiblerof Zella) is identicalin all copies,
includingthe dedication copy. Very probablythe plates were pulled in
one of the Leipzig copper pressesthat worked with Breitkopf.36 This
was importantfor the timingof the publication,which in fact did not
have to sufferfromdifficult communicationsamong composer,engraver,
34Cf. Bach-Dokumente, II, 436.
35See KB, NBA,VIII/1.
36E. g., for the edition of Sperontes's Singende Muse an der Pleisse (Leipzig,
1736-51). The plates for the musical parts were engraved by J. G. Kriigner, Jr. of
Leipzig, and the text parts were set up in type by Breitkopf.For the printing (pull-
ing) Bleitkopf as the publisher had to call on a copper press, as the followingnote
in the records of the old publishing house shows: "63 Rthr [Reichstaler] an Camann,
Kupferdrucker,wegen der singenden Muse." Cf. Hermann von Hase, "Sperontes
Singende Muse an der Pleisse," Zeitschriftder InternationalenMusikgesellschaft,XIV
(1912-13), 94ff.
 397

9.o

*
*-i

es,
.

olu

Ex

lk>
,.. . ....
*

PlateV
Originalprintof 1747:
SectionD, folio1recto.
 -
e-rcair.
. ... ... .. . . . .. .
, ...... ..I .. ....
...
? ..?::u. --? " ..?
- ..iEL.. ? ,, 40% .. .
%L

RI. . :_. ]
k ? _ J .......'K...
-Io"
-- ..Its ; '
'. ',..3'.
... ... ..... .. .
"
1
1MINI
11
? ! , ... ... . , *..- . L .
[ t 11 i :
: = : - .....
.... :. . .....L....
.. . ,...
ME , . 4 . , ,.
L .
, .. ...... . .....1 .... .... .
.. ......... '--V% . .. .. .
fIBCH
F.
.. . .. ... ...M

-M
__ _L

Plate VI

Original printof 1747: Section E, folio 1 recto

 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 399

and printer,as was previouslythought.

All things considered,there is no indication whatsoeverthat the
composing and publishingcould not have been completed within the
summer of 1747. A new archival document finallyverifiesthe date.37
In a supplementto the LeipzigerZeitungen,"Extract der eingelauffenen
Nouvellen" from September 30, 1747, Bach made the followingan-
nouncement,telling the public that the Musical Offeringwould be
readyforsale at the upcomingSt. Michael's fair:
Da das unterm 11. May a.c. in denen Leipziger, Berliner, Franckfurterund andern
Gazetten versprochene K6nigl. Preupische Fugen-Thema nunmehr die Presse
pa/pieret;Als wird hierdurch bekannt gemacht, daft in bevorstehender Michaelis-
Messe solches so wohl bey dem Autore, Capellmeister Bachen, als auch bey des-
sen beyden S6hnen in Halle und Berlin, zu bekommen seyn werde, a 1. thl. Die
Elaboration bestehet 1.) in zweyen Fugen, eine mit 3. die andere mit 6. obligaten
Stimmen; 2) in einer Sonata, a Traverso, Violino e Continuo; 3.) in verschiedenen
Canonibus, wobey eine Fuga canonica befindlich.

