This Content Downloaded From 82.49.44.75 On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC

J. S.
Bach's Fantasy and Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542: A Source Study for Organists
Author(s): William H. Bates
Source: Bach , 2008, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2008), pp. 1-88
Published by: Riemenschneider Bach Institute
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41640575
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
Riemenschneider Bach Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Bach
This content downloaded from

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J. S. Bach's Fantasy and Fugue in
G Minor, BWV 542:
A Source Study for Organists1
William H. Bates
tions for performance, organists have often compared the

When tions musical preparingmusical
for readings
readingsperformance, one editions
of several printed of of several
in orderJohann
to organists printed Sebastian have editions often Bach's compared in composi- order the to
arrive at what may seem to be a "satisfactory" version of the piece.
Increasingly, however, performers and teachers have also desired to
consult Bach's original sources - usually through printed facsimiles
of the composer's music publications or autograph manuscripts.
Unfortunately, the majority of Bach's organ works have been
preserved in manuscript copies prepared by someone other than the
composer. Such is the case for one of Bach's most fascinating organ
compositions, the Fantasy and Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542. The
large number, diverse origins, and varied contents of the surviving
manuscripts that transmit the two pieces offer significant challenges
to anyone who desires to examine these sources. How do the
manuscripts relate to one another? Which might reflect most closely
Bach's intentions? What do these sources reveal about important
!This study is lovingly dedicated to my wife, Dr. Carol Henry Bates, musician and
musicologist, whose meticulous scholarship has inspired me throughout our thirty-
seven years of marriage.
Preparation of this study would not have been possible without the pioneering
work of the late Dietrich Kilian who, among other things, edited Volumes 5, 6,
and 7 of the organ series in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (see "Abbreviations and Sources
Cited"). It was his scholarship concerning J. S. Bach's Fantasy and Fugue in G
Minor that the present writer consulted some years ago when trying to determine
why certain editions of the two pieces hold differing readings. Because Kilians work
is written in German and essentially dates from the early 1970s, the writer offers the
present, updated study to English-speaking organists who also have questions about
differences in various readings of the two pieces.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
2 Bach
performance-
pairing of the
and stemming
fingering, ped
these manuscri
fantasy and fug
their musical an
Manuscript Sources
The present study considers thirty-four of the thirty-five extant

manuscripts of the Fantasy and Fugue in G Minor.2 Five of the thirty-
2ТЪе writer has consulted the online Göttinger Bach-Katalog (GBK, last accessed 12
January 2008) for a list of manuscript sources of the fantasy and the fugue (readers
unfamiliar with RISM library sigla mentioned in the present study may consult
GBK - see under "Abbreviations and Sources Cited"). Two of the sources - the
Schubring manuscript (discussed later) and a manuscript formerly in the private
collection of Dr. Heinrich Sievers (Hannover) - have not been available for
examination. General information about the Schubring copy, including its possible
relationship to DB Mus. ms. Bach P 598 (see Figure 1), has been taken from
Dietrich Kilians work (KB). The present whereabouts and precise contents (both
the fantasy and the fugue?) of the "Sievers" manuscript, copied during the mid-
nineteenth century, cannot be determined. Because nothing is known of its musical
and notational readings, the latter source is therefore not referenced in the present
study.
In addition to the "Sievers" manuscript, three extant manuscripts listed in
GBK are not germane to the present study: 1) D LEb Go. S. 319, a mid-nineteenth-
century version of the fantasy orchestrated by Wilhelm Rust; 2) D Rp Pr-M J. S.
Bach III/ 18, which, according to Raymond Dittrich of the holding library, was
copied from a printed version of the fugue; and 3) D i7 Mus. Hs. 1693, which the
present writer has identified as a late-nineteenth-century copy of the original (1845)
C. F. Peters edition of the fugue. Finally, the present study does not consider several
sources that have not survived or cannot be located. One of these, the so-called
Kittel (or Kittel-Hauser) manuscript, was lost during World War II when its holding
library, the archive of Breitkopf and Härtel in Leipzig, was destroyed. No photocopy
of this source is known. Additionally, seven manuscripts cannot be traced:
1) Mus. ms. Bach P 812, a copy of the fugue once held by the former Preussische
Staatsbibliothek in Berlin (now Deutsche Staatsbibliothek [. D В]) and missing
since с. 1935;
2) a manuscript of the fantasy owned by Friedrich Conrad Griepenkerl, one of the
two editors of the C. F. Peters edition (see later in this study);

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
A Source Study for Organists 3
four sources include both the fantasy and the fugu

the fantasy without the fugue, and twenty-seven con
alone. Additionally, as will be discussed later, the fugu
both G-minor and F-minor settings.
Such a diversity of transmission raises the first
posed earlier: 1) how do these sources relate to on
more importantly, 2) which of the sources seemin
closely to what Bach may have intended?3 The writ
study of available manuscript sources has resulted in t
of a hypothetical genealogical chart or stemma for th
3) a manuscript in the collection of Franz Hauser, whose t

J. S. Bach's compositions reads "Fantasie p. [pour] l'Org. [
Fuge ist in Berlin in f moll gestochen." (see Yoshitake Kobayas
und seine Bach-Handschriftensammlung [Göttingen: Georg-Au
1973], 235); it should be noted that the title given by Hause
heading of the fantasy copy in P 1071 ("Fantasie pour l'O
discussed later in this study;
4/5) two manuscripts (containing both the fantasy and the fu
"Breitkopf MS no. 1" and "Breitkopf MS no. 2";
6) a manuscript (holding both the fantasy and the fugue?) once i
Karl Christian Kegel (1770-1843; Kegel studied with Johann
in Erfurt but seems to have prepared his copies of other nonc
works not from Kittels now-lost manuscript but from othe
ians stemmata in NBA IV/5-6 of BWV 541, 547, and 569]
7) a source from the second half of the eighteenth century cited
542") as "BWV Sammelhandschrift, Versteigerungskatal
which included a "Přelud, u. Fuga, g moll" (BWV 535 or BW
Concerning notational characteristics of the sources, all fa

copies except two are notated in two staves, with soprano С c
almost exclusively for the top staff and modern bass F clef fo
pedal part is written on the lower of the two staves, and inner pa
staff as needed. DB N. Mus. ms. 10788/1 and D В N. Mus. ms.
later in this study, are notated in the modern three-stave format
3To be sure, some performers may desire to refer to only one
source, thus replicating to some extent what an eighteenth- o
century organist would have had at his disposal. However, th
manuscript copies of BWV 542/2, the clear indication that Bac
multiple times (see later in the present study), and the fact th
century organists made emendations to their manuscript c
validate modern scholarly attempts to determine the composer
as recorded in the extant sources.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
4 Bach
as one for the f

relationships th
also among poss
Concerning the e
does not survive
insuch numbers.
As can be seen
both the fantas
Bach P 595/1, P
and sources cite
4The most importan

and the approximat
copyist to Bach as w
Unless otherwise not
two considerations h
third matter, the w
but also a number of
of certain note divis
when a copyist has c
long note into two
notes tied together,
other at the beginn
found in the copied
For example, if one
in DB Mus. ms. Bach P 288/IX ( ^ p»
source was not copied directly from D В AmB 531 (
slightly earlier (see later in this study). The reading in P 288/IX

it was likely copied from another manuscript that had a s
between beats 2 and 3. When all factors noted above have be
often possible to develop a stemma that illustrates likely rela
among manuscripts:
5The "Little" Fugue in G Minor (BWV 578), with no known
in thirty-three manuscript copies. The so-called Pedal-Exe
fragmentary composition that may not be by Bach, is transm
manuscripts, thirty-one of them prepared near the end of the
Johann Gottfried Neumeister (1756-1840), who is associated
so-called Neumeister collection of Bach's organ chorales (BW
6The manuscript sources considered in the present study exist
dent manuscript ( Einzelhandschrift ), as a manuscript notebook (,
or as an independent manuscript brought together with
sometimes of different origins - into a portfolio or miscellany

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Figure 1. Stemmata for the manuscripts of J. S. Bach's Fan
'
[A] [A,]
' 1 ! i
[B] ' 'i !
í' [Ц [N] [p| r¿
(çi ' /' ' т /i
/' ' / ' ' Peters /
IDI [E] ' / '<AÏ"»*-Î>' ЛРР'
1р1 ! .-К ' - г
Petersed,,--"'
[H]' *р
1 *р*P288/V
*P288/V <>йя
<>йя /V
/V M '
. '•/
[G] hx ¡ /•' ' (А1Й -Atc) i
л fKi I
IJ1 ,J-'i M.)/ / |' T"1
.Xх Ì ' ) / R trad,?) i
I j t " ' / / (Ajtrad.) I
AmB 53 i ! T ' i /_
595/1 ! 5
I / *Ms, 4/II
.."•"'Н ¡A' I / I
' A ' ' / (A»' tracU !
ťlSOO P28S/IX P 1071 I I i'.-' (M trad.) Hahn i/
i IV' *p
'i (L &Jor
924P 288/V)
! ' (prob.
viavia N
N A or
or ¡ trad.
Q)Q)
III. 8.20 N. Mus. ms. (A,e orA,> tra
(Fantasy 10788/11 *p 282
«•У) (Fantasy *P«
only) (A trad.)
f'., (A,', Ai", * & X track
/X-*' MN 104/V1 - - * "
Mas. ms, 38276 *S. m. 2234
A solid line denotes primary line of transmission: a broken line, secon

* Source that probably results from editorializatkm on the part of the

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
5
gue in G Minor, BWV 542/1 and BWV 542/2.
FUGUE
» J
lili I ^
'' l?l IQ] , Is) m [и] 'л-"' l """'
I ./ 4 ^ , ч- /' (?) 11
' Peto / ч- - j i / ' 11 [Xa or
)' АРР- j ND VI 3327e j / ' _
' ~ _ .. !-{post-A|£ tradition) I , [*W] / I
' [*щ ' ~ ¡ -j j j m
i P 803/XII / / H
"
// ' '-•••'
(A^-A,' ) !i ,ч/
[V]
^ . .*
I l, i
* i¡/ 'M ''
/ ' , (V, ,ч/ tradition) ^ . . ' i ! !
' '.Л " P 598 ' / ' '
m ' j - (Xe trad.) 1/1 ' [Kitte] MS] / I 1 <-1750
К *PJ100 /! ' I / Il
') i ' ili ' I / >
: «rad-) J_
trad.?) ¡ [*0] /ìli

! /lili i iImi / m lyi '
lyi
/1/11/ P 287/- / 1
I / /P290| ! / VIII/
i / L i í / *P204
I / / í? I ! LM 4838
! //Ili *P203
Hahn 1/1 Hs "" 32/43ib XXXIV / / (G minor) ' «1800
i. a
As, a trad.
, trad. . .d "" AK.286
tjpaíj K. ms.
N. Mus. N.iN.
J Mus.
Mus. iN.
.. ms.j Mus. .. I
NorQ> through S) 10787 ! 10788Д /
(A^ or A ^ trad.) (Аз trad.) P 320
" " *' - - . . - - " " ! P 557
*Pöel. mus, MS 21 |?
Schubring MS P 837
A( £ , A2 <г „ & X trads .) Go. S. 26 (Q minor)
134
îdary line of transmission, including possible borrowings».

:opyisL

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
6 Bach
suggested below,
to stem not from
several different
D LEm Ms. III.
work without th
AmB 531 and P

of both the fan
copied sometim
working for the
originally contai
lacks leaves 6 th
and just after th
BWV 542/1, and
Konvolut). In the p
"P 803/Х1Г') denote
be noted that in som
Mus. ms. Bach P 80
7Kilian (108) indica
of the eighteenth c
"Anon. 434 = J. S.
the manuscript wa
Kirnberger was (see
in Gräfenroda, of
according to Fried
years 1739-40/41 (
"Johann Philipp K
study, had also stud
Kirnberger was in
his death in 1783. T
It is possible that h
the fugue copied in
8The present cont
par Mr. Jean Sebas
above by J. P. Kirn
2v - "Fantasia Seco
3v-5v - "Fantasia.
composer attributio
that follow, thoug
KirchhofF (1685-17
the volume's cover

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Figure 2. AmB 531, fol. 3v (J. S. Bach, Fantasy in G Mi

copyist: "Anonymous 34" ["Anonymous 434"], c. 1750-
with permission of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preußis
Musikabteilung mit Mendelssohn-Archiv.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
8 Bach
Figure 3. AmB
copyist: "Anony
with permission
Musikabteilung m
top-most voice of
which may indica
came to the end
in Figure 5.)

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
they were originally separated by several leaves - p

containing other music - suggests the pieces were cop
a single source that did not have the two pieces side b
likely, from two different sources (J in the fantasy
the fugue stemma ), neither of which has survived.
P 595/1, prepared by an unknown scribe som

the period 1750-1800, evidences almost identic
notational readings of the fantasy and fugue cop
Indeed, the present writer's comparison of the two
that the fantasy versions in AmB 531 and P 595/
from the same source (J), which was copied from
lost manuscript (I). Similarly, the fugue copies desc
R (see later in the present study). These proposed rela
from the ones set forth by Dietrich Kilian (725) in wh
and fugue copies in P 595/1 come directly from th
Such proposed manuscript associations also imply t
R were available to copyists in Berlin, thus suggest
was prepared in that city.9 In its original state, ho
unlike the Amalienbibliothek manuscript - places
the fugue side by side, the earliest source to do so
time, it is not possible to determine which manusc
or P 595/1 - was copied first.
Three other manuscripts hold readings of the f

fugue similar to those that appear in the two sources
"Kirchhof I Fantasien für die Orgel." It is quite possible that the

leaves contained another fugue (to follow BWV 542/1) as well as
precede BWV 542/2). That the missing leaves were originally par
is indicated by the fact that the foliation of AmB 531 was writt
the music.
9The writer has been unable to locate more recent information a

what Kilian has supplied (78-79). According to Kilian, two wat
the fascicle's paper: 1) the letters "CLB" within a writing tab
[Schrifitafel'' and 2) an eagle with the letter "H" in a heart-shap
arms 'Herzschild' , beneath which is the marking "WALDERS
page of the manuscript reads "Fantasia, con Fuga | con Peda
Joh:Sebast:Bach," whereas the respective headings have only "F

