Bach's Use of Hitherto Unrecognized Types of Countersubjects in the "Art of Fugue"

Author(s): Benito V. Rivera

Source: Journal of the American Musicological Society , Summer, 1978, Vol. 31, No. 2
(Summer, 1978), pp. 344-362
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological
Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/831001

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Musicological Society and University of California Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bach's Use of Hitherto Unrecognized
Types of Countersubjects in the "Art of Fugue"

BY BENITO V. RIVERA

OF THE ENTIRE body of Bach's extant works, the "Art of Fugue" has perhaps been
the most surrounded with problems and riddles. The exact purpose of the
collection, its intended mode of performance, the correct order of its individual pieces,
their date of composition, the unfinished state of the last fugue, the mysterious closing
chorale-these have given rise to decades of debate and speculation, owing in part to
Bach's apparent lack of concern for keeping record of his creative activity. There is one
more puzzle connected with the "Art of Fugue," and this involves the fugal process
itself: What contrapuntal techniques lie hidden within each fugue? While many
analytical studies have already helped to unravel various intricacies within the work,
there may yet remain deep secrets awaiting discovery. This paper will trace two

hitherto unnoticed contrapuntal procedures used in the first two fugues of Bwv 080.
The recognition of these procedures not only sheds light on the true nature of the
fugues in question, revealing the existence of unsuspected options open to the composer
of fugues. It also suggests an explanation of the fact that Bach reversed the order of the
second and third fugues and subsequently added the fourth.
The second fugue' will serve as a good starting point for consideration. All
previous commentators seem to agree that this piece lacks a countersubject in the
proper sense of the word, i.e., a stable recurring companion melody for every or
almost every restatement of the subject or answer. Ebenezer Prout makes this
observation:

Though [this fugue] has no countersubject, remarkable unity is given to the whole work by the
persistent dotted-note rhythm first heard in the fourth bar, which is continued without any
intermission whatever until the final chord.2

Prout views the counterpoint (rather than countersubject) as consisting of a nucleus of

four conjunct notes in dotted rhythm freely ricochetting in ascending or descending
motion, with no structural guide save the fugue theme itself.
Wolfgang Graeser, whose extensive research on the "Art of Fugue" sparked
renewed interest in the work, stands in awe of the "simplicity" of the second fugue. He
declares the work to be devoid of all artifice, and finding no interesting contrapuntal
devices to discuss, he devotes a whole paragraph to marveling at "the wild, taut
rhythm, ... the over-powering intensity, ... a jumping fluidity, ... an inner drama, a
pulsating life, a certain indescribable explosive and restrained power. . . ."3

'i.e., Fugue 2 in the first printed edition of I750. In the autograph manuscript this fugue
was originally number 3.
2 Prout, Fugal Analysis, 2nd ed. (London, 1896), p. I I.
" ,Auch diese Fuge ohne jegliches Kunstmittel. Im Gegensatz zu dem vorhergehenden
Satze... durchzieht dieses zweite Musterwerk ein wilder, straffer Rhythmus, der vom Kontra-

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 345

Donald Tovey echoes Graeser's admiration fo

contrapuntal device. With his theorist's penchant f
the apparently undisciplined stops and starts in the

The rule about entries and rests is observed no longer in

drift into the subject, and may enter with casual counte

Obviously he is referring to such "casual" entries a

the bass in measure 5I, the soprano in measure
The more recent analyses by Marcel Bitsch5
offered any new insights that would contradict t
authors. In fact Chailley goes so far as to argue that
position of number one in the whole set, because
least trace of a countersubject.'

I would now like to propose that the second f

subject, indeed in the proper sense of the word. I
Bach's procedure and argue that he must ha
fashioning a well-disguised but nevertheless real c
The key to the puzzle, presented in Example i,
and permutations of the countersubject in juxtap
Form A is the complete countersubject as it appea
the bass. It is in counterpoint to the tonal answer
the octave but also at the twelfth, thus giving rise
B differs from that of A only at the third beat of t
comparing the versions of the autograph score an
Bach consciously faced a choice between patternin
the slight variant in the first measure of B, and t
alternative.
Line II shows the fugue subject. Since the tonal answer involves a mutation of the
subject, it follows that the countersubject for Line II should also allow for certain
mutations. Thus in Form C the first note of measure 2 is not tied to the preceding