III
The relevanceof thoroughcriticalinvestigationsof the sourcesmay
be brieflyexemplifiedby two controversialissues of more immediate
musical significance:the questionsof instrumentationand cyclicalorder.
Previous attemptsto solve these and other problems of the Musical
Offeringhave proceeded fromthe suppositionthat the appearance of
the original print was scarcely explainable, thus invitingall sorts of
hypotheses.The resultsof new research,however, ascertain the well-
planned arrangementof the print,thus cuttingthe ground fromunder
some unprovabletheses.
The ostensiblelack of specified instrumentationfor The Art of
Fugue and the Musical Offeringhas stimulatedthe fantasyof many
musiciansand scholarsconcerningperformance.This was not an issue in
the eighteenthor nineteenthcentury;it became one onlyin 1924, when
WolfgangGraeserwithhis orchestration and arrangementof The Art of
pastimeand seta precedentforsim-
Fugue startedwhatis a stillflourishing
ilar undertakingsofquestionablescholarlypretension."The confusionand
37 I am indebted to Hans-Joachim Schulze of the Bach-Archiv in Leipzig for
bringing this document (not included in the recently published Bach-Dokumente,
II) to my attention. Cf. also Bach-Dokumente, II, for other hitherto unknown
archival sources concerning the history of the Musical Offering: 437, 454, 467.
38Wolfgang Graeser, "Bachs 'Kunst der Fuge,' " Bach-Jahrbuch,XXI (1924),
Iff.; the fact that Graeser's neoromantic arrangementwas adopted as Vol. XLVII
of the Bach-Gesellschaft edition (supplement) and in a special version as Vol.
XXVIII of the Veriffentlichungender Neuen Bachgesellschaft (Leipzig, 1927) has
given an unfortunateauthorityto Graeser.
400 The Musical Quarterly

muddle caused by the numerousarrangementsand their oftencontra-

dictoryjustificationseventuallyled some musicologiststo the view that
these last compositionsof Bach did not call on instruments at all. They
representideal and pure ars musica." But the original print of the
Musical Offeringdoes not conceal the instrumentation, though specific
instruments are mentionedonly in the threeparts of the sonata and in
the canon no. 2 (a 2 Violini in unisono) of sectionD. Thus it amounts
to a total of five instruments:flute,two violins,and the continuo in-
struments.A questionthat has never been articulatedis: Can one pos-
siblyperformthe entirework with only these instruments? The answer
is positive.
Startingwith the canons, it should be noted that the composer's
firstconcern is the theoretical,contrapuntalsolution of the canons in
abbreviatedor enigmaticnotation.But this does not mean that the set-
tings are merely paper music. No conflictexisted for Bach between
theoryand practice.Nevertheless, the performanceaspect is a secondary
one and is, moreover,dependent on the available instruments.There-
fore,it would seem to be quite natural for Bach to avoid prescribing
specificinstruments. The only exceptionsare the canon perpetuusfol-
lowing the sonata and the canon a 2 Violini in unisono. But they give
two importantand necessaryhints.Firstly,the canonic settingsare en-
semble pieces,as is the sonata. Secondly,an additionalviolin is required
wheneverthe range of the fluteis exceeded. The compulsaryassump-
tion forthe realizationof the bulk of the canons by the aforementioned
instruments ratherthan by using additional instruments not named in
the original (such as viola, oboe da caccia, etc.) is the employmentof
the obbligato rightand lefthand on the keyboardinstrument, which is
so oftento be found in Bach's works.Sources fromthe C. P. E. Bach
circle already suggestthis practice for the canons.40And since the ca-
nonic pieces which require the two keyboardparts are not thorough-
bass settings,thereis no musical contradiction.The choice of eitherflute
plus violin,two violins,or just one fluteor violin,respectively,in addi-
tion to the harpsichordremains,then,solelya matterof the numberof
the number and range of the canonic parts and the availabilityof the
39Cf. Friedrich Blume, "Outlines of a New Picture of Bach," Music and
Letters, XLIV (1963), 226: "Bach himselfwas not interestedin whether they were
performedor were capable of being performed. In them he wished to continue a
tradition of consummate contrapuntal skill.. .It was ...an 'esoteric' activity, this
disinterestedtransmissionof a purelyabstracttheory."
40See KB, NBA VIII/1, for details about the manuscript tradition in the
eighteenthcentury.
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 401