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
io Bach
P 1071, in which
around 1800 in L
manuscript (I) tha
531 and P 595/1.
was prepared by
who separately c
P 595/1 and P 10
readings in P 92
The present write
that the fantasy c
manuscript (K), w
century fantasy
P 595/1, P 1071
in the fugue stem
about this presum
Musical and no
somewhat from t
in P 288/IXand N
IX (see Figure 4
10The title page of

written by Ambros
Leipzig who in 1800 e
1812) to form a "Bu
С. F. Peters. It is pos
nSee note 27 as well
study.
12See Kilians stemmata for BWV 542/1 and 542/2 in KB IV/ 1-2, 724-25. By
suggesting that the fantasy copies in P 595/1, P 1071 (though conjecturally - KB ,
457), and P 924 stem from AmB 531 (724), he apparently proposes in the fugue
stemma (725) that the same relationship pertains to the fugue copies, since the
"derived" sources are not mentioned.
l3D LEm Ms. III. 8. 20 was copied by Johann Andreas Dröbs (1784-1825), who
studied in Erfurt under Bach pupil J. C. Kittel (see later in the text as well as in note
44 concerning the F-minor tradition) and who lived in Leipzig from 1808 until his
death.
l4The title page of P 288/IX reads "Fantasia. | e | Fuga in G m: | Per l'Organo pieno,
col Pedale | Obligato. Dell Sigr= Giouvanni | Sebast: Bach." The entire inscription,
however, was written later by a person other than the copyist of the music, apparently
by the same person who not only copied the title page of P 288/III (BWV 572),

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
A Source Study for Organists 1 1
Figure 4. Mus. ms. Bach P 288/IX, fol. lv (J. S. Bach, Fa

BWV 542/1; unknown copyist, с. 1800). Reproduced w
the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbes
mit Mendelssohn-Archiv. The pedal line, written in red,
in this reproduction.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
12 Bach
seems to stem fr
G in the fantasy
Bach P 598. 15 N.
was prepared by
Konvolut N. Mus.
nineteenth centur
readings in N. Mu
was not derived f
century printing
but also numbered th

Because this numberi
Friedrich von Voß ac
IX - with its attendan
the fantasy and the f
nineteenth century. A
in this source may h
gathering structure in
as a pair (the gatherin
the complete fantasy
bifolio
that holds the
15Other than musical
has its own heading su
ing of BWV 542/1 re
BWV 542/2 reads "Fu
16Information abou
s.v. "D В N. Mus ms.
organ music, this ma
present study in that
modern clefs (sopran
According to Dr.Helm
N. Mus. ms. 10788/H
ing BWV 542/2) and
the possession of com
the Konvolut , and we
Schneider (1875-1967
different hand than t
of the music] [ - ] Fa
17 A manuscript rathe
among other places,
half notes - most lik
manuscript source -
publications of the fa
of the Fantasy and th

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
later, N. Mus. ms. 10788/H transmits one readin

measure 19) that appears only in the C. F. Peters ed
probably also in source D and earlier manuscripts -
(see Table 3, measure 15, and Example 2a) that is u
other manuscript copies and pre-1970 printings. C
factors, N. Mus. ms. 10788/H was probably taken f
manuscript (source F)and appears to transmit the m
fantasy reading of all surviving manuscript sources.
Concerning the other, now-lost manuscripts of

source A designates Bach's manuscript and source В a p
of his manuscript that served as the Vorlage (prototyp
manuscript copies.18 Source С represents a lost manusc
have served as the Vorlage for the manuscript (so
Friedrich Conrad Griepenkerl to prepare the orig
edition of the fantasy (see later in this study) as well
manuscripts of BWV 542/1 except N. Mus. ms. 10
E identifies the copy of the fantasy that transmitted
seen in AmB 531, P 595/1, P 288/IX, P 1071, P 924
but not found in N. Mus. ms. 10788/H or the t
publications of the fantasy mentioned later. Presumab
these particular readings did not appear in sources A,
As for the thirty-two extant manuscripts that cont

twenty-five transmit the piece in the key of G mi
(with four also holding the fantasy) appearing to stem
autograph (A^, six (including one paired with the f
second autograph (A2), and two from a transposed sett
(X). Seven manuscripts preserve the fugue in the key
Bach's earliest manuscript of the fugue, perhaps

copy" {Konzeptschrift - here cited as A), does n
18The probable existence of source В is suggested by differing re

42 and 44 of the fantasy (see the respective discussions later in
under "Selected Editions and Their Relationship to the Original
source may have been a partially faulty copy is suggested by readi
and 42 (see Examples 2 and 3).
19See Kilian, 462.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
14 Bach
This source presu

progressively reco
the present study a
copy only), Axd, A
fugue is represente
P 288/V and, to s
Bach P 282, A Sd
m. 2234.20 P 288/
by Johann Peter
a close acquaintan
P 288/V, however,
in manuscripts der
АД A^, A{e, A{f, o
from an intermedia
Kellner likely consu
(in P 288/V, for i
readings - see Exam
20It is impossible to kn
or the original reading,
21Kilian (458) suggests
Russell Stinson, howeve
(but perhaps before c.
as seen in his copy of
As Stinson points ou
clear. . . . Whatever th
contact with Bach to g
were in Bach's possessi
Kellners handwriting f
stemmata for Bach's pr
might conclude that p
note 22 below) and, fro
The close relationship
in Kellners completion
Prelude and Fugue in E
Kobayashi (NBA IX: Ad
manuscript - the title p
sometime during the p
to Stinson's chart may
organ works (or at least
stage of BWV 542/2.
22Hans-Joachim Schul

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
The fugue copy in Ms. 4/II was probably written some

during the second half of the eighteenth century. The unknow
seems to have depended primarily on a sister manuscript (so
of P 288/V. Certain readings in Ms. 4/II, however, parallel
manuscripts derived from source R (see later), whereas othe
from the A2 tradition and still others from the F-minor setti
Measures 50 and 100, moreover, contain readings that oth
appear only in Poel. mus. MS 21 (see below as well as under
Manuscript Readings of the Fugue"). Ms. 4/II, therefore, or
its immediate source (M), appears to be an "editorial" copy,
brings together selected readings from all three primary trad
the fugue (A1? A2, and X).
The four other fugue copies that transmit essentially th

reading date from the nineteenth century. The version in
source written around 1 800 by an unknown scribe, reflects pr
the reading transmitted through source M. Occasionally, h
it draws from either source L or P 288/V as well as from r
transmitted only through copies derived from Af or A d. S. m
written in Vienna around 1850 by a certain Pius Richter,
primary allegiance to the Axa tradition, but borrows as well fr
A2a (see later), and the F-minor tradition (X).MN 104, copied in
by Aloys Fuchs (1799-1853), and the nineteenth-century s
Mus. ms. 38276 (copyist unknown) hold fugue copies that
primarily the A" tradition. Two late eighteenth-century manu
DGb Hahnl/I (c. 1800) andZ)W%Hs. 32/431b(c. 1781
manuscripts from exemplars prepared by Johann Caspar Vogler (169

good friend of Kellner who evidently studied with Bach in Arnstadt (17
Weimar (c. 1710- c. 1715), and who maintained close contact with his te
least into the late 1720s (see '"Das Stück in Goldpapier' - Ermittlungen z
Bach-Abschriften des frühen 18. Jahrhunderts," Bach-Jahrbuch 64 [1978]:
55). It is therefore possible that source L was a Vogler copy of BWV 542/2,
prepared during his studies under Bach in Weimar (or possibly in Arns
Peter Williams's comment in note 57). Schulze has also proposed that Vog
copyist heretofore identified as "Anonymous 18" (see Studien zur Bach-Übe
im 18. Jahrhundert [Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1984], 66-68). Kilian points out
240-41) that P 288/V evidences at least two layers of later (post correcturam
dations in the hand of Johann Christian Westphal (1773-1828), a pupil of
student Johann Christian Kittel (see later in this study).

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
16 Bach
transmit similar r
A a and the fugue
second volume of
manuscripts - whi
probably stem from
stemma) and also, b
another intermed
(see Figure 5) very
source (O).
23Hahn 1/1 was acquired by the Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut in Göttingen

( D Gb) in 1998, some years after Kilian had completed work on his edition of BWV
542. According to GBK (s.v. "D Gb Ms. Hahn 1, Faszikel 1"), the manuscript was
prepared around 1800, perhaps by the principal copyist "Slg. Klein" (Christian Ben-
jamin Klein) of a manuscript held by D BNms (see the cited GBK reference). The
source was subsequently owned by several people, including a certain C. T. Hahn in
1825. Although the manuscript has no title page, the heading on the first page reads
"Fuga [ - ] di J. Seb. Bach."
Hs. 32/43 lb ( olim Hs. 3 Goethe Notensammlung Nr. 431b) once may
have belonged to Carl Friedrich Zelter (1758-1832), composer, conductor, and
teacher in Berlin. Among his pupils were Adolf Bernard Marx (1795-1866), who
published the first printing of BWV 542 (see later in the present study); August
Wilhelm Bach (1796-1869; no relation to J. S. Bach), who taught organ to Felix
Mendelssohn (1809-1847) and who edited what may the the earliest printing of
BWV 542/2 ( Grosse Fuge für Orgel oder Pianoforte, ed. August Wilhelm Bach [T.
(Traugott) Trautwein in Berlin, Breite Str. No. 8, Plate no. 338, с. 1830] - see D Dl,
Mus. 2405. U. 504; the writer has been unable to examine this publication, a copy
of which is also held by the Glasgow University Library); and Felix Mendelssohn
himself. Zelter may have given the manuscript to his good friend and well-known
author Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), through whom it eventually
found its way into the Goethe- und Schiller- Archiv (associated with D WRgs). The
title page of Hs. 32/43 lb reads: "Fuge | aus G-Moll | mit | Pedal | von ["Johann" -
added by a later hand] Sebastian Bach." At the bottom of the title page, a third hand
comments that the piece is written in Dorian (this surely because the piece has only
one flat in the key signature) transposed up a fourth from D to G. The heading on
the first page of the music (verso of the title page and numbered "1") reads "Fuge"
(see Figure 5). The manuscript could not have been copied after the death of both
Zelter and Goethe in 1832 nor before 1781 when the mill that produced the paper
was established (see Wisso Weiß, "Zum Papier einiger Bach-Handschriften in der
Goethe Notensammlung," Bachiana et alia Musicologica: Festschrift Alfred Dürr zum
65. Geburtstag am. 3 März 1983, ed. Wolfgang Rhem [Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1983],
351). It would be interesting to know if the musical readings in A. W. Bach's edition
of the fugue reflect those in Hs. 32/43 lb.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
 bJD

-S -S .s
-•So
0 U S-
й с Ï
1и aj8OJS
*П S
-fi aJ ju
**1
"8 ^
3 Ó Ы
"g ËS
*-i - - ^
Q_ ,40
►> сл
►> £ ¿Д ^
s> ¡c C/3
¿Д ^^
CQ vtn W
iJ <L> о
1 Si
s§я
ü p
- ai "Ö
■"* - 5 jh ^
■"* "X3
oj *й
3bû.H
bû.H aS ?a
tí я с
PL| О О
« z и
-tí . X
<-> b =3
cS I s
"if °
° >- °
^ 2 "y
n и n tH -и
Uh
-- m
^Jí - ím-
<л ü
>s -tí 3
^ ^ o M
«л "О , E
Egge ,
ил i cť aj
OJ -i Uh
tí -£ a4 d
tí
ш Ö 5 оо и3
о 5
eшaоiиe

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
18 Bach
The A f reading d
been preserved, ho
the mid-nineteent
(see Figure 6). Alt
traced,the source
by Johann Tobia
Krebs (1713-1780)
D В Mus. ms. Ba
fugue copies in A
other stage (A^ of
of the fugue. Th
most likely some
considered post r
(173 8- 178 9). 25 A
24Sometime between
tor of the Peters editi
73). His changes to Vo
ace, emendations to t
in the Anhang (supple
later date the followin
ant: "Nach der aus de
manuscript stemming
determine just when t
sion of Peters Volum
the reengraved setting
was a copy of what m
of Volume II.
If Roitzsch - who i
works - was responsi
is possible that the v
manuscript that came
Leipzig Thomasschule
ditional years. No trac
but it may be that th
when the older Krebs
38). It is also possible
for someone may have
the volume's preface
handed down from th
25Little is known abo

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
"о
>
00
JÖ
и
с/5
N
Si
"О
с
ai
С
12
<и
PLh
-a
с
al
"Tí
<u
с
<u
Оч
.2н
Ih
С
O
U
-С
.у
'С _!
"3 2
£$
-d<Uv-
v- Д
Д
^ "7
ГМ
^ 40
R 00
g ^
^ I
•Й <N
^ l/~'
*3 g
^G <N
n
-S ^
OQ I
« 3
•S « S ■- i
3 -
£
Со W
«к£ ^^
^ *
40 _bb
<u 'N
3 .&
.ЁР ^
Uh

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
20 Bach
manuscript reflec
source Q, several
from the source V
where he may have s

1755 until he moved t
compositions has not b
Bach's lifetime, howev
in 1750 (the script in
sible that Oley copied
Oley's ownership inscr
cover folio for P 1 10
Kilian has proposed t
fied as "Anonymous 5
neue Aspekte zur Que
in Bach-Jahrbuch 64
fied Anonymous 5 a
Keyboard Partitas a
2003), 138; and also "
Überlieferung des 18
surely a Bach pupil in
date from the period
(Kayser's copy of BW
tas," 139). In 1724 Ka
through at least the
began studies under
196-201], Gerber cop
and 811] from a man
By 1733 Kayser was b
capacities - some evid
board Partitas," 140-4
Prelude and Fugue in
tion of Walther Laic
136). GBK, s.v. "BWV
as "J. Schneider = An
(1702-1788) was poss
Whether Oley studie
aware of Kayser and
purchased a number o
hand and others in th
pils, or assistants (se
It is therefore possibl
manuscript (source Q
Anonymous O.
26A few of the "error

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Manuscript R appears to have been the source f

copies in AmB 531, P 595/1, P 1071, P 924, and
2 1 . The probable existence of this intermediary sour
by the fact that several musical and notational read
these five manuscripts27 are not found in Oleys copy
be mentioned later in this section, source R reflect
from post-A^ traditions. Poel. mus. MS 21, copi
Johann Georg Weigand between c. 1815 and c. 1820
editorialized reading of the fugue.
Additional revisions to Bach's first autograph ar

through D Hs ND VI 3327e. Once thought lost, th
whose heading reads "Fuga, ex G. b. di Giov: Seb
perhaps copied by Johann Ernst Bernhard Pfeiff
organist at St. Petrikirche in Hamburg from 1735 unt
tered elsewhere only in P 598 and its copies as well as in N. Mu

Oley made more than thirty carefully executed emendations to h
some of these perhaps reflecting his own editorial views - suggest
did not work directly from a Bach source. Several of Oley's emen
Aj'-AjS others from A2b or V, and still others from the "revised"
or CPEB MS) - some but not all of the latter readings also app
ms. Bach P 803/XII.
27How these five manuscripts - of diverse provenances - could st
Vorlage of the fugue may never be known. It is possible that
by H. N. Gerber from source Q, for Gerber had made copies of f
suites from Vorlagen prepared by B. C. Kayser (see note 25).
passed on his copy of BWV 542/2 to Kirnberger, who studied un
(and likely under Bach during the years 1739-40/41 - see not
to have had a predilection for Bach's "clavier" works, for, of the
board pieces that survive in Gerbers hand, only one - BWV 6
Thus, Kirnberger, who by 1758 was in the service of Princess Am
have been the source (manuscript R) for the copies of BWV 54
P 595/1 (both prepared during the second half of the eighteenth
for those in P 1071 (Kühnel?) and P 924 (Grasnick). Interesting
copyist of P 924, was a music manuscript collector in Berlin who
a certain G. H. Möhring of the school of Kirnberger (Kilian, 2
28For further information about Pfeiffer, see Jürgen Neubacher
Petri-Organist Johann Ernst Bernhard Pfeiffer (1703-1774) u
proben unter Mattheson (1725) undTelemann (1735)" in Festsc
Marx zum 65. Geburtstag , Critica musica: Studien zum 17. un
(Stuttgart: Verlag J. B. Metzler, 2001), 221-32. As Neubacher p

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
22 Bach
Johann Matthe
mentions that in 1
at the Hamburg D
well have been J.
for the Domkirch
given subject (an
where this [fugue]
to paper . . . ."30 I
his publication are
BWV 542/2.31 Ma
copy (perhaps sour
based on the revi
brought with him
was born in Dannenbe

musician. It is unkno
1732 marriage in that
tion is extended to Mr
29Johann Mattheson
Hildesheim: Georg O
30"Ich wüste wol, wo
zu Papier gebracht ha
translations are those
Matthesons statemen
seen or even possesse
fugue stemma. Wolff
[Bach's November 172
Fantasy and Fugue in
gram, not as an impro
one that was artfully
542/2 appear in the f
Reinckens Hortus mus
denis13, 59) and the
deutscher Tonkunst
Bach's fugue subject is
which appeared in pu
countersubject, howe
theson does not ment
piececan be traced.
31See Williams2 (86) f
32For further inform
Williams2 (82-86).