subjekt ausgehend, alle Figurationen der kontrapunktischen Entwickelung hergibt .. und

naihert sich mehr dem Charakter eines htlpfenden Gleitens.... An innerer Dramatik, an
pulsierenden Leben, an einer gewissen unbeschreiblich explosiven und gebundenen Kraft ist dies
Werk so reich, wie wenige der Kunst der Fuge. In den Worten 'verhaltene Kraft' liegt vielleicht
eine richtige Bezeichnung." Wolfgang Graeser, "Bachs 'Kunst der Fuge,"' Bach-Jabrbuch
1924, p. 42. In the above passage Graeser uses the term "Kontrasubjekt" in a very loose sense,
i.e., for whatever material accompanies the subject.
4 Donald Tovey, A Companion to "The Art of Fugue" (London, I93 I), p. 5: emphasis
added.

" Marcel Bitsch, J. S. Bach: The Art of Fugue; Introduction, Analysis and Commentary
(Paris, 1967).
6Jacques Chailley, L'Art de la Fugue de J.-S. Bach (Paris, '97').
"7 D'oui' la simplicite du plan .... l'absence de contre-sujet, au sens melodique du mot,
compensee par la permanence du rythme pointe imperturbable qui en tient lieu sur le plan
rythmique." Chailley, p. 45.

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Example I. The countersubject of BWV Io8o, Fugue 2

Form A M
_-__

Form

II

same as C

Form E

FormE 4

Form G

r I same as F
FormDH _

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 347

note but steps down, in order to avert the subject's ski

a dissonant second. Measure I of Form D involves the inversion of Form C at the
thirteenth. To effect this inversion, the very first note of Form D had to be mutated in
order to avoid an opening dissonant seventh. Continued inversion at the thirteenth is
not feasible beyond measure i, hence from measure 2 on, Form D merges with
Form C. Form E starts out identically with the first two beats of Form D, but
beyond that it becomes the inversion at the twelfth of Form C.
Line III represents a mutated and modulating hybrid of the subject and answer, as
found in the later part of the fugue. Although in such a situation a composer would
not be expected to follow the countersubject pattern closely, Forms F, G, and H do
resemble the others quite well.
To support my contention that a countersubject does exist in Fugue 2, I shall
begin with the strongest evidence. In measures 3 1-4 the subject appears in the bass,
while the three upper voices toss dotted figures among themselves. A close scrutiny of
Examples i and 2 will reveal the true nature of those dotted figures. A concordance
shows:

Example 2 Example i

measure 31 (soprano) = Form D, measure i

measure 3 2 (tenor) = Form E, measure 2
measure 3 3 (alto) = Form D, measure 3
measure 34 (soprano) = Form E, measure 4

Clearly Bach has used the complete countersubject, but for each measure he alternates
using Form D and Form E. Furthermore he has fragmented and therefore cam-
ouflaged the countersubject by shifting it from one voice to another.
The next strongest evidence lies in measures 45-8. Here the subject in the soprano
has modulated from D minor to F major; the forms of the countersubject will
therefore have to be transposed accordingly. A concordance shows:

Example 2 Example i

measure 45, ist half (tenor) = Form D, measure i, Ist half

measure 45, 2nd half, and = Form C, measure I, 2nd half, and
measure 46 (alto) measure 2

measures 47 and 48 (tenor)

"= Form C, measures 3 and 4

Measures 49-52 show how Bach can excise some fragm

subject and still preserve its identity. The opening dotted figu
half-note Bb, is identical with the corresponding measures
subject then disappears for two beats. It resumes with two
C, this time using Form H, and continues at length in the b
52 the tenor insists on having the final notes of the counte
At this point one might object that the presence of logic
necessarily mean that the composer himself used that lo
Indeed, the procedures outlined above seem so intricate that

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
348 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Example 2

BWV Io8o, Fugue 2. Entries of the subject and answer with the countersubject

RL I L

-LAMP-',
_d"O MW':
- r - -- . ?'
W@

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 349

"-,, r 7L Ioa

.49

..1 : ,

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
350 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

hi not Lwi e h as ,i

r II.

that Bach himself has left us a solitary but highly significant clue t
intentions. This clue consists of a revision he made between the auto
the first printed version of the fugue.8 In measures 38-40 of the aut
3a) the countersubject appears in the alto for the first three measure
soprano at the last measure. This is almost a note-for-note rendition o
subsequent printed edition (Example 3b) Bach altered the alto on t
8 It is commonly accepted that Bach made the revisions found in the I750