respectiveinstruments.
The two ricercariare indisputablykeyboardpieces despitethe open
score notationof the six-partricercar.As in The Art of Fugue and the
canonic variationson Vom Himmel hoch, Bach followedhere the tra-
ditionalmannerof notationforcompositionsin the strictest contrapuntal
style. The comparison between the two ricercariposes an interesting
question. The strong stylisticcontrast between them is obvious and
seems to be underlinedby the deliberateapplication of the ambiguous
term "ricercar,"labeling free,improvisatory styleas well as extremely
strict polyphonic writing. Johann GottfriedWalther's Musicalisches
Lexicon (1732) points41 out the terminologicaldetails.42But shouldn't
this contrastperhaps be reinforcedwith a contrastin the performing
medium?
We know that Bach improviseda fugue on the given theme on one
of the king'sfortepianosat Potsdam. Accordingto the SpenerscheZeit-
ung of May 11, 1747, the king "went at Bach's entrance to the so-
called forteand piano, condescendingalso to play, in person and with-
out any preparation,a theme to be executed by CapellmeisterBach in
a fugue.This was done so happily by the aforementionedCapellmeister
that not only His Majesty was pleased to show his satisfactionthereat,
but also all those presentwere seized with-astonishment." 43 The free
treatmentof the fugal principlesin the three-partricercar is unique
among Bach's fugues.There is no questionthat it representsthe worked-
out version of the improvisation,as the preface of the print suggests.
However, the piece not only reflectsimprovisatory manners (as indeed
do other Bach fugues) but also seems to develop and expand typical
motivic elementsof the galant and empfindsameStil in the unusually
extensiveand lengthyinterludes:
Ex. la mm. 37-44
? J

.1 .

itr

41Facsimile, ed. Richard Schaal (Kassel, 1953), pp. 525f.

42Cf. Christoph Wolff, "Der Terminus 'Ricercar' in Bachs Musikalischem
Opfer," Bach-Jahrbuch, LIII (1967), 70ff. The source description in this article
still follows the traditional views, but this does not affect the scope of the termino-
logical investigations.
43 The Bach Reader, p. 176.
402 The Musical Quarterly

L I i , a. ,?
.
17 1 I, 1" L,
. jam+j_.
. 1_KN
-i
10 J
..
LI 11

Ex. Ilb mm. 107-116

L i l 0 . of
, tJ ...
-="

v[ =IIa ~lI w1 I
I
iIi

Crescendo-decrescendofiguration(mm. 38ff.j affettuosophrasing (mm. 42ff.), sigh

motif (mm. 108ff,113ff.), suspensionmotif (mm. 1 l1f.),sudden changes of contrasting
material, affectiveharmonic progressions.,

The thirdmovementof the sonata stresseseven more the referencesto

this characteristicstyle of the Berlin school in the 1740s and 1750s:

Ex. 2 mm. 1-6

Andante.
Ai m
," k- " F " ,

--PO
0r
zi

on
?,J, 5 _!I -
. ,, I I i
2.

Crescendo-decrescendo figuration (mm. lff.), sudden dynamic contrasts, short

phrases, virtuosoornamentation(m. 6), affectiveharmonic textures.
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 403