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
likely would have prepared ND VI 3327e from source

sometime between the 1725 Hamburg audition and his
that city in 1732. While reflecting a few readings of th
(through Q?), Pfeiffers fugue copy appears to transmit re
post-date those in all previously discussed fugue sources.
Likely stemming from a slightly later version of B

autograph is the fugue copy in CZPnm XXXIV A 286, prod
certain Bernard Jahn during the first half of the nineteent
Most of this copy's readings are similar to those of the A
though in at least one instance a post-A^ reading appear
A 286 may thus represent another revision stage (Af) of B
autograph. Given a probable early nineteenth-century copy
33GKB, s.v. "CZ Pnm XXXIV A 286," gives "1. Haelfte des 19. Jahrh
this manuscript's copying. Little is known about the source except tha
for "Bernard Jahn" (the title page reads "Präludien und Fugen | für | d
J. Hayden, Seger, Kopržawa, Bach, Ernest Eberlin. | für | Bernard Jahn
was in the possession of a certain "Mayer" before being housed in th
and thence in the Národni muzeum (National Museum) in Prague.
Dr. Markéta Kabelkova of the latter institution (e-mail to the write
cember 2007), the inscription "descripsi pro filiis meis Bernardo et An
8. Aprilis 1824" given in the cited GBK reference actually appears in C
IV A 287. Both manuscripts are associated with "Bernard Jahn," how
therefore likely that the two sources were copied about the same time
noted that the fugue copy in XXXIV A 286 is missing numerous ties
the copyist seems purposefully to have omitted several pitches that di
manuscripts. For example, no pedal notes are given in beats 3 and 4
where A^, Kxh, and the Pe appendix (A^) have a half note (versus four
other sources - see Table 4). Further, in the top voice of measures 86-8
of the Jahn manuscript omitted the half notes, perhaps having seen
that reflected the A2b or V tradition (see "Unique Readings of the Fug
Concerning the composers named on the title page, "J. Hayden
to Joseph Haydn (1832-1809) and Ernest Eberlin to Johann Ernst E
1762), a Bavarian composer active in Salzburg. Josef Ferdinand N
(1716-1782) was a well-known Czech composer, organist, and teache
pupils was Karel Blažřej Kopřiva (1756-1785), a Bohemian organis
on the title page of the manuscript is spelled "Kopržawa." The write
able to view the entire manuscript.
34For example, XXXIV A 286 shows changes from earlier manuscrip
beat 3 of measure 17, where the right-hand chord is spelled d-a'-d2
and later manuscript traditions have d^F-d2).

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
24 Bach
that Bach made ad

(see A * below), the
copy (T) of A1 and
source ("[?]").
The last known

recorded in D В N
from the first ha
differences from e
of measure 24, whi
derived manuscrip
R (see Table 4). Bec
the fugue version
at least one now-l
perhaps also from
At some point in
manuscript of the f
the original reading
extant source that
slightly revised au
35GBK, s.v. "D В N. M

origin. For information
script label reads "6 Or
whereas the heading o
information pertaining
36Because most pre- 17
or no intended deviat
musical and notational
BWV 542/2 (i.e., those
the preparation of a se
there is no way to dete
fugue to be a Reinschri
discussion of Exampl
lacuna in A .
37P 803/XII was origina

comprises pages 173-84
bound has not been de
and Krebs: A Study of
book 1 [1976]: 46) prop

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
This manuscript (see Figure 7) was copied - possibly as ear

but more likely somewhat later, perhaps even as late
by Johann Tobias Krebs, who studied under Bach during
later years in Weimar.38 Interestingly, Krebs's man
showing primary allegiance to a revised, second autog
(A2*), also incorporates readings from the "revised" F-m
(Xa or the presumed C. P. E. Bach manuscript discu
It therefore appears that P 803/XII constitutes a co
elements from the last two primary stages of the fugue,
that, with the exception of possible Bach revisions seen
of the A2a tradition (see the following paragraph), offe
seem to be the most authentic late readings of the f
notational readings, however, indicate that Krebs's m
copied not directly from Bach's revised second autog
rather from an intermediary source (W), which is not e
W, quite possibly prepared by Krebs's son Johann Ludw
the death of Tobias Krebs [in 1762], since the manuscript contain
second half of the eighteenth century."
That Bach's second copy of the fugue (A2) was revised at leas
suggested by the fact that the F-minor tradition reflects some but
transmitted through P 803/XII, D В Mus. ms. Bach P 598, and
10788/1. Source X must have been prepared, therefore, after A
before the second Bach autograph was first revised.
38According to New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians , 2d
Tobias Krebs"), J. T. Krebs was born in Weimar, where he atten
therefore possible that he was in contact with either or both J
Walther (who arrived in Weimar in 1707) and Bach (whose W
1708-17) before accepting in 1710 a church position in Buttelsted
thereafter Krebs traveled to Weimar for twice-weekly lessons u
later (c. 1714-1717) under Bach. In 1721 Krebs moved to nearby
he served at the Michaeliskirche until his death in 1762.
Kilian (458) suggests that J. T. Krebs may have copied P 8
1714. By contrast, Hermann Zietz ( Quellenkritische Untersuchun
Handschriften P 801, P 802 und P 803 [Hamburg: Karl Dieter W
and 100) believes that Krebs's handwriting for BWV 542/2 dates fr
1714- c. 1717, when Krebs was (once again?) studying under B
has proposed a copying date of sometime "between c. 1717 and c. 17
(in a 1980s letter to the writer concerning J. T. Krebs's copy of th
582] in P 803, which is written in the same script style as BW
Krebs - later"]; see Daw's "Copies of J. S. Bach by Walther and K
writer is unaware of a comprehensive study of Tobias Krebs's musi

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
26 Bach
gö
Лн sСЛ
Лн "5
о -а
с/3
si
X Он
Он I
о
и с
(N "С
QJ
(Ч ГО
ITN d
. N
S -s
. о
i-i "3
lá
^ С/3
о а
с ^
.S <и
(и J3
ьЬ
d ^оо
Иц й
•6 •§
« '1
GO Ö
. Он
O-d
^5 -d
ä <и
к у
^ -о
« а
* & *
^ °°рй. лО
О
со О J3
^ Ö >
н_•âiaiГ-1
С
Ай| _•
* _ё J
^ ~5 "гЗ
- • «- ~2
<-2 ° g
и®2
>3 ^ .S
со v S
о N ÖD
00 Î- i С
CU ^ ^
-tí <ч1 'С
rö -О
« £ J3
з » '3
Ё о з
. о e-I
с/з л ^^
3 й «о
2 -6 .8 «о
к/ ^¿ _û
^^
S S 5
Рн
РнiteH
H IÄÄ

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
been the "working copy" for the compilation.39 P 803/

P 598 and its copies, features a change in the top staff fro
С to treble G clef beginning with the last eighth value of
(such an alteration would avoid numerous ledger lines t
This change of clef probably occurred during the preparat
second autograph. Interestingly, and perhaps understandab
change does not appear in sources that stem from the lowe
F-minor version.
The only other extant, pre- 1750 source that transmits the A2
tradition of the fugue is D В Mus. ms. Bach P 598, which was likely
copied in Leipzig sometime between 1738 and 1741 by the then
Bach pupil Johann Friedrich Agricola (1720-1774). P 598 (as also
D В N. Mus. ms. 10788/1 discussed below) may record additional
alterations Bach made to his second autograph (= A2^).40 At the same
time, P 598 (as well as its fugue copies in DB Mus. ms. Bach P 290,
39Given the possibility of a later copying date of". . . c. 1730 or thereafter" (see note
38) and the fact that P 803/XII holds readings from the revised F-minor tradition,
which may have originated around 1730 (see later in this study), J. T. Krebs may
have copied his manuscript from an "editorial" manuscript (source W in the fugue
stemma ), one perhaps prepared by his son Johann Ludwig during his studies with
Bach between 1726 and 1735 (see notes 24 and 44). Interestingly, the Konvolut
P 803 holds a copy - the only one that has survived - of the Fantasy and Fugue in С
Minor (BWV 537) which was prepared by both of the Krebses; Ludwigs inscription
at the end of the fugue reads "Soli deo gloria d[en] 10 Januarii 1751." J. L. Krebs's
study under Bach may have allowed him direct access to the composer's second
autograph of BWV 542/2 and perhaps also to С. P. E. Bach's purported F-minor
copy of the piece.
Notational readings that suggest J. T. Krebs copied from an intermediary
source (W) may be seen in measures 11, 16, and 30, for example, where half notes
in D В Mus. ms. Bach P 598 and D В N. Mus. ms. 10788/1 (probably from A2b
through source V) as well as in the primary source (X) of the F-minor tradition ap-
pear as tied quarter notes in P 803/XII.
40Agricola lived in Berlin from 1741 on and coauthored with C. P. E. Bach the well-
known 1754 Obituary of J. S. Bach.
It may be possible that at least some of the "later" revisions to the A2 tradition
(= K2b) occurred only in source V through Bach's verbal instructions. But at least
three passages of alterations (see Examples 9, 10, and 11 later in this study) are in
keeping with Bach's compositional style and may therefore have been entered di-
rectly into the revised second autograph (= k2b). None of the "revisions" transmitted
in the F-minor tradition (Xa) appears in either P 598 or N. Mus. ms. 10788/1.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
28 Bach
P 288/IX, and the

carry several rea
about Bach's styl
Readings of the
preparation of so
circulated among
DB N. Mus. ms.
the nineteenth ce
This source is un
present study in t
being used for th
(see also the fant
of the readings
and Peters editio
Relation to the O
not derived from
from a written s
immediate Vorlag
however, the fug
an intermediary m
41P 290, the earliest

sometime during the
one of С. P. E. Bach's
from around 1800 a
"Schubring" manusc
sometime during the
(see Kilian, 114-15). T
lection of Dr. Walth
Interestingly, the fu
in P 288/IX follow th
ten in red ink. (The
MSM], whose copyist
42Information abou
"D В N. Mus ms. 107
and provenance of N
Lacking a composer
Fuga."
43Among other things, N. Mus. ms. 10788/1 does not feature the use of red ink for
the pedal part, as do P 598 and its copies (see note 41), and it also transmits several

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
The nine remaining manuscripts under consideration

a third primary stage of the fugue, that in F minor (see s
the fugue stemma ). An early (the original?) reading of this
copied into a manuscript prepared by Johann Christian Kit
1809), a Bach pupil between 1748 and 1750.44 Altho
manuscript was destroyed in 1945, most of the pieces know
appeared in this source - including the F-minor settin
542/2 - were presumably copied during the nineteenth cen
D В Mus. m ss. Bach P 320 and P 557. Probably the earlier o
extant manuscripts is P 320, a source prepared by Joha
Gebhardi (1781-1813) or his brother Ludwig Ernst (17
notational features (long-note divisions and ties at some points, for ex

not appear in either the indicated manuscripts or the Marx and Peters
44If source X had been revised by or with the approval of Bach - pres
Emanuel Bach prepared or acquired his copy of the fugue (see the t
source Xa) - Kittel would have had to copy the fugue not from the
manuscript (X) but from an intermediary source ("[?]" in the fugue st
That the fugue setting in the key of F minor may very well stem
either from a transposition he himself made or, more likely, from
transposition made by one of his pupils or copyists - is suggested by t
1) both J. C. Kittel and C. P. E. Bach evidently possessed copies of t
minor (see the fugue stemma and the text); and 2) several readings
appear only in manuscripts stemming from the "revised" F-minor t
CPEB MS) appear in P 803/XII (J. T. Krebs) through source W, the
prepared by J. L. Krebs (see earlier in the text).
The fugue was probably transposed to F minor so it could be pl
organ whose pedal division lacked keys above c1 (the G-minor settin
The instrument in question must also have lacked low С # in the peda
exception of measure 63 where the transposer did not alter it, this pit
key of F minor) as well as appropriate surrounding pitches were writt
higher. Transposition of the fugue to F minor created a new problem,
low С in the pedal part of the G-minor setting became BB b . Except i
where an alteration of the pitch would destroy the character of the fug
transposer probably did not know what to do here), BB b was repla
propriate changes of surrounding pitches - with В b . It seems unlikel
BB # as well as other obvious errors transmitted by the extant F-minor
originate with Bach himself. The writer's transcription of P 287/VIII,
presumably stems from Xй via С. P. E. Bach's manuscript, as well as
the first page of the manuscript is available in PDF format at the foll
www.bw.edu/academics/libraries/bach/journal/toc/
45Kilian (72) proposes that L. E. Gebhardi may have been the copyist of
hardi's name appears on the title page of the manuscript, though this m

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
30 Bach
P 557 was written

later copied P 924, t
fugue mentioned e
stem from P 320.
At some point, re
cannot be determin
manuscript (= Xa)
prepared by Carl
the years of study
copied some of his f
copies has survived,
non-chorale-based
manuscripts owned
the younger Bach
copy of BWV 542/
when fellow Bach
manuscript (W) for
indication that the vol