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Example 3

Two versions of BWV ioSo, Fugue 2, measures 38-41

(a) Autograph

A @I I77

(b) Printed editio

f

SA ,J
A

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
352 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

measure 38, in order to avoid an irregular suspension.' But the really significant
revision occurs in measure 40, where Form B disappears from the alto and in its place
Bach substitutes a short fragment of Form A in the bass; then after some free material
in the alto, Form B finally reappears in measure 41, in the soprano. This would seem
to suggest that in the revision Bach wanted to avoid the obvious continuous presence of
Form B in the alto. He decided to vary the countersubject by interjecting a different
form of it in a different voice.

With the technique of the countersubject thus identified, one can now examine the
other entries in Example 2. Two preliminary observations should be made: (i)
Several times the closing figure of the countersubject (Example 4a) is replaced with an
alternate version (Example 4b). Both versions amount to the same structural leap

Example 4

Two endings for the countersubject of BWV Io8o, Fugue 2

(a) Regular ending (b) Alternate ending

i
1 iv
VIi iv
lV

from tonic t
I2, 16 and 6
version. (2) S
countersubje
- tenor - alt
statements ca
subject in va
counterpoin
fragments, t
countersubje
and more ob
Bach intende

measures 5-8
measures 9-30
measures 31-8

The fragmen
point the sy
subject. Tab

SThis explain

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 353

TABLE I
ANALYSIS OF BWV io8o, FUGUE 2, SHOWING PRESENCE OF DISGUISED COUNTERSUBJE

Example 2 Example i
measures voices

comp. 5-8 bass Form A

9, Ist half bass Form E
frag. 9, 2nd half tenor Form C
10-12 bass Form C

frag. I5-16 bass--tenor-*-bass--tenor Form A

frag. 24-26, Ist half bass--tenor--bass--tenor Form C

frag. 26, 2nd half - 27 alto Form B

frag. L 28-29 bass-4tenor--alto Form A
comp. 3 1-34 ]
comp. 38-41
comp. -4 discussed above
comp. 45-48

comp. 49-52

comp. 54-55 alto Form B

comp. L55-56 soprano Form F
61 soprano Form D
comp. 62 tenor Form E
63-64 soprano Form D
frag. 71-72 alto-+soprano Form A
79 alto Form E
comp.
81, 2nd 79-81,
half bass Form Ist
E h

comp. = complete statement of countersu

frag. = fragmentary statement of counter

This unusual procedure in the seco

regarding Bach's use of the "Art of Fu
all his "professional secrets" to his stud
type of fugal exposition? If this met
century, perhaps even serial technique
ing.

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
354 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

To be sure, the use of migrating countersubjects is not unique to the "Art of

Fugue." Isolated instances occur in the fugues of the Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I,
nos. 6, 11, 12, 20, and in some of the organ fugues. Example 5 gives two typical
instances. One should note, however, that such migrations occur in great moderation,
often for the sake of smoother voice leading, and seldom, if ever, employing various
transpositions or inversions.
Turning now to Fugue i, we find that the contrapuntal device used in the
expositions of this piece differs radically from that used in Fugue 2. A recurring

Example y
Migrating countersubjects

(a) WTC I, Fugue II

measures 4-7, countersubject in middle voice

measures 17-20, countersubject migrating from middle to bottom voice

Q7 7-7

(b) Organ Fugue, BWV

measures 9- 2, counters

11 _' j :_ ?

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 355

measures 29-32, countersubject migrating from soprano to

- i-IA

countersubject is even more difficult to fi

single instance: the bass in measures I3-
measures 5-8. Should one conclude, therefor
answer are accompanied by a free and eve
possible answers to this question:
(I) Yes, the counterpoint is completely f
lean towards this conclusion.'o
(2) No, the counterpoint is not entirely f
motives that give it unity. Chailley, for inst
soprano in measures 0o-i and the soprano
the "gait" of a recurring countersubject.
would likewise call attention to the similar
in measure 42. Such concordances have lit
correspondence: they do not coincide with
The motivic similarities are fortuitous, and w
fugue, they do not suggest any systematic
0 "Again, a regular counter-subject is a high
panying the subject in various positions. We mus
6-8 in this first fugue merely because Bach does n
bass of bars 14-16." Tovey, pp. 3-4.
1 "Le C[ontre-] S[sujet] (mes. 6-8)...n'est pre
de chaque groupe: A[lto] contre S[oprano] (6
reconnattre sa d'marche dans la ligne corresp
Chailley, p. 47. Observe that the cited passage
because the alto at this point bears no resembla
soprano.