Here we have the only pieces of Bach in which he uses the delicate
expressivemusical language of the generationof his sons. That he does
it in one of his last worksis surprising,but may well demonstrateagain
the broad horizon of his artisticgenius at a time when he was very
much orientedtowards stylisticand technical musical concepts of the
past.44These stylisticelementsof the Emfindsamkeit,which manifest
how well the old Capellmeisterunderstood the music of the young
Berlin court musicians,are in agreementwith the sound ideal of the
pianoforte.Performanceof the three-partricercar on the pianoforte
seems to be stronglyindicated.This becomes even more likelywhen we
add to the musical evidence the fact (known fromrecentlydiscovered
Polish archivalmaterial)45thatin his last yearsBach acted as sales agent
for Silbermannpianofortesin Leipzig." If one accepts this convincing
hypothesis,the three-partricercarmay be consideredto be a composi-
tion inspiredby and conceived for the pianoforteand its new sound
effects,whereas the six-partricercartrulyreflectsthe traditionalworld
of conservativefugal stylein Baroque harpsichordand organ music.
The second major controversialissue concernsthe conceptionof the
Musical Offeringas a unity,which was denied by Spitta but strongly
affirmedby David, and which, as we have seen, can be justifiedal-
though from a differentbasis. The particular layout of the original
printmakes it veryclear that the idea of a sophisticatedcyclical struc-
44Cf. Christoph Wolff,Der stile antico in der Musik Johann Sebastian Ba'chs.
Studien zu Bachs Splitwerk (Beihefte zum Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft,Vol. VI;
Wiesbaden, 1968).
4SA voucher from May 9, 1749, with the autograph signature of J. S. Bach:
sale of a "Piano et Forte" to Count Branitzkyof Bialystok at a price of 115 Reich-
staler. Cf. Muzyka, 1967, p. 69.
4 Cf. also Johann Friedrich Agricola's report: "Mr. Gottfried Silbermann had
at firstbuilt two of these instruments[pianofortes]. One of them was seen and
played by the late Kapellmeister, Mr. Joh. Sebastian Bach. He had praised, indeed
admired, its tone; but he had complained that it was too weak in the high register,
and was too hard to play. This had been taken greatly amiss by Mr. Silbermann,
who could not bear to have any fault found in his handiworks. He was therefore
angry at Mr. Bach for a long time. And yet his conscience told him that Mr. Bach
was not wrong. He thereforedecided... not to deliver any more of these instru-
ments, but instead to think all the harder about how to eliminate the faults Mr.
J. S. Bach had observed. He worked for many years on this.... Finally, when Mr.
Silbermann had really achieved many improvements, notably in respect to the
action, he sold one again... Mr. Silbermann had also the laudable ambition to
show one of these instrumentsof his later workmanship to the late Kapellmeister
Bach, and have it examined by him; and he had received, in turn, complete
approval fromhim." (In Jakob Adlung, Musica mechanica Organoedi [Berlin, 1768],
pp. 116f.; The BacchReader, p. 259.)
404 The Musical Quarterly

ture to be realized in a cyclicalperformancehas to be rejected.47 There

is no doubt, of course, that the work was planned in a well-balanced
way: two correspondingricercaria 3 and a 6, five thematicand five
contrapuntalcanons (as a total of ten symbolizingthe number of the
Law), and the sonata as centralpiece and special homage to the flute-
playing king. But such a conception is quite in keeping with Bach's
characteristicbehavior in compiling and grouping compositionswith
some inner connectionin order to forman opus perfectum.Three ex-
amples fromBach's last period exemplifythe various degreesof ordering
principlesto be foundin his major handwrittenor printedcollectionsof
matchingcompositions."4
The Clavier Ubung bestehend in einer Aria mit verschiedenen
Veraenderungenvors Clavicimbel mit 2 Manualen (the "Goldberg"
Variations) establishesan overall form in which a sequence of thirty
pieces arrangedwith a logical climax are framedby two identical set-
tings which mark beginningand end of a musical idea. Within this
frame we find 3 X 10 groups,each ending with a canonic variation.
These ten canons are arranged according to ascending intervalswith
the quodlibet as culminationpoint. The centerof the long sequence of
movementsis emphasizedby an ouverturewhich opens the second half
of the work.The orderas a whole presents10 (5 + 5) small climactic
unitswithinan overall climax held togetherby the aria.49
47Two instructiveexamples:
David BWV 1079 Landshoff BWV 1079
Ricercar a 3 1 Ricercar a 3 1
Canon 2 Canon 2
Canon 3b Canon 6
Canon 3c Canon 7
Canon 3d Canon 3a
Canon 3e Canon 3b
Sonata 8 Canon 3c
Canon 9 Canon 3d
Canon 3a Canon 3e
Canon 6 Fuga canonica 4
Canon 7 Ricercar a 6 5
Fuga canonica 4 Sonata 8
Ricercar a 6 5 Canon 9
48 Cf. Christoph Wolff, "Ordnungsprinzipienin den Originaldrucken Bachscher
Werke," in Bach-Interpretationen,ed. Martin Geck (Gbttingen, 1969), pp. 144ff.,
223ff.
49Cf.ibid., pp. 152ff.
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 405

Aria
Variatio
1
Variatio2
Variatio3 (Canone all 'Unisono
Variatio
4
Variatio5
VVariatio
6 (Canone alla Seconda)
7
Variatio
Variatio8
Variatio9 (Canone alla Terza)
10
Variatio
Variatio11
Variatio12 (Canone alla Quarta)
Variatio
13
Variatio14
Variatio15 (Canone all Quinta)
=mum==
010Variatio 16 (Ouverture)
Variatio17
Variatio18 (Canone all Sesta)
Variatio
19
Variatio20
Variatio21 (Canone alla Settima)
Variatio
22
Variatio23
Variatio24 (Canone all 'Ottava)
Variatio
25
Variatio26
Variatio27 (Canone all Nona)
Variatio
28
Variatio29
Variatio30 (Quodlibet)
Aria

The second example, Dritter Theil der Clavier Ubung bestehend

in verschiedenenVorspieleniiberdie Catechismus-und andere Gesaenge,
vor die Orgel, establishesa much more refinedorder by combining
various complementaryprinciples of organization. The prelude and
fugue in E-flat functionsas a frameenclosingthree different groups of
pieces: Missa chorales, catechism chorales, and duets. The firstgroup
of 9 (3 X 3) shows a rational planning of three climacticunits. The
firsttwo contrastin styleand format,the third one stressesthe middle
406 The Musical Quarterly

piece (pedaliter). The followingsequence of catechism chorales con-

tains six, or better2 X 3, pairs of of pieces (a longer and a shorter
settingof each hymn). The two poles are formedby organo pleno set-
tings,each of them framedby two settingseitherwith canonic cantus
firmusor with cantus firmusin the pedal. Finally, the group of duets
which, as free pieces, are the smaller pendants to the framingprelude
and fuguedisplayorderingdevicesof multipleinterlocking relationship:50
Praeludium (pro organopleno)
KyrieGottVater (c. f.in soprano)
allerWelt
Christe, Trost (c.f.intenore)
Geist
Kyrie,Gottheiliger (conorgano
pleno)

Kyrie,GottVater (3/4 time)

Christe,aller WeltTrost (6/8 time)
Kyrie,GottheiligerGeist (9/8 time)

Allein
GottinderH3h F,manualiter)
(trio,
AlleinGottin derH3h (trio,G, a 2 clay.e ped.)
AlleinGottin derHbh (trio,A, manualiter)

Dies sinddie heilgenzehn Gebot (a 2 clav. e ped.; c. f. in canone)

Dies sinddie heilgenzehn Gebot (manualiter)

-Wir glauben all an einen Gott (in organo pleno)

Wirglaubenall an einenGott (manualiter)

Vaterunserim Himmelreich (a 2 clav. e ped.; c. f. in canone)

Vaterunserim Himmelreich (manualiter)

Christ,unserHerr,zum Jordankam (a 2 clav. e ped.; c. f.in ped.)

Christ,unserHerr,zum Jordankam (manualiter)

Aus tieferNot schreiich zu dir (in organopleno)

Aus tieferNot schreiich zu dir (manualiter)

unserHeiland
JesusChristus, (a 2 clav. e ped.; c. f. in ped.)

I
Duetto 3/8
minor,
(E time)
unserHeiland
JesusChristus, (manualiter)

DuettoII (F, 2/4 time)

Duetto
III (G,12/8
time)
DuettoIV (A minor,2/2 time)

Fuga (a 5 voci; pro organopleno)

50Ibid., pp. 149ff.
 New Researchon Bach's Musical Offering 407

The last example differsessentiallyfrom the firsttwo. The Sechs

Chorale von verschiedener
Art auf einerOrgel mit 2 Clavierenund
Pedal vorzuspielencontainsthe followingpieces:
Wachetaufrufft unsdieStimme
hinod: AufmeinenliebenGott
Wo sollichfliehen
WernurdenliebenGottlaesstwalten
MeineSeeleerhebtdenHerren
Ach bleibbeyunsHerrJesuChrist
Kommstdu nunJesuvomHimmelherunter.

These displayno particularprincipleof orderingbut insteadthe idea of

variety("von verschiedenerArt"). Nevertheless, the settingsbelong very
closelytogether.All six of them (six is the standard numberfora closed
musical opus) are compositionsrequiringtwo manuals and pedal and
theyall exhibitthe same styleof plain cantus-firmus treatmentas model
samples for chorale preludes.At least fiveof them are transcriptions of
cantata movements,which distinguishes the so-called Schiibler Chorales
fromany otherchorale collectionof Bach. Thus thereis withoutdoubt
a planned coherencehere too.51
Tectonic order principlesas used by Bach are based on framing,
axial, symmetric,or climactic devices with systematicarrangementsof
groups,pairs,or contrastingpairs. Everysinglecollectionof pieces placed
togethereitherin a printedopus or in a handwrittenfair copy manifests
in a differentway the incrediblepowers of organizationof the compos-
er's mind. Only in exceptionalcases, however,does the formalarrange-
ment require a cyclical performance.The "Goldberg" Variations are
such an exception; the logical compositionalsequence of movementsbe-
comes immediatelycomprehensiblefor player and listener,whereas the
structureof the Clavieriibung,III, and the SchiiblerChorales carriesthe
idea of a cyclicalperformancead absurdum.
The homogeneityand cohesivenessof the Musical Offeringlies in
its conceptionas the expositionof various possibilitiesof dealing with
the royal theme. But thereis no hint whatsoeverat any intendedorder
for a complete cyclical performance.The most likelyoriginal order of
the fasciclesof the print as suggestedabove (A + B firstbecause of
the main title,D + E last because of the engraver'ssignature) may
show that the grand pieces display a symmetricarrangement: ricercar
- sonata - ricercar.The canonic pieces are placed as practicallyas
51Ibid., pp. 149, 165.
408 The Musical Quarterly

possible: the canon perpetuusthat could not be notated in abbreviated

manner was put with the sonata parts, the two quaerendo invenietis
canons at the end of the six-partricercar,and the remainingcanon
perpetuusin abbreviatednotationat the end of the three-partricercar.
Finally,the main body of the canons got its own section,containingthe
group of five numberedcanons in a climacticsequence followed by a
canonic fugue as highlight.Thus each of the threefasciclescontainsat
least one canon. Indeed these littlepieces run throughthe entirework
like a red thread or like an ingenious ornamentationof the print. If
Bach had wanted them and the grand pieces in a specific order he
would have used any opportunityformaking his desiresclear. He him-
self, for instance listed the contentsof the work in the above-quoted
newspaperadvertisement in a systematicorder- two fugues,a sonata,
various canons, - demonstrating that.the sequence of movementswas
not a matterof great importance.But he did give emphasisto the three
grand pieces, and his contemporariesobviously understoodtheir pri-
mary weight,as is shown by a letterof Lorenz Mizler. On March 1,
1752, he wroteto Meinrad Spiess, a memberof the Societaitder Musi-
calischen Wissenschaften:"Was aber Herr Bach seelig fiir den Kdinig
in Preusengespielt,das ist in Kupfer gestochen,u. in Leipzig zu haben:
es sind 3 Stiicke.Ein Trio, ein Ricercaru.Fuge, u. will ich nach Leipzig
schreiben,das Sie es bekommenkdinnen, auf die Ostermesse."52
The stricthistoricalstandpointthat rejectsa complete cyclical per-
formancein favor of an ad libitumperformanceof single pieces does
not necessarilyaffectthe question of a modern cyclical performanceof
the entirework. But it should be pointed out that it was simply not
Bach's intentionto performthe completeMusical Offering,or the com-
plete Well-TemperedClavier, the BrandenburgConcertos,the Partitas,
or The Art ofFugue, as monumentalconcertcycles.53

5a I am indebted to Hans-Joachim Schulze of the Bach-Archiv in Leipzig for

bringing this document to my attention. It will be included in the forthcoming
Bach-Dokumente, III.
5s This article is a revision of a paper read at the thirty-sixth
annual meeting
of the American Musicological Society in Toronto, November, 1970.