Hans-Joachim Schulze,
J. N. Gebhardi, was th
where Kittel lived. For
holdings of the Kittel m
46If Grasnick had acces
in 1809, at which time
age.
47The "revised" reading
himself. For one thing
which likely served as
known revisions were t
As mentioned in the te
the transposition manu
48See, for example, Ki
548, and 562.
49Concerning the concurrent St. Thomas School studies of C. P. E. Bach and J. L.
Krebs, see Andreas Glöckner, "Neuerkenntnisse zu Johann Sebastian Bachs Auffüh-
rungskalendar zwischen 1729 und 1735," Bach-Jahrbuch Gl [1981]: 43-75, espe-
cially 44-56. In September 1734 Emanuel Bach left Leipzig for Frankfurt an der
Oder.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
As Figure 1 illustrates, the fugue copies in

manuscripts - D В Mus. mss. Bach P 287/VIII, P
P 518, and P 837 (all having Hamburg roots) as well
4838 (now part of Ma Yll В 12) - appear to stem fro
Bach's manuscript. Each of these sources transmits va
and errors that do not appear in P 320 and P 557. A
Bach may have given verbal instructions for revisions t
into the transposition manuscript (= Xa), the errors mu
from Emanuel's copy.50
The earliest of the extant sources that transmit a rev

of the F-minor version - hereafter cited as source
VIII, which was prepared by the Hamburg organist J
Borsch c. 1744-1804). Presumably working from
manuscript, Borsch apparently made his copy some
1768 and c. 1783. 51 The title page of P 287/VIII incl
known inscription "Das allerbeste Pedal=Stücke vom
Sebastian Bach" (the very best pedal piece of Mr. Joh
Bach). The fugue copy in LM 4838 was prepared by
copyist who, interestingly, included an inscription s
one in P 287/VIII. Several musical and notational re
fugue version in LM 4838, however, suggest that it s
intermediary source (Z in the fugue stemma) rather than
Emanuel Bach's manuscript.52 P 204 was prepared - pr
1781 - by Christian Friedrich Gottlieb Schwencke (17
singer and accompanist for C. P. E. Bach and later hi
50Some of the readings and errors are identified in the transcripti

mentioned in note 44. See also Tables 4 and 5.
51P 287/VIII could not have been copied before 1768, the year C.
to Hamburg, and surely no later than when Borsch copied the f
(1783 or later; see note 55). For a transcription of P 287/VIII, see
521he copy of BWV 542/2 in LM 4838 was formerly thought to hav
by Johann Christian Heinrich Rinck (1770-1846), a pupil of Kitt
of the manuscript includes the inscription "Poss: | J: Ch: H: Rinc
that at one time Rinck owned the source. GBK (s.v. "US NH LM
В 12]"), states that the version of BWV 542/2 as well as five other
4838 were copied around 1 800 by "unknown writer [2] ."
53P 204 begins with Schwencke's handwritten copy of part two of D
Clavier , which closes with the inscription "II Fine 1781."

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
32 Bach
cantor and music d

fugue copy in P 20
287/VIII above), ver
The two other sources that transmit the revised F-minor

tradition are P 518 and P 837. The fugue version in P 518, copied
around 1800 by an unknown scribe, appears to be based on P 204. P
837, a manuscript prepared for and partially copied by Franz Hauser
(1794-1870), dates from the 1820s and contains a G-minor setting
of the fugue that probably stems from P 203.
The preceding discussion indicates that the fantasy is preserved

in only one basic version. Such is not the case for the fugue, however,
for it has been transmitted in three primary stages (A , A2, and X) as
well as in several substages. Which stage or substage most accurately
reflects Bach's last recorded intentions for the fugue?
That Bach superseded an early copy (A^ of the fugue with

another copy (A2) has been proposed earlier. Thereafter, someone -
apparently with Bachs approval - prepared from A2 a transposed
setting (source X). Following the preparation of the transposition
manuscript, the second autograph must have been revised (= A2a), for
P 803/XII, P 598, and N. Mus. ms. 10788/1 transmit readings not
54Because of his close ties with C. P. E. Bach, Schwencke likely based his copy of the
fugue on Emanuel's manuscript. Schwencke's copy evidences considerable editori-
alization, however. For one thing, many "archaic" notational practices observable in
all extant manuscripts previously discussed are conspicuously absent. Then, too, the
few passages in P 287/VIII and LM 4838 that have missing notes or questionable
readings - these traceable back only to C. P. E. Bach's manuscript - are emended
in Schwencke's copy, sometimes in such ways that they resemble only slightly the
reading in pre-X" sources.
55Appearing earlier in P 203 is Schwencke's manuscript copy of the first part of Das
Wohltempierte Clavier , which closes with the inscription "As 1783" (Schwencke cop-
ied all of the contents of P 203 except BWV 542/2). But for the difference in key,
Borsch's fugue copy in P 203 is virtually identical to Schwencke's version in P 204.
A comparison of dates written in the two manuscripts as well as the key signatures
of the fugues (Schwencke's copy in P 204 uses the so-called "dorian" key notation,
Borsch's the modern) suggests that Borsch took this - his second - copy of the fugue
from P 204 rather than the reverse.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
found in the initial F-minor version (X). At a later d

were made to the F-minor setting (= Xa or CPEB M
possibly also to the revised second autograph (= A2b). It
evident that neither stage 2 (the A2 tradition) nor
tradition) nor any extant manuscript transmits all revis
have intended for the fugue. Accordingly, most of thes
will be identified later in this article when the readi
editions are compared.
Had the autograph manuscripts of the fantasy an

survived, it is likely that a fairly accurate picture of th
their dates of composition and "final" readings, for e
be drawn. As it is, our view of the two pieces depends p
the extant manuscript copies described above. To reit
posed at the beginning of the present study: what d
reveal about important performance-related consider
composition dates, pairing of the two pieces, registratio
note beamings and stemmings, ornamentation, and
articulation, fingering, pedaling, or manual changes
readings in these manuscripts reflected in several widel
of the fantasy and fugue, and why at some points do
differ in their musical and notational readings?
Dates of Composition
Given the possibility that Bach's own style of organ playing

(not to mention his approach to ornamentation and other matters)
changed during his lifetime, knowing when the fantasy and the
fugue were composed could have bearing on issues concerning
present-day interpretation. Unfortunately, the extant manuscripts
are only of limited help in determining when the two pieces may
have been written. Take, for instance, the type of key signature used
in the sources. Ail of the fantasy copies are notated in the "modern"
way (e.g., two flats for G minor). Because Bach may have used the
so-called "dorian" key notation (no flat for D minor and one flat

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
34 Bach
for G minor, as ex
is logical to assume
be sure, Bach could
during or after his t
a modernization - a
the key signature.57
In contrast to man
well as most seconda
key notation. This su
the fugue was prep
later years in Arnsta
fugues origin should
56According to George St
are not based on chorales
57Predicated on an exam
"preludes," Stauffer (10
composers early years i
dated the "dorian" key n
fugue, Stauffer avers, "s
1717" (110). Peter Willi
[than the Fugue], even
than the Passacaglia BW
made for or soon after
(168) assigns both the f
and The New Grove Dict
tian Bach") dates the fa
Schmieder (s.v. "542") b
period 1715-1720.
58A pre-1717 compositio
tion that the work may
Stauffer's opinion that B
Weimar (see note 57). Si
phy in the 1870s, both th
poser's 1720 visit to Ham
and others at St. Cathe
If Bach composed the fu
his revised first autograp
been prepared (see earlie
Hamburg connection for

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:2n 1976 12:34:56 UTC
A second aspect of the extant original sources, namel

dates, also offers only limited information as to when t
the fugue may have been composed. As a matter of fact,
of the six fantasy sources are of no help whatever: all o
date from the second half of the eighteenth century or l
on the other hand, is preserved in four extant manuscr
during Bach's lifetime: ND VI 3327e (Pfeiffers copy
have been copied from a source (S) available by 1725
P 288/V (Kellners manuscript), likely dating from the 1
XII (the fugue copy by J. T. Krebs), which, as indicated
have been copied as early as the mid-171 0s but more
the 1730s; and P 598 (Agrícolas copy), written some
1738 and 1741. The probable copying period for P 5
that all known revisions to Bachs two autograph m
and A2) had been made by 1741. The possible prepar
ND VI 3327e (between 1725 and 1732) suggests not o
fugue had been composed by the mid- 1720s but al
all known revisions to the first autograph - through
made by that time. If P 288/V had been copied sometim
1730s, the revisions it transmits (that is, those prim
A" tradition) could have been made as late as Bach's
Leipzig (1723-1733). But the rather rudimentary A^
surely date from an earlier time, as the possible copyin
VI 3327e would suggest. Thus, Bach's first autograph mu
completed and revised through A^ by around 1725 -
by 1720 if source S had been prepared from Bach's f
that may have accompanied him to Hamburg that y
possibly copied from a manuscript (source W) prepa
period 1727-35 by Tobias Krebs's son Ludwig, may
1730s. If so, all revisions this source transmits (that
A2a and most of those in the revised F-minor traditi
been made by 173 5. 59 At the same time, the possib
59If, on the other hand, the earlier of the two suggested copy d
is accurate, all known revisions except those transmitted throu
Mus. ms. 10788/1 would have been made by around 1717, this su
very early (pre-Weimar?) compositional date, as Williams offers (se
extremely compressed revision process, or both. The possible cop

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
36 Bach
J. С. Vogler (by 17
copies of the fugue
autograph - as tran
several times befor
Bachs departure fr
that, assuming he
second autograph (A
or CPEB MS) had b
Considering inform
possible to determ
the fantasy was com
composed by arou
or mid- 1720s. Fur
F-minor transcrip
possible "final" rev
been made by 1741.
Coupling of the Fantasy and the Fugue
What do the manuscript sources reveal about the pairing of

the fantasy and the fugue? First, it is evident in Figure 1 that there
existed a strong tradition of copying the fugue without the fantasy,
even during Bachs lifetime. No pre- 1750 or Bach-associated copy
of the fantasy is extant.62 By contrast, four surviving copies of the
L and P as well as ND VI 332 7C also speak against an early preparation date for
P 803/XII.
60As mentioned in note 21, P 288/V may stem from a copy (source L) of the
fugue prepared by J. C. Vogler sometime during his studies under Bach (1706 and
c. 1710-c. 1715). Such a dating of A * revisions would place the composition of the
piece no later than around 1715. For information about the possibility that J. T.
Krebs prepared an early copy of the fugue, see note 24.
61Stauffer (14-16) demonstrates how a third aspect of the manuscripts, namely, the
types of clefs employed, cannot be used reliably to establish when a Bach organ work
was composed. Stinson (Stinsonl, appendix; and Stinson2, 452-53) expands upon
Stauffers conclusions.
62It should be noted that Griepenkerl refers to his principal source of the fantasy as
an "old copy" but otherwise provides no other information except that the theme of

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
fugue- ND VI 3327e (J. E. B. Pfeiffer), P 288/V (

P 803/XII (J. T. Krebs), and P 598 (J. F. Agricola) -
lost sources (the Kittel and C. P. E. Bach manuscrip
pupils or acquaintances of Bach. It is of particular in
late as around 1740 Agricola, then a pupil of Bach, co
by itself. Surely Agricola, not to mention Kittel or
would have been aware of any Bach-associated tradi
otherwise - that paired the two pieces.
A second point to be considered is the derivation of t

and fugue copies in the five extant sources that hold bo
indicated earlier, the fantasy and fugue versions in
originally separated by three leaves. It seems probable,
the copyist of the manuscript was working from a s
sources) that did not have the two pieces side by sid
when the three leaves had been removed (or lost), we
and the fugue to stand contiguously in AmB 531. T
for P 595/1, P 1071, and P 924 also suggest that the
fugue copies were taken from separate sources of the t
indicated earlier, P 595/1, which may have Berlin
the only pre- 1800 manuscript in its original state that
fantasy and the fugue as a pair. As for P 288/IX, it
the copyist of this manuscript worked from two differ
one for the fantasy and another for the fugue. For o
piece has its own heading (see note 15). Then, too, th
the manuscript was written later by someone other tha
of the music (see note 14). Thus, as far as extant ma
concerned, the coupling of the two pieces can be traced
the second half of the eighteenth century, perhaps eve
part of that period.63
the fugue was written at the end of the manuscript (see the follow
this study). Interestingly, the fantasy has not been transmitted in
script copied by someone even remotely associated with Bach.
63 As a matter of interest, the fugue copy in P 518 (c. 1800, cop
preceded by an unascribed "Intrada" of post- 1750 origin.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
38 Bach
Finally, it is eviden
a tradition of pai
universally. F. A. G
of the F-minor se
of either the G-mi
and the fugue. Perh
holds both pieces
of pairing the two
and N. Mus. mus.
into separate manu
(perhaps Friedrich
the fugue just bef
publications of th
printings - that b
Figures 8 and 9) an
Hollier from sligh
BWV 542/2 in ano
II of the C. F. Peter
printed side by side
Friedrich Conrad G
the fugue] are here
they only occur ind
have been persuad
fantasy in my colle
64For bibliographical
Sources Cited" at the e
editor of the Marx pr
Bach's Prelude and Fu
[February 2005]: 76-7
on Marx's issue, is ent
GAN . . ." and must h
78).
Because the print
study seem not to have
considered here. A thir
known (by T. Trautwei
preciation is extended t
reference to the possib
65"Beide sind hier zum
sonst nur einzeln vork

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
ЬЬ
N
#a,
"Ö
j-¿
с/5
"о
>
m
В
aJ
S
"S
ctí
X
С
Uh
<L>
CQ
3
О
-d
> . ссri
. . Uh
00 Он
й -§
bù 'S
Рч РЗ

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
40 Bach
ЬЬ
"Д
.В4
'С
hJ
c/i
1
m
й
cti
S
'S
ri
M
С
«-i
и
CQ
"о
-d

•î2
"8
t1
"to
0
R
R
1«
•»^ NT1
g ^
â z
1e¿
R 40
:§ cö
<o л
«з «?
s. «">
I s. ^
J"4» <u
^ t:
R ¿2
R ¡x¡
^ ng
^. <-M
S
C' CU
a -S
d
bß Й
ÇQ

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
is indicated as belonging to it."66 Unfortunately, th

which Griepenkerl refers (cited as source D in the f
cannot be traced, and therefore the authenticity of th
inscription (by the same person who copied the fan
verified.
With information currently available, therefore, all that can

be said about the pairing of the fantasy and the fugue is that there
may have been such a tradition that developed or existed in some
circles (perhaps primarily or exclusively in the Berlin musical world)
sometime during the second half of the eighteenth century.67
Other Performance-Related Considerations
As also with the composition dates and authenticity of pairing the

two pieces, the extant manuscript sources are of only limited help in
determining what registration directives may have appeared in Bach's
copies of the fantasy and the fugue. Of the seven manuscripts that
hold the fantasy, only one, P 288/IX, gives a registration indication.
This directive, however - "Per l'Organo pieno" - appears on the
title page of the manuscript, which, as noted earlier, was written
sometime during the nineteenth century by someone other than the
copyist of the music.68 The directive presumably applies also to the
manuscript's fugue copy. Registration information for BWV 542/2
is likewise sketchy. Of the thirty-two manuscripts that transmit the
fugue, only two - P 288/V and P 1100, both stemming for the A
tradition - carry a registration indication. Written on the title pages
66"Zu dieser Verbindung hat uns eine alte Abschrift der Fantasia aus meiner Sam-
mlung bewogen, hinter welcher sich das Thema der Fuge, als zu ihr gehörig, ange-
deutet findet."
67Given the likelihood that both AmB 531 and P 288/IX were copied in Berlin, it is
quite possible that during the second half of the eighteenth century there existed or
developed in that city a tradition of pairing the fantasy and the fugue. Interestingly,
several of Bach's pupils - Agricola, Kirnberger, and C. P. E. Bach, among others -
were active in or near Berlin at various times after 1750. None of these musicians,
however, is known to have prepared a manuscript of the fantasy, much less one that
coupled the two pieces.
68For the complete inscription of the title page of P 288/IX, see note 14.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
42 Bach
by the respective
Organo pleno."69
indications, it is t
appeared in any of
Because of the la
simple discussion
sources would exte
observations can
stemmings in mea
in both the Peters
any extant manusc
the first page of th
To be sure, Griep
imply left- and r
his primary source
is no way to verif
The second observa
considered in the p
beaming of sets o
least some copyist
"original" beaming
The extant origin

inclusion and preci
More often than no
error - either thr
best, therefore, to
is, those transmitt
and secondary man
69This directive appear

mol pro Organo | plen
copied by J. P. Kellne
à. I Johann Sebastian
manuscripts read, resp
Bach." For helpful disc
and Williams 1 (3:162

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
vi
О
>
00
-С
и
С/5
Ы
и*
cš
-о
с
cd
с
12
<u
Ph
с
oj
<u
J*á
С
<u
Сц
.H
'С
а
-о
oj
Ut
G
О
U
-С
у
'С
-Ö
.Н
*с
PL,
-т 6
<и
«,о
5 S
1N
1S, ZSi
Iо
8м
~5 ~
^ (N
QQ vy^
s4
•is
г** й
^ Ö
к tj
$t ¿H
S PLh
-
du
-H ьр
<u "Д
3 .&
Рн О

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
44 Bach
Table 1 reproduces
seven extant manus
printed in the orig
sources of the fugu
II, P 288/IX, and p
Peters edition give
sharps in the Peter
difference in ornam
where the Peters e
remaining sources h
written mordent?)
an ornament in me
N. Mus. ms. 1078
ornaments at logic
had written in his o
Less clear is the pi

fugue. Of the seven
few have identical
and P 1100; and m
Mus. ms. 10787); a
that may have been
Ms. 4/II (with mea
that stem from sou
Table 2, note Ф) hav
VI 3327e, and N. M
P 598, and N. Mus.
in measures 57 an
be interpreted as a
P 598 and N. Mus.
uniquely placed tr
which reflect an ea
number of stenog
sources (could som
Kittel?). Except for

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
si Iff!
i
>-< >-<
4-> T3 n ^ QJ^ 1 l|il 4
|.s5 g>
<£ e i 1 i
S )i i ) ) ! if ? a
. О' ЩИ 1/3 .&1 S -tí VH
. О' 1/3 .&1 * S -tí VH
д .g ö * * ¿ä
f: S ř н ¡ g s S
2'
0-1i M
слř^-Í
^ S
СЙ
-
I ^ CL|
В -Sm« 5 d я
•g - g ,2 g -с .S сg ü
СЛ ,2 ^ü
* с ¿ ja s >
0) £ ,£) ^ 00
3 - * , , , , i £ ê I I % Й
- - , * * , J , , О i ^ - I Ig I i
tí
fe
^о-я- 8^g|
с :s ииI si
J ! ё 'S g §
й i ! i 1 f i i S 1 3 § I g
ir'
CQ 1 ! i i 1 f 1 i > i lîHi S 1 « g§ S.5« 13 .5jš jš»

O _ g, -0 ■" e g r-í
M
M SÖй й
S">,
I SS -2
.e йй-SP "> о
t
сл
g e ">
3
uo
O
I ■N
■N « ü 4l§*jjj
» >4 S ü
'S *4g » >4
я S |J Idll
"73
tí * £ i ^ I « O i я - I P
« Is -, .
;бь
"C
O
b £ 5 cl» - u ¡s с i¿ ^
и оо й v с £ « t .S с
и 3 ^ g v ^ ^ 2 §
ri
s
'С S О СЛ ад д g 'g uE
¿I
^ ^ S-2 8'^2
^ S
CL,
<U
SPS ^ *C о
-g
=1 ^ " SPS
#tí
сл
■sil 1 1 1 S -f I 1
I is * M -H -M g« 1st I
С
_ьр
сЯ
с
<и
а
* I s s § 14 'rt s^ с i<D S g
_2 g g
л
о
Ut
с
IоS
S_.^оs _.
^ *Ttс
rt »Ti
С^9<
sin "С<D 1D _2. сл
*rn. /-n
D ! g сл s g
о и ics
+3 *-« *л m ^ ^ ^ ^ Q з m
JJ
s q ñtSSSg ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 S ¡ 1 1 .s
IS J Г Г ÎT £ £ 3 3 hll §"- <
č :

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
46 Bach
Table 2: Ornament S
(Fugue)*
P 288/V Ms. 41- Hahn Hs. 3/- p 1 100* ND VI

. ** II 1/1 431b 3327e
. Location
I
a a ' b ' d a e
A' a Aj ' A! ' A! a
6 (I/ 1 ,4)
15 (1/2,3)
16(1/1,1)
17(1/1,2)1 u~) tt
18(1/2,3)
19(1/2,3)
32 (1,3) (eW)
36(1/1,4)1 -
57 (11,4)2
58 (1,2) 2
77 (I) c~~ +Í* & № 0*
110(1/1,1)1 4 W
110(1/2,1)1 ( - )
* The shapes of the ornament signs given in this table only approximate
those in the given sources. Parentheses enclose those ornaments that were
or may have been added after initial copying of the source. The only
ornament signs in the fugue version printed in the Peters appendix are in
mm. 36 and 110 (1/1,3), where they appear as in P 288/V. CZ Pnm
XXXIV A 286 (presumably from A^) does not have any ornaments and
therefore is not listed here.
** As in Bä: measure (system/voice [numbered from top down], beat) and

note number.
* No ornaments appear in the fugue copies that stem from source R.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Table 2: Continued
N. Mus. P 803/- P 598 & N. P 320 & P287/- LM P 204

ms. 10787 XII Mus.ms. P 557 VIII 4838
A2a A2b via X Xa
+ [?]
m ¿и j4t
н m * úi
Úl
Úl Úl Úb*** ("+**■+')
Úl (
Úl
^ Appoggiatura (Vorschlag) without slur.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
48 Bach
that stem from th

16 and 17.70
As for other per

source of either t
articulation, finger
Selected Editions and Their Relationship

to the Original Sources
Of the reputable printed editions of the fantasy and the fugue

available as of this study's publication, five are widely consulted by
organists in English-speaking locales: the Peters edition (Pe), the
Bach-Gesellschaft edition (BG, available on CD-ROM as well as in
several reprints), the Widor-Schweitzer edition (WS), the Bärenreiter
edition (Bä), and the Breitkopf and Härtel edition (BH).72 How do
the readings of the fantasy and the fugue in these editions relate to
those in the extant original sources?
In 1845 the Leipzig publisher C. E Peters (then Bureau de

Musique von С. F. Peters) issued the second of its original seven-
volume collection of Bach's organ works edited by Friedrich Conrad
Griepenkerl and Ferdinand August Roitzsch (see Figures 10 and 11
for the first pages of the fantasy and fugue printings). Sometime
70See note 44 regarding the authenticity of source X. It should be pointed out that
several grace notes were added to a possible third stage of Bach's Passacaglia, which
does not survive in any definitive manuscript version (the writer is preparing a study
of the Passacaglia; see also the Kritischer Bericht for NBA I V/7).
71It should be noted that staccato-like marks in P 287/VIII were added later by an
unknown scribe (see the facsimile of this manuscript's first page that accompanies
the transcription mentioned in note 44).
72Among the reprint editions of BG are those by Lee Pocket Scores and Dover Pub-
lications. For full bibliographical information about each edition, please see "Abbre-
viations and Sources Cited" at the end of this study. Not considered herein are the
following editions, which appear to be based on previous publications and which
are not yet in wide circulation: 1) Johann Sebastian Bach: Sämtliche Orgelwerke /
Complete Organ Works , ed. Tamás Zászkaliczky, 1 1 vols. (Budapest: Editio Musica,
с. 1985-c. 1991); and 2) Johann Sebastian Bach: The Complete Organ Works , ed.
Alan Ridout, 4 vols. (Suffolk, England: Kevin Mayhew, 1994).

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
C/3
1
00
J3
и
c/5
N
J
"T3
G
cť
a
"H
<U
рц
-о
G
al
"Тн
Já
g
04
.Sá
'С
О
üt-H
С!
О
и
о
-d
.Ы
'С
рц
-тЗ
<и
Ì?
0
s s
.1
*7
§
я, e
1e«
t§ ^
s^
"5 '-Î
^ CN
QQ VTN
§4
13
-S ~
ÜJ с/э
^ Ö
s S
R CL,
5
Рч
^ ьь
<и 'Д
3 .&
■SP Jj
PLh О

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
50 Bach
between 1852 and

II, III, and IV, at wh
BWV 542/2.73 In 1
which time at least
(see note 81). The 19
C. F. Peters.74
As mentioned earli
Peters II was a man
the fantasy stemm
Peters edition did n
73Roitzsch probably m
time after the appeara
C. F. Peters's Oeuvres c
by 1859 (Kilian, 262-6
locate a copy of the 18
comments concerning
"made known [to us] at
completely excellent cop
most cases confirms our
this is not the case, th
account of necessary c
Abschrift der Fuge allei
getroffene Wahl der L
die noch fehlenden Ver
Texte nachgetragen wo
surely based on the ma
under "Selected Edition
would have had easy ac
Griepenkerl owned the
acquired the (sesource
74Dan Fog {Zur Datieru
1990], 20) gives 1900 f
original Volume II has
8657). The Kalmus repr
Bach year of 1950, Pet
in at least two differe
(perhaps for English-sp
comments by Hermann
1900 releases of the ser
however, that during th
issue a new edition of t
Joachim Schulze. To da

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
the original printed fugue version, an examination of th

suggests that readings from all three primary manuscrip
(A , A2, and X) were blended.75 Roitzschs later emend
original fugue printing were surely based on P 803/
apparently unknown or unavailable to Griepenkerl when
Peters Volume II for initial publication.76
The first systematic attempt to identify specifically th

consulted for a printed edition of the fantasy and the
with the publication of Volume 15 of BG. In 1867-dat
material to the volume, Wilhelm Rust lists the following
his edition of the two pieces: P 288/IX and the Marx
both the fantasy and the fugue; and, for the fugue,
P 282, P 287/VIII, P 288/V, P 290, and the Schubring
75In the foreword to the original (1845) Peters Volume II, Griepen
therefore appears advisable to print the fantasy and fugue after my
thereby avoiding scribal errors, and we hope that the comparison
ies and editions will convince connoisseurs that we chose the righ
darum das Rätlichste, Fantasie und Fuge nach meinem sehr alten
Vermeidung der Schreibfehler, stechen zu lassen, und wir dürfen hof
ich mit anderen Abschriften und Ausgaben werde die Kenner über
das Rechte wählten). The implication is that Griepenkerl had an "old"
of the fantasy but of the fugue as well. However, he did not necessar
script that held both the fantasy and the fugue (see under "Pairing of
Fugue"). Griepenkerl's fugue copy cannot be traced.
76Griepenkerl apparently acquired the Konvolut P 803 sometime betw
cation of Peters Volume II in 1845 and his death in 1849 (for infor
ing Griepenkerl's personal manuscript collection of Bach's organ w
234). P 803 was later owned by Carl August Reichardt (1802-185
death by Roitzsch. It is probably to this source that Roitzsch refers
added to the preface of Peters II (see note 73). (For one passage of
Roitzschs emendations to BWV 542/2, see Example 10.) In 1889 th
acquired by the Berlin Bibliothek (now D В).
77 As indicated previously, the Marx edition is the earliest known
fantasy and the fugue. Published around 1833, Marx's collection c
volumes, the first containing the fantasy and the third holding the
Marx did not identify his original sources, it can be deduced that
copy he depended primarily on a manuscript (or on manuscripts) t
source E tradition. For the fugue Marx evidently relied principally o
but also incorporated readings from the A2 tradition. It would seem
Marx referred to separate sources of the fantasy and the fugue and,
at least two different primary traditions as well.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
52 Bach
Interestingly, Rust
have consulted eithe
his fugue version R
that appear only in
"Praeludium" instea
of the sources he li
the former appella
into his catalog of B
The third edition u

Marie Widor and A
this volume (numb
primarily from BG
also incorporates a f
revised Peters print
The last two edit

1970s. The earlier
the Neue Bach-Au
most scholarly edito
According to the ex
volume (see KB zná
the settings of the
account the Marx,
extant manuscripts
had gone to press,
of which did not a
more recently avai
Bärenreiter edition
78See the final paragra

this study as well as T
inadvertently omitted m
without note from the
114 occur in both J. T.
either the Marx edition
now known as P 803 as
(see page X). Interesting
for the fantasy.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
l/I (acquired by the Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut

had completed his work there on NBA IV/5-6), Hs.
VI 3227e, N. Mus. ms. 10787, N. Mus. ms. 10788/1, N
10788/П, XXXIV А 286, and the "Sievers manuscript.
musical texts of the first six manuscripts, only a few p
Bä fantasy and fugue printings may need to be emended
the present study).
The final edition of the fantasy and fugue under

is the one printed in Volume III (1979) of the Breitko
edition prepared by Heinz Lohmann. With the excep
26, MN 104, and Mus. ms. 38276, this edition takes in
of the manuscript and early printed sources considered
the Bä edition.79 The volume provides extensive not
on each source and also gives alternate readings of th
which are explained below. Except for reinforcing ce
readings, the musical text of BH does not require e
arising from the newly available manuscripts mentioned
Tables 3 and 4 show, respectively, the possible source

readings of the fantasy and the fugue that appear in the f
just considered. All variant readings in the editions
due to editorial decisions regarding which sources w
most reliable. Although in nearly all instances these
elucidated in Tables 3 and 4, several deserve conside
Where appropriate, the writers suggested performa
identified by placement of a large dot ( • ) to the left o
in a table (see Table 3, measure 44, BG/WS) or to the lef
of the given example (see, for instance, Example 1 , wh
believes Example la is the preferred reading based on an
of the original sources). The following pitch designat
с с1 с2 с3, with middle С represented by с1 and the l
manual and pedal by C.
79Lohmann (BH) also mentions the lost Hauser manuscript of the

2 of the present study).