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
356 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Example 6

BWV io8o, Fugue I

measures 5-8: structural countersubject for the tonal answer

measures 9-I2: structural countersubject for the subject

measures 49-52: structural countersubject for the mutated theme

(3) No, the counterpoint is not entirely free, because an embryonically recogniz-
able countersubject recurs in varying degrees of transformation. The countersubject is
constantly altered, but the alterations are not so drastic as to annihilate its identity.
The following analysis will support this position.
As a preliminary step to the demonstration one should examine Example 6, which
provides structural analyses of measures y-8, 9-12, and 49-52. Since the fugue
involves a tonal answer to the four-measure subject, the (still hypothetical) counter-
subject will have to undergo mutations in its first measure, or, as an alternative, the
countersubject could simply commence on the second measure of the subject or
answer. The mutated and modulatory theme in measures 49-52 combines elements
of the answer (ascending fourth) and of the subject (descending third); here the
countersubject requires corresponding adjustments.
All the structures for this hypothetical countersubject are identical in their second,
third, and fourth measures. Eventually one will also find that except for two instances
(measures 32-5 and 74-7) these structures remain identical in every entry of the
subject or answer throughout the fugue. In itself this does not yet establish the presence
of a countersubject. The crucial test lies in the individual melodic elaborations of the
structure. If each subsequent elaboration differs completely from the preceding, then
one cannot speak of a countersubject. But if the majority of the elaborations show
metrically coordinated facial similarities, then the presence of a countersubject would
seenm to be established beyond serious doubt.

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 357

Example 7 presents the entries of the subject and

accompanying counterpoint. For instance, Letter A,
entry of the answer with its counterpoint, as foun
Letter B, lines 3 to 5, contains the subject with its co
9-12; and so on. Each passage consists of four measur
columns 1-4.
For the entire fugue there are two related parent countersubjects: line 2 for the
answer, and line 3 for the subject. In their first two columns these parent counter-
subjects differ considerably from each other. The difference between their first columns
is due understandably to the difference between the subject and its tonal answer. The
difference between their second columns must remain unexplained, although both
passages have the same basic structure.'2 Under columns 3 and 4, however, the affinity
between the two parents is incontestable. All the remaining entries will now be shown
to employ kindred versions of these two parents.
The countersubject for Letter C is clearly line 9, which is almost identical to line z.
The countersubject for Letter D consists of line 13, columns I-2, and line 12,
columns 3-4. The bracketed figure from line I3 moderately resembles line 3, columns
1-2. The bracketed figure from line I2 mirrors line 2 exactly. Thus Letter D exhibits
a migrating countersubject, from bass to tenor.
For Letter E the countersubject consists of the four passages marked into brackets.
Line 16, column I, is a more elaborate version of line 3, column I. Line 17, column 2,
aside from being part of an incomplete stretto with line 14, represents the bare
unelaborated version of line 3, column 2. Line I , column 3, suggests line 2, column
3. Line I6, column 4, also suggests line 2, column 4. The last measure of line 17
begins a complete thematic statement in the bass. This entry impedes the use of the
countersubject, because it involves not only a stretto with the soprano, but also a very
unusual mutation between the second and third measures of the answer.
For Letter F, which employs a mutated answer, the countersubject is unrecog-
nizable in the first column'" but then emerges in lines 2 I, 19 and 18. Line 21, column
2, traces its ancestry from the corresponding column of line 3 and especially of lines 13
and 17. Line 19, column 3, comes from the corresponding column of lines 2, 12, and
I5. Line I8, column 4, comes from line 3.
For Letter G, also employing a mutated answer, the countersubject consists of line
24, column i, which is identical with line 21. Then line 23, columns 2-4, show a
resemblance to line 3.
For Letter H the countersubject occurs in the sections marked, which are all
related to the corresponding columns in line 3.
Not included in the tabulation is the final entry of the theme in measures 74-8.
This section presents the theme in drastically mutated form against a pedal point and
is clearly directed towards emphasizing the final cadence. Therefore the absence of the
countersubject at this point seems quite natural.
To sum up the analysis of Fugue I, one finds the presence of an identically

12The structural notes have been circled.