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
54 Bach
с
.2
te
V
W)
W)
_ D
P _ сл
T3
u Он Он W ^
^ T3 T3 ^ Q ^
и11
и 11:tf*-> ^ -r-í
*-> ü ^ w (D 2
a
! ") *§1"g
«wíS
= -S
S fS8.1«S!
vo
0) ^
О -о
О О ^ С <L>
'S
w w ч»^
TS ч»^4>
Tg 4>
Qu J4 fi
<ü <L> itIw U Cd л
Qu fi
--JÖ S
'а TS IIL о «>■ •► .52
'S ! P .2 i. Š i .а
s ! ! E» § -g -lil .а
2
<H
3
4-1
w
с
cť g
>s
ft¡
Dû
£ £
1)
Ич
QJ
< 'a -а .с .с -д .с
-g
О о
PQ
о £ и <л 2
С С сЗ ¿3 ed fi я
Uh
О
in СП * Ih L
С 1Л * jP сЗ . О
.2 CQ^ - О в . ев *3
.sQ|e-5^ - О в ев *3 .S
tí 2<žg «
-d
13 «J S Õ ^ oo ü § сэ
13 С -§b>§¿gbí| «J Õ oo ü сэ ïg
§¿gbí| I ïg
JU
"u
С/Э
.s ü D H 0) D .S 'p4
с/э
Öß w О О О"1 О J~_ *" О -V I
ûcc w "S с с -à ^ ^
С
X
<L>
<D
fH U
** ^^* *
2-s 2-s ** * Wfrs
Í
■u>
С
.2 * ^ W <N W <L>
^4 * > <L> * ^ vS frs I
'С
?
cö •« s w S 7 â ï 8
•§ w - *4 in »1 8 2 40 ^ ~
jy 5 2 7 " 771" 7 e- <u s-
о I O ^ Tj-TtíDOv Ш <N (S
_) ON ,-н _н _ (NrJ- Tf
Č

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
С
ел
cd
CD
cd
I
13
о ^
OQ cu
С С /-N
XX
Й 8 S3О
О »
О «и
РЭ Он
.s .S
si 'i ¿
£
В
««Isa
с/3с/3 oo s
ig /-s oo
-g
g
я
§ S
o°
*
с
^
~
X
«Он
?
о
^ g
=2 -м § о rA
t S =2 -м §■ ¿
a >
•
e §
в
i
с
P а
О ^
©
Й
I
0 ^ Ö
~
о g ° S -| о | S
■il £ 3 5 -S -s li
Л S -s -g .s g 5 -S -я -g li If
G.s-g-g û" ť|lí -я i & 9 a
8^й й
ь 5 ää .S
5 JB
S .. û"
8 a-&£P
Ě -2
. 8S -S 9 -S
. о 8 & oo
I a
8 o5 s a* ü S il и -ç ^ -5 ° o«
-Ä' 8 o5 S s a* « ^ ü 1 S fi il и -ç ì -5 s ° £ o«
-y»- ÛÎ « « w й -i Ü -Sž с s
¿¡ - -^TPhOSOh ' -y»- ÛÎ « _rr- w S -i Б ? ÍX Ü -Sž >> •§ с
e >> •.§ ín
T3
<L>
d
I я
.S I!Iя1
С
О
U
cö
•= = „ ! fi;
О rn „ CO M .Й Ft
<L>
•С ^ CO < H Я-»
3 s ^ * * *
Č
.з ^ ? • î

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
56 Bach
Fantasy
As seen in Example la, in measure 14 BG and WS print a tie from

the left-hand eighth note on tenor g to a tenor g in measure 1 5 and
also a tie across the bar line from el] to e '' . The tenor g in measure 1 5
as also the two ties were apparently taken from the Marx edition, for
they do not occur in any extant manuscript except the later-known
N. Mus. ms. 10788/H (see Examples lb and la, respectively). Not
included in the three other editions under consideration (see Example
lc), the tenor g in measure 1 5 and its tie from the preceding bar may
have been omitted accidentally from an early manuscript (perhaps
source C) common to Griepenkerl's primary source (D) as well as
to all extant manuscripts of the fantasy except N. Mus. ms. 10788/
II.80
Example 1. J. S. Bach, Fantasy in G Minor, BWV 542/1, mm. 14-15, left

hand.
• a. BGAVS (after Marx; in

N. Mus. ms. 10788/H)*
Mus. "ffi ms. 10788/H)*

b. Source H MSS and
P 288/IX (no tie in
the latter source)
c. Pe (after source D?), Bä,

and BH к F- i
' iTt" к F- i
* Revised reading suggested in Pe/Keller
80It is possible, of course, that the copyist of N. Mus. ms. 10788/H borrowed from
the Marx edition. As mentioned earlier, however, notational evidence suggests that
this manuscript was derived from an earlier, unprinted source.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
In measure 1 5 of the fantasy, both Bä and BH print an edi

whereas Pe (editorial beginning with the 1900 engraving
(after Marx), and the alternate printing in BH have d2 (see
2a and 2b, respectively). The reading in Bä and BH (Exa
appears in N. Mus. Ms. 10788/H, however (though this la
was unavailable to editors of the two volumes). Differen
are transmitted by the extant manuscripts that stem from
P 288/IX (from source G) has etj2 (Example 2c), and ma
Example 2. J. S. Bach, Fantasy in G Minor, BWV 542/1, m. 15

Concerning trills for the two dotted sixteenth notes, see table 1 .
• a. Bä and BH (both editorial; Is

in N. Mus. ms. 10788/И) 1. -
b. Pe (1900?), BG/WS (after .

Marx), and BH alt. I--- - -=-
;'ì
c. Pre- 1900 (?) Ре (via source D)** i
and P 288/IX (via source G) ii
d. Manuscripts derived from No, ^

source H
;■]
* Bä: editorial to parallel th
** The original (1845) and
of Pe have '' e2. The pitch m
as late as 1900 (see Exampl

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
58 Bach
derived from sour

original (1845) print
source D, has e '' 2 (
this point source С
the staff space for
Based on the readin
appeared in Bach's
(470), F would refl
measure 44.
The five editions

soprano note in be
manuscript sources
(source D) - have c
By contrast, BG/W
editorial a '' 2 (Exam
the change in his
mistakenly written
(to treble G clef?).
however, nor any
the latter clef at t
that the c3 is follow
manuscript may h
Example 3b). Quite
seventh notes in E
what Bach had int
time - in which ac
marked note and its
a natural sign for t
have required a sh
81While this alteration

issued sometime betwee
As indicated earlier, the
c. 1866 (see Kilian, 26
82BG 15, XXVIII: "Der
sel enstanden zu sein."
83Of the extant manusc
clef - and then only for

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
have written a( t| )2 and fjt2 for the two pitches in que

be noted that in Bä the natural for a2 four notes earlier
and is based on the editorial a fc| 2 shown in Example 3c
Example 3. J. S. Bach, Fantasy in G Minor, BWV 542/1, m

staff.
a. Pe and MSS derived T

from sources F & H J
,i tířacmr sources
b. P 288/IX I I
J л ГУ r»f r f'igE
• c. BG/WS (after Marx),

Bä, & BH i
*** I
j J' fT ГВг r"r f fi

* Sixth note altered to all 2 in Pe/Keller, as in Example 3c.
** ff understood in Pe
*** Ed. t| in Bä after ed. t| four notes later; ed. suggested
in BH
Another problematic note in the fantasy occurs in measure 44.

As indicated in Table 3, Pe has с '' 1, whereas the four other editions
have eft l. The Pe reading appears in P 288/IX, with all other extant
manuscripts - including N. Mus. ms. 10788/H - carrying с#1. It is
therefore possible that a sharp sign was poorly written in source C,
with the copyist of source D choosing с 1 and the scribe of source
E transmitting the notational confusion to the copyists of sources
G M1) and H (с#1). From information presently available, it is
therefore plausible that c# 1 was the pitch Bach intended.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
60 Bach
One other problem

measure, where all
in Table 3, all ext
sign, which produc
(1845) Peters prin
b t) 1, it is likely t
either P 288/IX or
Performers, of co
major or minor c
minor configuratio
Fugue
Table 4 lists more than thirty variant readings of the fugue that appear
in the editions under consideration. Four of these (in measures
33 [Example 4], 51 [Example 5a], 55-57 [Example 6d], and 64
[Example 7a]) show differences that can be traced back only to the
F-minor tradition (X) and P 803/XII. Two variant readings (measure
50 [Example 5b], left-hand part, and measure 100 [Example 8]) are
unique to Ms. 4/II, Hahn 1/1, H s. 32/43 lb, and (editorially?) Poel.
mus. MS 21. Additionally, four readings (measures 58 [Example
9b], 60 [Example 10b], 86 [Table 4], and 87-88 [Example lib]) are
unique to P 598 and its copies as also to N. Mus. ms. 10788/1 (see
the BG/WS and BH alternate readings in the cited examples as well
as Table 5 presented later in this study). The P 598 notes in the upper
part of measures 87-88, considered suspect by more recent editors,
appear also in the separately derived and more recently available
manuscript N. Mus. ms. 10788/1. These notes are musically logical
84For an informative discussion of the major/minor conclusion of the fantasy, see

Hans Müsch, "Dur- oder Mollterz? Zum Schlußakkord der Fantasia g-Moll BWV
542 von J. S. Bach," Ars organi 30, no. 3 (1982): 160-61. Müsch discusses the ap-
parent reasoning that led to the printing of a major {Dur) or minor (Molt) chord
in all prints of Pe as well as in BG and Bä. He also refers to Bach's use of major or
minor concluding chords in minor-mode preludes of Das Wohltempierte Clavier and
briefly discusses the Picardy Third as viewed by Pietro Aron (с. 1480-1545) and
later writers. Müschs English-language conclusion written for RILM (1982-05705-
ap) is that "the version [of the fantasy] with the [concluding] major third is the more
likely in light of the practice of the era."

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
0
Он
(D
0)
сл
Я
CQЛ-(с_
(с_
1
<N
С
с й
'S » и
.й « <г>
~ X о
о I 00
3 > &Н
sci
PQ « -
<U
d <Р
bß
TÓ
d
Рн
QJ
*
со л
л «
« л
л
eu
-Ë Ç с
t-t- t
О «
О CQ Л
C/3
С
.о тэ
c¡Sj Ф S X <U •£■?

X ci- *„ « V S ■ ° 2.
-о =§ S" Ï v- < В i, ^ -g1 ■ ■* ê
<D.W * ^ a ' д cL О О 00 „
<и
I« = < a ^ д „ J ä
4-)
U
JU
1J
с/э
£ » L о « L .s -s £ " £ о- ~® ^ ä
.S .s < g < 1 1 2 g. -9 ^ А -s £
£ Я~ TS 4- ffl S"
сл
bß
с
^ <N
cS И W ^ m
W WСО
О СОl2
l2<D
X X
. «Л
. .
С! D (П <D X
*п ^ Ts S (П g s
^ î X s « ^ i ï ?
? *c X n «4 f ri 2. ^ ? * 2. 1
<и *c
§ В■g
Çh3ИВrn
2 ИнзSИri¿^-гди
rn f Cfч нз $ И Д
3 o^t Tf со чо г- см moo о
ь_) (N (N romeo Tf Tf LO LO LO
f3

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
62 Bach
îi pu £
v S -S -S
CQ "cd cd cd
"<3-
m
á
Wh
<D
«a /- N
Cd /- i - N i
^4- Pu Он
¿ti я с
_ сл ся
qQ cd cd cd
сл
S ^ ¡
£^ e
£ ^ §e § ~
~ C-. Z^ «
Z о « Л«(о
ß Tt H OO С
оо й> ^
V О ;rí .S
о Tt о ìrj H оо 2® ^
* w m г-~ ^ О ;rí
g £ ® 8 Ь > -i V I
t .g ft. ft. Re< -¿E
S3 L-» 6
4 ^ _ ».
s ° °ff 3- ax"
_ 3 I " - "
_ ^
CQ_co, ^"V
I SP
cd « cd
•S^í? _ «8
« - *¡0
=У ° Î5^lS|
S I - _ C
•з§ > ¿ Ó- "í м ^ ¿a
Р?5^ > & a- e^g "í
Й 8 S £ £ S * .s й s I I £ g ~
^ &ц Он _с .с «О ^ Г~% w ci, 1л Y .S и СЛ
""cd ~о ~W) ^ ^ о <=& СЛ S
-ö
<D in л г-
J О * "fr
.5 S J 40 X ^ s * -*
s 8 S « S 8 _ 8
и
о
I i ^ ^
* .Л ' СЛ /-~s ^ сл rsjS ^ rv] ^
.2
.2 <N§tj-
^ t-~
.Лö '»} СЛ
Ö - 1 I- П
' <4 /-~s
~ °« - u£-
- »} 4 ^
d)
30 0w¿ <N
w w 6 tj-
| w w w wt-~
| wö wWW w Ö w|w- 2Г
| 1 - w » <4 WW
3 O^-HC^ 1П 00 00 Os ON О '«tin oor- о
_1 Ш Ш in in in in m 4D чочо ЧО r- 00

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
с
сл
2 cd
Я <L>
"Й ^
p
p SE
s
"л w *2н
0) ^ О (D ^3
&Ч 0) ^ о PQ ^ CLh (D -с
с PQ #с .S с о
Pd <л сл сл '"О
PQ cd cd cd d
• 2н
ü 0> D
Он Рч CU -с
с С С О
:п3 сл сл ся ТЗ
PQ cd cd cd о)
<««i4У
S s ^ ^м Z
•- .s
Л1
S
fe z s <% •-
й s s a- S"è ^S"
~ Л1 2
«« ^ ^f-ю£ Рн
Рн <*>
T+c *
*
t;;:
Г-«- £
_. O ^
k .> §^ O ю
(N о «в Рн 3 (N
* о Г-«- .2 _. ^ k . ^ ^ 2 ^
* '- « о S > m cd • - л* ^
^СЛ
,;lk (X '-
w о«
'S ^SPC>
CU(X « 'S cd £ PC
о
PQ •
mi ~-£ ^ i
ei«& к -
e"fojm
ГX Iо 00
у **X
^ X^ (U
^ -
3í
2- ^2-
~ Cd ~
^ jo
5хь I ^ "К
^ l/~) СО с ň ^
^ и t eu I I
С 2 S 8 о^25 о2 ^
8 >.l/~)
^ сл с Л -
-г ** 2 СО 5 ^
Í*V «
^ Си ^<D
"le,
^ X<L>
S & <
«и <D X5 'Ö CU
^ • •
-Ö " I s
S R ¿
<L>
.5 <D
<U
^ <D
ин Лч fN
с
сл 00 ин i- t in Лч 3^ ^
M N 1-T.
х- У (S *• ^
о
ü S Л (S » Я
•дй§!__,
•д Л!__,
| ОООО
8 ~ НН
НН
НН
s-wNw
НН S ►-
НН
ОО ►-I 8 I(/5
I w
3w
(/5 НН
НН О i-
i- II «НН
wwjw
НН
jj U w I О m Tf ЧО ЧО ON Tt
3
^ 40 tÔO O O OO^H
f3

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
64 Bach
<ц W о £ 0)
А
А - <>37
й -С Л< д
>37 X) ^
£ дс^
ю ^
s' ®Б а I i
f Ï -š
■S § a i i" *■
И £ > £
5^д 3ti £I1 -d
1
Œ -S ' t »- I S - i 1
«a a I I i § с I
*яЗ ^ Uh
I^ ^th
D
I м€
S ^g>~,
С
Bf 1-1
1-1 J*3 S U
*яЗ § ¿í 6 ^ °Uh
- § <Й 52 ® o ®
^ ^ .5 .E o m Ü S 3 = ™ 8>rC
•• ' - 1 .£ cd Kj .S 2i >2 ^>-L
^ >
-LС >J:и«S"
С 'S
-fiJ: «S" -fi
Он <D О ^ £ ,_- ^3 í^4 .ti S S 'ai *~> ■ -
«
^ Он
3 ^й
V<D
AwО 5^
^ у.^ИйК
« h тэ ^< £ ,_-
^ g ~ ^3
Л- í^4
л .ti « g S
ï S .S < с S с Он -g g .23 °- |
« ~~* i Ë ^ ^ f I 'S '* 5/5 J"* Ë
=3
'"T4
JT
^ 'S 5/5
« <;
T 12
л
=
(L> 0 О "O=3
.£< c I 3 šg
oo£gÖ 0 fc <2 ^ >
c >% Ä SS e ^ л
•2-s-s-î
§^§ ^
á ~u
g GGi- g &c
^ ^ с
§ >
* Í tl í »' Í
= 8 1
. e 8 tl
*С PС ^ *С Ä
4Q ^ С ел -i O С
3 I ^
И
И СCQ
Дл
O ^4Q
Дл IGhÔ<u¿s<
^2323 ГУ
ГУ&£Я £
S4 -i O
.с <<л
^<л
§ 3
S4 "H
"H
^SS й
й
§ » I 3 ° f! t8° g§ ■«
§ 1¿ § i e <:
-Ц e
§
§ cc «.S'Ч-'^Й-ё ^ 5^ S5 иcu
« 'S ® g з1Sо^ > S
J
J^ «=
«= 1 СЙ
^ иc^ c«ti й
Iв2
4 я||3
Ё Ã•«
s ^s
S .^
== "SŽ.SPte
a -Š £ S >> S S
V
< <£■
£■ ft,
g I ft,
£, £,
■§g О
■§ ¿
О I« a.
¿ -.
- » "ic^Sc-Sx«°5-& .S 03 .2 „
 •- б « « I
d
.s
"С g w v ггп О ад • • ■ • ^ ^ с
с
о
:c3
:c3
02
fi g33
IO
O S(|»(U
(U v ггп
hî * OJW)
*04
О 04 s(U
ад »-
s • <U
(U »-.OD
• S ■ti
<U • Î ^ u-
tiS*
= ^ «cd
с S*
cd
U
*
С 02 W03_cc33CDc«
e <¿í hî ■
сл +1, 'S .5 сл сл OJW) .5
- сл »2
(U
•S « 2 8 .(■<^Slrlg2SSsS£
« 'S 8 8 .s 8 S
« 2 .(■
I Я ^
►- 1
I ***
'- 1 +4-
* * -H-
++
* ++
*H-
-H-

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Example 4. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, m. 33,
Example 5. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, m. 50, b

m. 51, b. 2.
(1) a2 in Pe, WS, Bä, and BH (as in all MSS except P 288/V, Ms. 4/II and
those stemming from source R): g2 in BG (in Marx and the MSS just cited)
(2) Two sixteenth notes in Pe and Bä (alternate in BH; in all MSS except Ms.
4/II, Hahn 1/1, Hs. 3/43 lb, and Poel. mus. MS 21); one eighth note in BG/
WS and BH (in Marx and the MSS just cited)
(3) btl1 in Pe, Bä, and BH alt. (X-X* & P 803/XII); d2 in BG and Lo (Marx
and A^-A2-V except X-X* & P 803/XII); bb1 in WS (source unknown)

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
66 Bach
Example 6. J. S. Ba
voice.
Example 7. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, m. 64, beat 2, right

hand.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Example 8. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, m.
(1) All MSS except Poel. mus. MS 21 and those that stem f
(2) All MSS, including P 228/V (a. c., with Bb for the final n
mus. MS 21 and those derived from A^-A f
(3) Poel. mus. MS 21 and MSS that stem from A^-A^
(4) Poel. mus. MS 21 and MSS derived from A^-A^ except
Example 9. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, m.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
68 Bach
Example 10. J. S. B

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Example 1 1. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, mm

voice.
* XXXIV A 286 (from Af) is missing both of the half notes and ties as well
as the half note and tie in the previous measure. Perhaps the copyist of this
source had access to a manuscript that stemmed from the V tradition and was
unsure as to the "correct" reading of this passage.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
70 Bach
and not unlike som

possible that these
already revised se
should be made in
no Bach student (t
made without perm
great fugue. Of sp
composer evident
The first stage of a
the first autograph
(Example 6c). The
through the compo
Some variant rea

measure 37 (1/2,2
sources have two
voice (see Table 4).
that stem from th
system break in Ba
the A2 and X trad
Bach must have acc
notes. This omissio
thus perpetuated in
Another easily expl
readings in BG/W
those printed reg
reflect changes Ba
alterations that we
sources A2 and X. I
a similar emendat
however, in P 598
A2b or V (see Tabl
N. Mus. ms. 10788
the pattern shown

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Example 12. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 54

beats 3-4, top voice.
Over against such easy explanations of variant readings

problematic passages such as those in measures 36-37,
71, 87-88, 106, and 115. As seen in Example 13a, B
BH present a reading of measures 36-37 that is transmi
extant manuscripts. The transposition manuscript (X) mus
have carried two alterations (Example 13b), which are r
P 320 and P 557. These two revisions as well as an additional one
(Example 13c) appear not only in manuscripts presumably derived
from C. P. E. Bachs manuscript but also in P 803/XII.
Measures 60 and 61 carry three different readings. The first

(Example 10a) stems from all A1 sources and appears in the original
(1845) Peters edition as well as in BH (and Marx). Bach's second
autograph must have followed initially the reading of this passage,
which was passed on to the F-minor (X) tradition (see the direct fifth
in the left-hand part of measure 60, beat 1 [Examples 10a and 10c],
as well as the equivalent place in measure 58). The transposition
manuscript (X) was likely the source for the "new" readings in the
left-hand part, measure 60, beats 3 and 4, as well as the two sixteenth
notes in both hands at the beginning of measure 61 (Example 10c);
these notes were probably entered from source X (via Xa or CPEB
MS) into source W and thence into P 803/XII, but not into the A2b
tradition. Additional alterations to the second autograph tradition,

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
72 Bach
as seen in derivative
sources X and W h
eighth notes in Exa
measure 60, beat 1; b
the fugue). The pre

A2b versions (see Ex
as well to measure
Example 13. J. S. Ba
voice.
Problematic readings are also found in measures 68-71. Pe, Bä,

and BH print notes that appear in almost all extant manuscripts
(see Example 14a). BG, however, uses readings from P 598 and its
derivative sources (see Example 14b; these readings also appear in
N. Mus. ms. 10788/1, all likely via errors in source V). The writer
suggests a slight blending of these two readings (Example 14c).

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Example 14. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, m

staff.
* Quarter rest in P 288/V (a. c.) and Ms. 4/11.

** WS incorporates the small, bracketed notes of BG - which appear as rests in P 598
and N.Mus ms. 10788/I-as regular notes.
$ See Table 4 for the complete reading of this chord in P 598 and N. Mus. ms.
10788/1.
$$ No flat in N. Mus. ms. 10788/1.
Example 15. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, m. 106, beats 1-3,
middle voice.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
74 Bach
Another passage th
1-3 of measure 106
editorial reading, on
measures 75 (right
notes the same read
Oley's manuscript
determined.
The fourth beat of measure 106 carries a number of different

readings. Pe, BG/WS, and BH print an eighth note f#1 in the alto
(see Examples 16a and 16b), a reading transmitted only in the highly
editorialized manuscript P 204 and its copies (note that Example
16b shows the alto eighth on fff 1 preceded by an eighth note on d,
whereas Example 16a does not). Bä, on the other hand, omits the alto
note (Example 16c), for it does not appear in the original readings
of the other primary manuscripts (Examples I6d-I6g). Indeed, the
note must have been missing in Bach's first autograph (А{)> a lacuna
carried over into the second one (A2). The consistent three-voice
writing of measures 103-109, however, especially as seen in measure
106 with its careful use of rests in beats 1-3, seems to require the
continuation of a third voice. Either the eighth note transmitted by
the editorial source P 204 (as also by post-copying emendations to
P 287/VIII and P 288/V) or the three sixteenth notes added later to
P 1 1 00 (Example 1 6h) would seem to be an acceptable "editorial"
insertion.
Example 16. J. S. Bach, Fugue in G Minor, BWV 542/2, mm. 106-07.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
76 Bach
* The following sligh

beat 4, should be no
beginning the beat is
IX the final three 16
10787 the tenor d six
note), and the alto ei
this in addition to th
10788/1 the last four

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Finally, the cited editions print two different config

the fugues final chord (see Table 4, measure 115). E
readings in the extant manuscripts makes evident that
autograph (A and its revisions) as well as the initial
transposition manuscript (X) had undotted quarter no
in Bä, BH, and the original (1845) Peters edition. The
are dotted, however, in the A2a-V and Xa (or CPEB
as printed in BG/WS and post- 1845 Peters issues. I
probable that undotted quarter notes were carried over
A2 and thence into the transposition manuscript (X), wi
added subsequently to the second autograph (A2a) a
F-minor tradition (Xa or CPEB MS). Concerning the
concluding chord, a b '' 1 occurs only in manuscripts th
source N (Hahn 1/1 and Hs. 32/43 lb) and in those th
and Xa readings. As for a fermata (printed in all cited e
present in all manuscript traditions but not in all extan
Unique Manuscript Readings of the Fugue
The final consideration of the present study concerns unique

readings of the fugue that appear in manuscripts stemming either from
Bach's first-revised second autograph (A2a) or from the transposition
manuscript (X).85 As indicated in Table 5, P 598 and its copies as well
as N. Mus. ms. 10788/1 transmit ten unique readings, some of which
do not appear in the cited editions. Five of these (in measures 44,
54, 68-69, 70-71, and 113 [11,1]) may be due to copying or other
errors in source V. The five remaining ones (one each in measures
58 and 60 and three in measures 86-88) are problematic. Do any
of these five readings as well as any of the other P 598 and N. Mus.
ms. 10788/1 readings listed in Table 5 reflect in any way Bachs late
thoughts regarding the fugue? As suggested earlier, Agricola, copyist of
P 598, and the scribe for source Y (the likely Vorlage for N. Mus. ms.
10788/1) may have prepared their manuscripts from a partially faulty
"Bach house" copy (source V), for the awkward rests in measures
85Although a number of unique readings occur in sources that descend from Bach's
first autograph (A}), they will not be considered here since the composer evidently
superseded them.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
78 Bach
.s ^ к К
m "p m
g г- i p 1 g
* -g a. S
•>«j «j «
£P >» о S, £P ° >» S:
> *SL m с
^ С *SL m (U .2 P
8 X -i 8 « _ .f >
S .s •> « .s 7 _ 5^ 8
S
таs ss PÉ£¿
^ P 7.äç5 " 3
« " о
та Igojsxgfac P ^ P .ä « e о
^^G^<D№>Xi J G S.E
^ "Î3 _ , -in.
^ g Miel G <D g Xi J ^ "Î3 »3 _ tz , - J . 1

s о g Sr! &ъ J W f-
s£ Wh£™^ ™
.sWh
од o iW)
^Сs Сoi :Q
д PЭ
g Q ИQ
Sr! И
W)...^ Q..Шô ÎPttn
- .J
P ^ &ъ W
I - .Ji i II
-«♦ g Wh
UU o
£ ^ LL
s С ë oW)
s Q oo oo
-I W) ООQ а'с" ...""» ^1
"» .. ^ лл HtÎ II- .JЯЯ i
-» »2 o ,g LL -s ь & 'с а ...
.s '"" "i ,g I J I 1 ... :
1ml
(2 ml(J i »Г 3 írt
И II ffrt S м- i
- ,ffrt
и. Tmi S м- 8 -
 ,r¡ oo X oo ^ r=¡
J3
4-<
t/j ✓ - ч Онсл®4 .2 сл^сл сл
67^6^ ^ s s è
Uh
О
S¿g S g S S g S э
C/5
60
a
2 о 2 S S s 2
z - s z s -| Z и z z
нн 13 Л ^ т) Рн т ТЗ &Н "d ТЗ
a 3 ^ 13 sSy Л т) § y fe
ö moowaoo« « 00«. 00 00
*c
и Ü©OnXONX X asXON ON
<У5 з oo ir> 1^1 I m i uo m
елС^&чХОчХ X CLhXCLH ОН
S • •

^ H ^ ^ W HH, Г|- Os
H
3
OTj-Tt O ^t ЧО 00 Q' 00
i-l <N rf Tf in in m ЮШЧО ЧО

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Ч-<
0
<и
с/з
^ и,
*zì & ^ Ò
С 2 У Ü • 3
з J л м • 2
1 з 8 -ã I 1
о .E
*
O Oo
i -w
o Iaj
w .^ -
% I
"cu
Ç -С
-СOO
^ ^ > . а ^ с
сЗ У та ^ ^ сл G w
-S со cQ
& a> cQ т*
т*з з"§tí^ >Q-c^ ^ S Î *
S >Q-c^
^ с -ä 
- «-с
^ я .2
« с w« -äos ^.2«-s
« я г^сл <upQ
Ш
^л Р
¿ '>
О ^^ > ^ СР^1
V-, > ^ ^ ^ Pi ^
• iL ^
§■* л ¿ i: О g V-, ç s-
§. S ° !
о £ '*=1 > ^ ^ fc '5 тз
fc ç §
о £ '*=1 ^ > Д , ^ ^ £ ^ PLh '5 S &ß ^ § <D тз g
2P- -2-<&
a Д Й"Яiž5 -•£.S* -S.s-S J 00
о 00 I -X'
-êÖ
.S --D ^cit
^ л 3 о 3 сл Cu сл
"ч- о "Ф w w "â ~â "и тз 2tCо
с
ад ^
СЛ
• ^
00
^
ОО
^ ^
ОО ^ Ö
I 00
еЗЕй
3 ооооооЯЯоо Р-°
*> I Г- _ § r-ï
ГИ.^000^^ ой _ ~ с
>5г+-'С/5'~ч^^ОО -<03 сл ^
^ >5г+-'С/5'~ч^^ОО 2(Л
^fssESb^îeí
Я.
«is
»; И ^3
t а
00 W о С £
^ ^ S^5ÒO
"■> 5 S-Б
i4' . ,Г'
. . SV5vСS"^ССs "оС s <Ь о
«-.¡»S z . z . z . - £?§z v s -s -g
ЯЯО^ТЭ-ОТЗ^Й^-О" Я и
3XX~§§§§2Sa<gx & и с
и rnrni'SooooooDD OQcôcri ^ з
¡-¡OOCCoNON^tPpJwoO z с
Зоооо in ir¡ ir, ¡x cu un oc ca -
coÛhCu íX Cu Cu и U Он Cu f .У
• • ад Õ
с <;
r- чэ £
/-*s СчЗ rt>
g Tř fj Й «
^ ^ h 3 e
-a > ri -S" fi
tu
£ ~ 2 § s
Ï л
л^ <&
^ ^43 ^
sоSS
d
.S
t«
та co 43 с
с
с
о _ - ^ ^ co ^ (N <N ~
* _ ^ г: ^ <n с en ^ ^ - & да
U
in
§ С_г
•§ ^ KJ " JL
^ KJ ^ ÇN
ci м ^ Zr
« ÇN è 5Ü}Zr
>->
BBС >-> с
jy u ww ww°?r-r^ r^rî 0<
IB О - n ЧОЮГ-ОО -H - **
bJr^r- 00 00 00 - - - *
f2

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
80 Bach
68-71 (Example l
In Table 5 the pre
dot be considered
Of the remaining
in measures 113
Example 1 7, the t
readings of all e
however, in J. T.
one ledger line b
the top line of the
in question with
and c1).86 What h
on d1, the latter b
Peters edition) co
by Marx. The qu
originate with Bac
Example 17. J. S.
(basic reading in al
reading in P 803/X
86According to Rolan
liothek zu Berlin-Preu
notes in question [in
inserted later with a sl
inserting the ledger l

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
Figure 12. Mus. ms. Bach P 803/XII (J. S. Bach, Fugue in

542/2), p. 183 of the Konvolut P 803 and mm. 113-1
Reproduced with permission of the Staatsbibliothek zu Ber
Kulturbesitz, Musikabteilung mit Mendelssohn Archiv. J.
of the manuscript, originally wrote tenor b (= b b) for
identified by an arrow. Using a darker ink, a later hand in
line beneath each note.
Conclusion
The present study has considered thirty-four of the thirty-five

extant manuscripts of Johann Sebastian Bach's Fantasy and Fugue
in G Minor. Although none of Bach's autograph copies of the two
pieces survives, a systematic study of the thirty-four available source
has produced two stemmata that chart possible or likely relationships
among the seven fantasy copies and thirty-two fugue manuscripts
(five of which are associated with copies of the fantasy). BWV 542/1
is transmitted through one primary copying tradition - that from
source A, the composer's now-lost autograph. The fugue, on the other
hand, seems to be handed down from three primary manuscripts: 1)
an early one prepared by the composer (A^, which, according to
extant and presumed manuscripts, underwent at least seven revisions
(A^ through A^); 2) a newly prepared copy by the composer (A2)
which also was emended at least once (A2d), if not twice (A2¿); an
3) a third manuscript (X) that set the fugue in F minor and likely
underwent at least one revision ( Xa or CPEB MS). J. T. Krebs's
copy in P 803/XII, reflecting readings in both the first revision o
the second autograph (A2*) and the revised version of the F-minor
tradition (Xй), appears to hold plausible late readings of the fugue
While containing errors that probably appeared in source V (likel

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
82 Bach
a "Bach house" m
ms. 10788/1 may
therefore could tr
As for perform
original sources
compositional perio
two pieces, regist
ornamentation, an
and manual change
and thus no copi
approximate date o
signature (two flat
origin for the fan
preparation of all
that no manuscri
survives. Concerni
establish that the
indeed, by 1720 if
copied during Bac
versions of the wo
"variant" published
now-lost manuscri
under Bach durin
version in P 28 8/
from a manuscrip
under Bach in Ar
possibility of a pr
the use of "dorian
the piece. Peter W
may date from ar
Passacaglia could e
of the fugue.
How and when the fantasy and the fugue were paired cannot be
determined from the extant original sources. Only one eighteenth-
century manuscript in its original state (P 595/1, c. 1750-c. 1800)
places the two pieces side by side. Further, it is evident that the fugue

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
circulated widely without the fantasy, as suggested by

presumed existence of at least twelve copies of BW
were prepared before 1750. In fact, known or likel
by Bach pupils or associates (J. P. Kellner, J. T. K
Bach, J. С. Kittel, and J. F. Agricola) are devoid of
with the fantasy. Further, the two earliest publicatio
fantasy and the fugue (by Marx and by Coventry/Ho
pieces in separate volumes.87 Pe (1845) is the first e
the two works contiguously. It is possible that a traditi
the fantasy and the fugue developed in Berlin somet
second half of the eighteenth century, though such
not have gained wide-spread recognition until after 1
As for other performance-related matters, registratio

in the extant original sources are associated with only o
of the fantasy and the fugue (on the later-scribed title
IX, which reads "pro organo pieno") and two copies
(the respective title pages include the directive "pro
Note beamings and stemmings are inconsistent in th
in those closely related. Additionally, none of the extan
records the apparent suggestion of left- and right-hand
that appears in the opening measures of the fantasy pr
and WS. Ornamentation symbols present in both p
design and placement from manuscript to manuscri
also in N. Mus. ms. 10788/H) may reflect most closely t
placement of ornaments that appeared in Bach's copy of
No indications of articulation, fingering, pedaling, or m
are found in the hands of the original manuscript copy
Concerning the five editions considered in the prese

is evident that two - the Bärenreiter (Bä) and Breitkopf
printings - follow contemporary, scholarly editorial
are based on the direct examination of all extant o
known at the time of their publication in the 19
87It should be noted that the fugue may have been published sep
c. 1830 (see note 23).

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
84 Bach
availability of one
neither their schola
users of either of
editions under con
musical examples pr
readings. Bä, the m
offers printings o
a systematic study
relationships. Unfor
published critical c
BH printing, thou
German, convenien
have been explained
As for the other p

of particular intere
evidently had access
when Wilhelm Rust
first systematic at
of the two pieces
possibly the revised
revision (c. 1852-18
"corrected" version
the edition has incl
the present study
readily available to
so-called Widor-Sc
readings of BG.
One of J. S. Bach
Fantasy and Fugu
175 years in slight
performance ques
Through a brief e
88As mentioned earlier,

not been considered her

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
present study has endeavored to offer information that

organists reconcile the differing readings of five widel
of these two pieces. It is hoped that the study will also
musicians to, consider the original sources of any Ba
preparing it for performance.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
86 Bach
Abbreviations and Principal Sources Cited
a. c. ante correcturam (original reading - before correction by

someone other than the copyist)
a. r. ante revisionem (original reading - before revision by the

copyist)
Bä See NBA
BG Bach-Gesamtausgabe (Johann Sebastian Bachs

vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1851-99, 192
ed., Ann Arbor, MI: J. W. Edwards, 1947); vol.
(BWV 542/1) and 180-86 (BWV 542/2). The org
are available on CD-ROM and have been repr
Dover Publications, Lee Pocket Scores, and other
BH Lohmann, Heinz, ed. Johann Sebastian Bach

Orgelwerke. 10 vols. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Hä
79; vol. 3 (EB 6583), 140-43 (BWV 542/1) and
(BWV 542/2).
BWV Bach-Werke- Verzeichnis (see Schmieder)
GBK Göttinger Bach-Katalog (http://www.bach.gwdg.de/)
Griepenkerl
See Pe
KB See Kilian
Kilian Dietrich Kilian, Kritischer Bericht (Critical Commentar

NBA IV/5-6 (see NBA)
Marx Marx, Adolph Bernhard, ed. Johann Sebastian Bach's

wenig bekannte Orgelcompositionen .... 3 vols. Leip
Breitkopf & Härtel, [Л833]; vol. 1, 17-19 (BWV 542/
and vol. 3, 6-1 1 (BWV 542/2).

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
MS/MSS
Manuscript/Manuscripts
NBA Neue Bach-Ausgabe (Johann Sebastian Bach : Neue Ausgabe

Sämtliche Werke. Series IV - Organ Works, 8 vols, to date.
Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1958- ; vol. 5 ed. Dietrich Kilian
(available in either hardback [BA 5028] or soft back [BA
5175] binding), 167-71 (BWV 542/1) and 172-79 (BWV
542/2).
p. c. post correcturam (corrections to the original reading by

someone other than the copyist)
p. r. post revisionem (revisions by the copyist to the original

reading)
Pe Griepenkerl, Friedrich Conrad, and Roitzsch, Ferdinand,

eds. Johann Sebastian Bachs Compositionen Jur die Orgel. 8
vols. Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1844-1852 (vols. 1-4 revised
sometime between 1852 and 1866; all eight vols, issued
in 1866-1867 as part of C. F. Peters's Oeuvres complètes de
Jean Sebastien Bach)' reengraved in 1900, with later reprints
including those in 1950 by C. F. Peters of New York (with
comments by Karl Riemenschneider) and Frankfurt (with
revision suggestions by Hermann Keller - see Pe/Keller
below); 1881 (vol. 9 added; revised in 1904 by Max Seiffert
and in both 1940 and 1950 by Hermann Keller). Vol. 2 (EP
241), 20-22 (BWV 542/1) and 23-28 (BWV 542/2).
Pe/Keller
Griepenkerl, Friedrich Conrad, and Roitzsch, Ferdinand,

eds. Johann Sebastian Bachs Kompositionen Jur die Orgel. 9
vols. Rev. Hermann Heller. Frankfurt: C. F. Peters, 1950.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC
88 Bach
Schmieder
Schiemeder, Wolfgang, comp. Thematisch-systematisches
Verzeichnis der musicalischen Werke von Johann Sebastian
Bach. Revised ed. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1990;
updated in reduced form by Alfred Dürr and Yoshitake
Kobayashi as Thematisch-systematisches Verzeichnis . . Klein
Ausgabe. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1998.
Stauffer
Stauffer, George. The Organ Preludes of Johann Sebastian

Bach. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1980; paperback
ed., 1984.
Stinsonl
Stinson, Russell. The Bach Manuscripts of Johann Peter

Kellner and His Circle. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,
1989.
Stinson2
Stinson, Russell. "Toward a Chronology of Bach's

Instrumental Music: Observations on Three Keyboard
Works." Journal of Musico logy 74 (Fall 1989): 440-70.
Williams 1
Williams, Peter. The Organ Music of J. S. Bach. 3 vols.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980-84.
Williams2
Williams, Peter. The Organ Music of J. S. Bach. 2d ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
WS Widor, Charles-Marie, and Schweitzer, Albert, eds. Johann

Sebastian Bach : Complete Organ Works. 8 vols. New York: G.
Schirmer, 1912-13 (vols. 1-5; reprinted 1940-41) and 1954-
67 (vols. 6-8, ed. Edouard Nies-Berger and Albert Schweitzer);
vol. 4, 40-44 (BWV 542/1) and 45-53 (BWV 542/2).
Wolff Wolff, Christoph. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned

Musician. New York: W. W. Norton, 2000.

82.49.44.75 on Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC

This Content Downloaded From 82.49.44.75 On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Content Downloaded From 82.49.44.75 On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:28:28 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J. S.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41640575

This content downloaded from

tions for performance, organists have often compared the

This content downloaded from

The present study considers thirty-four of the thirty-five extant

This content downloaded from

four sources include both the fantasy and the fugu

3) a manuscript in the collection of Franz Hauser, whose t

Concerning notational characteristics of the sources, all fa

This content downloaded from

as one for the f

4The most importan

source was not copied directly from D В AmB 531 (

slightly earlier (see later in this study). The reading in P 288/IX

This content downloaded from

Figure 1. Stemmata for the manuscripts of J. S. Bach's Fan

A solid line denotes primary line of transmission: a broken line, secon

This content downloaded from

gue in G Minor, BWV 542/1 and BWV 542/2.

trad.?) ¡ [*0] /ìli

îdary line of transmission, including possible borrowings».

This content downloaded from

AmB 531 and P

This content downloaded from

Figure 2. AmB 531, fol. 3v (J. S. Bach, Fantasy in G Mi

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

they were originally separated by several leaves - p

P 595/1, prepared by an unknown scribe som

Three other manuscripts hold readings of the f

"Kirchhof I Fantasien für die Orgel." It is quite possible that the

9The writer has been unable to locate more recent information a

This content downloaded from

10The title page of

This content downloaded from

Figure 4. Mus. ms. Bach P 288/IX, fol. lv (J. S. Bach, Fa

This content downloaded from

but also numbered th

This content downloaded from

later, N. Mus. ms. 10788/H transmits one readin

Concerning the other, now-lost manuscripts of

As for the thirty-two extant manuscripts that cont

Bach's earliest manuscript of the fugue, perhaps

18The probable existence of source В is suggested by differing re

This content downloaded from

This source presu

This content downloaded from

The fugue copy in Ms. 4/II was probably written some

The four other fugue copies that transmit essentially th

manuscripts from exemplars prepared by Johann Caspar Vogler (169

This content downloaded from

23Hahn 1/1 was acquired by the Johann-Sebastian-Bach-Institut in Göttingen

This content downloaded from

<u <L> bJD

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

where he may have s

This content downloaded from

Manuscript R appears to have been the source f

Additional revisions to Bach's first autograph ar

tered elsewhere only in P 598 and its copies as well as in N. Mu