" Perhaps one could suggest lines z 1, col. i.

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 358 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Example 7

BWV io8o, Fugue i: Tabulated entries of the subject and answer

A(5-8) Column i Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

KOM

B (9-12)

C (I3-I6)
6

D (23-26)

I_

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 359
E (29-32) Column i Column 2 Column 3 Column 4
'4

24.. ..... . .

21,

G (49-52)

23

H (56-59)

- a 9001i 1l
26" . : - - - -'

28

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
36o JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

recurring basic structure for a countersubject. The individual melodic elaborations of

this structure show metrically coordinated similarities, which in the majority of
instances are quite pronounced. This gives ample reason to conclude that Bach has
indeed fashioned a bona fide though unique type of countersubject. While in general
the countersubject of Fugue 2 seems to progress from the fragmentary to the integral,
that of Fugue I seems to undergo progressive disintegration.

At this point one might very well ask: If you consider the counterpoints of the
above fugues to be "disguised" countersubjects, what is there to prevent one from
declaring all unidentifiable counterpoints to be "disguised" countersubjects? Did Bach
ever compose fugues which had neither conventional nor "disguised" countersubjects?
In reply I would point to WTC II, no. 12, whose fugue seems to be completely devoid
of a countersubject. Example 8 provides a tabulation of all the entries of the subject
and answer. Certain notes and melodic fragments which may possibly pass as recur-
ring ideas have been bracketed or circled. These constants are not sufficiently weighty to
warrant positing the existence of a "disguised" countersubject. Aside from the motivi-
cally undistinctive character of the bracketed fragments, the analysis in fact shows that
there is not one single instance when a complete countersubject is restated. It seems but

Example 8

WTC II, Fugue I2: Tabulated entries of the subject and answer

S1-14

. . ..f &

24-27 e -,-... ,+'-- . _ _ ,

.bI'-r

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 STUDIES AND REPORTS 361
28-31

40-43

--no

50-53

71-74

74-77

F I 1

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
362 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY

reasonable to assume that if a composer consciously intended to employ a counter-

subject, he would fashion an integral one, normally at the very first entry of the
answer, and then restate it in its entirety at least once during the course of the fugue.
The fugue of WTC I, no. 8, also apparently employs no countersubject, even in its
early sections where there are no strettos or inversions.
On the other hand I am not prepared to suggest that the two types of counter-
subjects discussed in this article are a unique phenomenon among Bach fugues. Such a
conclusion would presuppose a thorough examination of the vast fugue repertoire. For
the moment it will suffice to have recognized two hitherto unconsidered options
available to the fugue composer.

At the outset of this paper I suggested that recognition of the two countersubjects
can lead to an interesting speculation as to why Bach eventually reversed the order of
the second and third pieces of the "Art of Fugue." The tentative nature of the
following discourse must be borne in mind, and the inferences will need corroboration
from further discoveries if they are to be proven correct.
In the autograph score of the "Art of Fugue" the order of the pieces was Bwv Io8o
no. i, followed by no. 3, which employs a conventionally uniform countersubject, and
then by no. 2. No. 4, which also has a conventional countersubject, was not yet part of
the set. It is now conceivable that originally Bach may have planned on writing only
two simple fugues: the first starting with the subject in recto, employing a vague
embryonic countersubject, and the second starting with the answer in inverso, using a
full-fledged conventional countersubject. After writing these two, the idea of inventing
unusual types of countersubjects may have fascinated him, and so he decided to add a
third fugue, again starting with the subject in recto, but this time exhibiting a tour de
force of contrapuntal variety in the countersubject. Much later, when he decided to
print the entire collection, the logic of rearranging the pieces according to a more
evolutionary scheme may have induced him to revise the order to the one we now
have: no. i, with its pliable countersubject; no. 2, with its fixed but "disguised"
countersubject; no. 3, with its clear conventional countersubject. Finally, to insure a
proper balance, he would have added no. 4, which starts with the subject in inverso
and exhibits a conventional countersubject.

University of Richmond

This paper was prepared under the auspices of the National Endowment for the Humanities, in
conjunction with Christoph Wolff's seminar on J. S. Bach, summer 1977, at Harvard
University.

This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:34:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms