Book 2067: the Choral Preludes on pp. 39 (Auf meinen lichen Gott),

40 (Wir glauben all’ an einen Gott), 42 (Jesu Leiden, Pein und Tod), 44 (Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein), 54 (Aus der Tiefe ruf ich), 56 (Christ lag in Todesbanden), and the “Kleines harmonisches Labyrinth” on p. 16.

APPENDIX VI. GENEALOGY OF THE FAMILY OF BACH

[Genealogy Table, p. 303] [Genealogy Table, p. 304] [Genealogy Table, p. 305] [Genealogy Table, p. 306] [Genealogy Table, p. 307] [Genealogy Table, p. 308] [Genealogy Table, p. 309] [Genealogy Table, p. 310]

FOOTNOTES

1 “Seiner Excellenz dem Freyheren van Swieten ehrerbietigst gewidmet von dem Verfasser.”

2 So far the New Bachgesellschaft has published only a single Cantata overlooked by the old Society. See infra, p. 280.

3 In _The News_ of January 4, 1829, he is described as the second son of the late John Stephenson of Great Ormonde Street, Queen Square, whom he had succeeded in the partnership of the firm. His wife was dead, and of his eight children the eldest was also in the Bank.

4 Carl Philipp Emmanuel Bach, third son of Johann Sebastian Bach, b. 1714; Kammermusikus to Frederick the Great of Prussia (1746), Kapellmeister at Hamburg (1768); d. 1788.

5 Johann Friedrich Agricola, of Dobitsch, b. 1720; studied composition with Bach at Leipzig; Court Composer (1751) and, after Carl Heinrich Graun’s death (1759), Kapellmeister to Frederick the Great of Prussia; d. 1774. See Spitta, _Johann Sebastian Bach,_ iii. 243 ff.

6 Lorenz Christoph Mizler (1711-78), a pupil of Bach, founded at Leipzig in 1738 the “Sozietat der musikalischen Wissenschaften,” of which Bach and Handel were members. Mizler’s journal, the _Neueröffneter Musikalischer Bibliothek,_ was its organ. It appeared from 1736 to 1754. In Part I. of vol. iv. (1754) C. P. E. Bach and Agricola collaborated in the obituary notice, or “Nekrolog,” which is almost the earliest literary authority for Bach’s life. It covered less than twenty pages. (See Schweitzer, _J. S. Bach_ (trans. Ernest Newman), i. 189 ff. and Spitta, i. Pref.) Agricola’s association with Bach’s son in the preparation of the obituary notice is explained by the fact that for the last ten years of Sebastian’s life Agricola was in closer relations with him than Carl Philipp Emmanuel, who no longer was resident in Leipzig.

7 Forkel’s _Allgemeine Geschichte der Musik_ (2 vols. 1788-1801) had only come down to the sixteenth century when its author diverted his pen to a biography of Bach.

8 The firm of Hoffmeister and Kühnel was founded at Leipzig in 1800 by Franz Anton Hoffmeister, who started, in 1801, a subscription for the publication of Bach’s works, to which Forkel alludes. The scheme failed to mature, and its accomplishment was reserved to C. F. Peters, who purchased Hoffmeister’s “Bureau de Musique” in 1814. See articles on Hoffmeister and Peters in Grove’s _Dictionary._

9 Though Bach never ventured upon such tours as Mozart or Berlioz, for instance, undertook, he loved travelling, and his artistic journeys made him famous throughout Germany, at least as an organist. Forkel himself describes (infra, pp. 19, 23) his notable visits to the Courts of Berlin and Dresden.

10 In 1802, it must be remembered, not a note of Bach’s concerted Church music was in print except the tunes he wrote for Schemelli’s Hymn-book (1736) and the vocal parts of an early Cantata (No. 71). Of his instrumental works engraved by 1802 Forkel gives a list infra, p. 137. It was hardly until the foundation of the Bachgesellschaft in 1850, to celebrate the centenary of Bach’s death, that the systematic publication of his concerted Church music began. Before that date, however, Peters of Leipzig had taken in hand the abandoned scheme of Hoffmeister and Kühnel, to which Forkel alludes, and in which he participated.

11 It is notable that Forkel makes no mention of Haydn, Mozart, or Handel, whose English domicile had divorced him from Germany’s service. Forkel’s pessimism is the more curious, seeing that Beethoven was already thirty years old, and that Mozart in 1786, after giving him a subject to extemporise upon, had remarked, “Listen to that young man; he will some day make a noise in the world” (Holmes, _Life of Mozart,_ Dent’s ed., p. 223). Forkel, in fact, appreciated neither Mozart nor Beethoven and thoroughly detested Gluck.

12 As has been pointed out in the Introduction, Forkel stood almost alone in 1802 in his opinion of Bach’s pre-eminence. Even Beethoven placed Bach after Handel and Mozart, but knew little of his music on which to found a decision.

13 The anonymous article in the _Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek,_ to which Forkel alludes, deals with Bach’s Clavier and Organ works and upon them asserts Bach’s superiority over Handel. The judgment was unusual. Bach’s fame was gravely prejudiced by German Handel-worship, which the first performance of the _Messiah_ at Leipzig in 1786 stimulated. Johann Adam Hiller, Bach’s third successor in the Cantorate of St. Thomas’, was largely responsible. He neglected, and even belittled, the treasures of Bach’s art which the library of St. Thomas’ contained. See Schweitzer, i. 231.

14 The _Nekrolog._ See supra, p. xxiv.

15 Carl Philipp Emmanuel and Wilhelm Friedemann. The latter was born in 1710, and after holding Organistships at Halle and Dresden, died at Berlin in 1784, leaving his widow and daughter in great poverty. The former received a grant from the receipts of the _Messiah_ performance alluded to in note 1, supra. A man of brilliant musical attainments, Wilhelm Friedemann’s character was dissolute and unsteady. See Schweitzer, i. 146 ff.

16 Two letters written by C. P. E. Bach to Forkel in 1775, conveying a good deal of information reproduced by Forkel in this monograph, are printed in facsimile by Dr. Max Schneider in his _Bach-Urkunden_ (N.B.G., XVII. (3)).

17 Forkel’s statement is entitled to respect. On the other hand there is nothing in the recorded careers of either of Bach’s sons that bears him out on this point. Schweitzer (i. 229) endorses Elinor’s judgment: “Bach’s sons were the children of their epoch, and never understood their father; it was only from piety that they looked at him with childlike admiration.” Dr. Charles Burney spent several days with Carl Philipp Emmanuel at Hamburg in 1772, but during the whole time the son never played to him a note of his father’s music.

18 i.e. Hoffmeister and Kühnel’s project.

19 The accuracy of this statement is apparent from the Genealogy appended to this volume. Bach’s sons represented the sixth generation from Veit Bach, the sixteenth century ancestor of the family. Veit himself was not a professional musician; one of his sons was a Spielmann; thereafter for the next 150 years all but seven of his descendants, whose professions are known, were Organists or Cantors or Town Musicians. Many of them, moreover, were men of the highest attainments in their profession.

20 He took his name from St. Vitus (Guy), patron saint of the church of Wechmar, a fact which sufficiently disproves Forkel’s statement that his original domicile was in Hungary. The Bachs were settled in Wechmar as early as circ. 1520. Veit migrated thence to Hungary, though there is no adequate foundation for the statement that he settled at Pressburg. He returned to Wechmar during the beginning of the Counter-Reformation under the Emperor Rudolph II. (1576- 1612), and died at Wechmar, March 8, 1619. See Spitta, i. 4.

Apart from church and town registers, laboriously consulted by Spitta in tracing the Bach genealogy, we owe our knowledge of it to an MS. drawn up by Bach in 1735 which is now in the Berlin Royal Library after being successively in the possession of Carl Philipp Emmanuel, Forkel, and G. Pölchau, the Hamburg teacher of music.

The original entries in it are stated by Carl P. Emmanuel to be by his father. Forkel also owned a Bach genealogical tree, given him by Carl Philipp Emmanuel; it has disappeared. Traces of it exist in a work published at Pressburg by Johann Matthias Korabinsky in 1784, its insertion being due to the assumption that the Bachs were a Hungarian family. Forkel shared that error. See Spitta’s Preface on the whole question. The MS. genealogy of 1735 is published by the New Bachgesellschaft (XVIII. 3) in facsimile.

21 Veit, in fact, returned to his native village. His name, as has been pointed out, implies a connection with Wechmar that must have dated from infancy. Moreover, there was living there in 1561 one Hans Bach, an official of the municipality, who may be regarded confidently as Veit’s father.

22 It has been suggested that the name Bach is the sole authority for the statement that Veit was a baker. But Spitta points out that the vowel in the name is pronounced long and was frequently written BAACH in the seventeenth century, a fact which makes it difficult to associate the word with “Backer” (Baker).

23 In the Genealogy Johann Sebastian calls the instrument a Cythringen.

24 Hans Bach (d. Dec. 26, 1626) and (?) Lips Bach (d. Oct. 10, 1620). See infra, Genealogical Tables I. and II. and note to the latter.

25 The “Stadt Pfeiferei,” or official town musical establishment, descended from the musicians’ guilds of the Middle Ages and was presided over by the Stadt Musiker, who enjoyed certain ancient privileges and the monopoly of providing the music at open-air festivities. Johann Jakob Brahms, the father of Johannes, was a member of such a corporation at Hamburg, after having served his apprenticeship for five years elsewhere. See Florence May, _Johannes Brahms,_ vol. i. pp. 48 ff.

26 See Genealogical Table II. The three young Bachs were the sons of Lips Bach and, presumably, nephews of Hans the “Spielmann.” The youngest of them was named Jonas; the name of another was certainly Wendel. It is remarkable, in a period in which Italy was regarded as the Mecca of musicians, that exceedingly few of the Bach family found their way thither. Besides the three sons of Lips Bach, only Johann Nikolaus, 1669-1753 (see Table VI.), Johann Sebastian Bach’s son Johann Christian, 1735-82 (see Table VIII.), and Carl P. E. Bach’s son Sebastian (see Table VII.) seem to have visited Italy.

27 i.e. from Veit Bach. Of the three names Forkel mentions the first two were a generation before Johann Sebastian; the third, Johann Bombard, was of the same generation as Johann Sebastian; none of the three belonged to Johann Sebastian’s branch.

28 Eldest son of Heinrich Bach (see Table VI.). Whether he was Court as well as Town Organist at Eisenach cannot be stated positively.

29 The _Alt-Bachische Archive_ is a collection of the compositions of various members of the family, before and after Johann Sebastian, formed largely by the latter. From C. P. E. Bach it passed to G. Pölchau and from him to the Berlin Royal Library.

30 Johann Christoph composed several Motets (see them discussed in Spitta, i. 75 ff.). The daring work to which Forkel alludes was written about 1680 and is lost. Though the augmented sixth was then and remained unusual, Johann Christoph’s is not the earliest use of it. Spitta finds it in Giacomo Carissimi (1604-74).

31 The Cantata (“And there was war in heaven”) is analysed by Spitta (i. 44). The score is unusually full: two five-part choirs; Vn. 1 and 2, 4 Violas, Contrabasso, Fagotto, 4 Trombe, Timpani, Organ. In 1726 Johann Sebastian Bach wrote a Cantata for Michaelmas on the same text (Rev. xii. 7).

32 Spitta (i. 101 n.) characterises the statement as “a mythical exaggeration.” In a chapter devoted to the instrumental works of Johann Christoph and his brother he instances a collection of forty-four Organ Chorals by the former, not one of which is in five parts.

33 In the Bach genealogy already referred to C. P. E. Bach designates Johann Christoph a “great and impressive composer.”

34 A _Lamento_ published under Johann Christoph’s name seems actually to have been composed by his father Heinrich (see Pirro, _J.-S. Bach,_ 9 n.). Johann Christoph, however, is the composer of the Motet _Ich lasse dich nicht,_ so often attributed to Johann Sebastian.

35 See Table VI. He was the father of Johann Sebastian’s first wife.

36 See note, p. 4 supra.

37 Spitta (i. 59 ff.) mentions twelve Motets by Michael Bach. Several of them are for eight voices. Forkel probably refers to the most remarkable of Michael’s Motets, in which he detects the romantic spirit of Johann Sebastian. It is set to the words _Unser Leben ist ein Schatten,_ (_Life on earth is but a shadow_). The first choir consists of 2 S., A., 2 T., B., and the second choir of A. T. B. only. Spitta analyses the work closely (i. 70-72). Novello publishes his five- part Motet _Christ is risen_ with an English text.

38 He succeeded his cousin Johann Christoph at Eisenach in 1703.

39 Spitta (i. 24 ff.) mentions four Suites, or Overtures, Clavier pieces, and Organ Chorals as being by him. That Johann Sebastian Bach highly esteemed the Suites is proved by the fact that he copied the parts of three of them with his own hand at Leipzig.

40 It is a curious fact that, prior to the career of Johann Sebastian Bach, the composers of the Bach family occur invariably in other branches than his. With two exceptions, the gift of composition appears to have been possessed, or exercised, solely by Heinrich Bach (see Table VI.), his two sons Johann Christoph and Johann Michael, already discussed, and his grandson, Johann Nikolaus (son of Johann Christoph). Heinrich Bach was a very productive composer in all forms of musical art employed at that time in church (Sp. i. 36). His grandson, Johann Nikolaus, composed a Mass and a comic operetta (ib., 132 ff.). The only other Bach composer known to Spitta is Georg Christoph, founder of the Franconian Bachs (see Table IV.) and Cantor at Themar and Schweinfurt (ib. 155). The other Bach composer outside Heinrich Bach’s branch is Johann Bornhard, already mentioned by Forkel.

41 In the Quodlibet different voices sang different well-known melodies, sacred and profane, and sought to combine them to form a harmonious whole. For an example see Variation 30 of the _Aria mit 30 Veranderungen_ (Peters’ ed., bk. 209 p. 83). In it Bach combines two popular songs of his period.

42 See article “Quodlibet” in Grove.

43 The date is conjectural, and is deduced from the fact that the infant was baptized on March 23. The Gregorian Calendar was not adopted in Germany until 1701. Had it been in use in 1685 Bach’s birthday would be March 31.

44 Johann Ambrosius’ Court appointment is to be inferred from the fact that in 1684 the Duke refused him permission to return to Erfurt.

45 See Table IV.

46 Johann Ambrosius survived his brother by nearly eighteen months.

47 His mother died in May 1694, and his father in January 1695. At the latter date Johann Sebastian was three months short of his tenth year.

48 Excepting Johann Jakob, a lad of thirteen years, Johann Christoph was Bach’s only surviving brother, and the only one of the family in a position to look after him. Johann Jakob accompanied Sebastian to Ohrdruf (Pirro, p. 13) and afterwards apprenticed himself to his father’s successor as Town Musician at Eisenach. One of the daughters was already married. What became of the other is not stated. See Table V.

49 It is difficult to believe this statement. That the boy was destined for a musical career by his father hardly can be doubted. That he was of unusual precocity, the story told by Forkel in the text proves. His father’s asserted neglect to instruct him is therefore hardly credible.

50 Johann Jakob Froberger, born at Halle (date unknown); Court Organist at Vienna, 1637-57; d. 1667.

51 Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer, c. 1660-1738 (actual dates of his birth and death unknown); Kapellmeister to Markgraf Ludwig of Baden at Schloss Schlackenwerth in Bohemia. His _Ariadne Musica Neo-Organoedum_ (1702) was the precursor of Bach’s _Das wohltemperirte Clavier._

52 Johann Caspar Kerl, b. 1628; Kapellmeister in Munich, 1656-74; Court Organist at Vienna, 1677-92; d. 1693.

53 Johann Pachelbel, b. 1653, d. 1706. In 1695 he was Organist of St. Sebald’s Church, Nürnberg. His influence upon the organ playing of his generation was enormous. Bach’s brother, Johann Christoph, was his pupil.

54 Dietrich Buxtehude, b. 1637, d. 1707; Organist (1668) of the Marienkirche, Lübeck, and the chief musical influence in North Germany.

55 Nikolaus Bruhns, b. circ. 1665, d. 1697; a. pupil of Buxtehude; Organist at Husum; the greatest organist of his time after Buxtehude.

56 Georg Böhm, b. 1661; date of death uncertain (c. 1739); from 1698 Organist of the Johanniskirche, Lüneburg.

57 In fact, Johann Christoph did not die until 1721, more than twenty years after Sebastian ceased to be under his roof.

58 The fact that Johann Christoph survived till 1721 disproves Forkel’s statement. The youthful Bach, aged fifteen in 1700, no doubt seized the earliest opportunity to relieve his brother of the charge of him. Moreover, Johann Christoph’s family was increasing (see Table V.). In spite of the story of Bach’s midnight copying, it cannot be questioned that he owed a good deal to his brother, who not only taught him but, presumably, maintained him at the Ohrdruf Lyceum, where Bach acquired a sound education and a considerable knowledge of Latin. See Pirro, pp. 14-16, on Bach’s education at Ohrdruf. He left the Lyceum in March 1700.

59 Georg Erdmann, Bach’s fellow-pupil at the Lyceum.

60 Bach’s entry into the choir of St. Michael’s Convent, Lüneburg, took place about Easter 1700. The step was taken upon the advice of Elias Herda, Cantor at the Ohrdruf Lyceum, himself a former member of St. Michael’s. Bach remained at St. Michael’s for three years, till 1703. The choir library was particularly rich in the best church music of the period, both German and Italian. Spitta is of opinion that Bach’s talents as a violinist and Clavier player were also laid under contribution. His voice, as Forkel states, soon ceased to be serviceable. His maximum pay was one thaler (three shillings) a month and free commons.

61 Probably Georg Böhm, who had relations with the Convent choir, inspired Bach to make the pilgrimage. Böhm, then at St. John’s, Lüneburg, was a pupil of Reinken of Hamburg. Spitta (i. 196) suggests that Bach’s cousin, Johann Ernst (see Table IV.), was at this time completing his musical education at Hamburg, a fact which may have contributed to draw Bach thither. He made more than one visit, on foot, to Hamburg. F. W. Marpurg published, in 1786, the story, which he received from Bach himself, that on one of his journeys from Hamburg, Bach sat down outside an inn and hungrily sniffed the savours from its kitchen. His pockets were empty and there seemed little prospect of a meal, when a window was opened and two herring heads were thrown out. Bach picked them up eagerly, and found in each of them a Danish ducat. Who was his benefactor he never discovered; the gift enabled him to satisfy his hunger and pay another visit to Hamburg.

62 Johann Adam Reinken, b. 1623, became Organist of St. Catherine’s Church, Hamburg, in 1664, and held the post until his death in 1722.

63 His introduction to French music marked another step in Bach’s progressive education. The reigning Duke of Celle (father-in-law of George I. of Great Britain and Ireland) had married a Frenchwoman. See Pirro, _J. S. Bach,_ pp. 24-27.

64 He entered the Weimar service on April 8, 1703 (Pirro, p. 29).

65 Bach’s engagement was in the private band of the younger brother of the Duke. He remained in his new post only a few months. He was engaged as a Violin player, and since his interests were towards the Organ and Clavier, it is clear that he accepted the engagement as a temporary means of livelihood.

66 He is, however, described in July 1703 as Court Organist (Pirro, p. 30). Bach was drawn to Arnstadt chiefly by the fact that the New Church recently had been equipped with a particularly fine Organ (specification in Spitta, i. 224), which existed until 1863. Bach inaugurated it on July 13, 1703, and entered on his duties as Organist of the church in the following month (Pirro, p. 30).

67 His earliest Church Cantata (No. 15) was composed here in 1704. To the Arnstadt period (1703-7) also must be attributed the Capriccio written on the departure of his brother, Johann Jakob (Peters bk. 208 p. 62), the Capriccio in honour of his Ohrdruf brother, Johann Christoph (Peters bk. 215, p. 34), the Sonata in D major (Peters bk. 215, p. 44), the Organ Prelude and Fugue in C minor (Novello bk. 2 p. 48), and the Organ Fugue in C minor (Novello bk. 12 p. 95).

68 In the _Nekrolog_ C. P. E. Bach and Agricola remark of the Arnstadt period, that Bach then “really showed the first-fruits of his industry in the art of Organ-playing and composition, which he had in great measure learnt only from the study of the works of the most famous composers of the time, and from his own reflections on them” (quoted in Spitta, i. 235).

69 Bach’s stipend at Arnstadt was not inconsiderable, and his duties engaged him only at stated hours on Sundays, Mondays, and Thursdays. He, therefore, had leisure and the means to employ it. In October 1705 he obtained four weeks’ leave of absence and set off on foot to Lübeck, after leaving an efficient deputy behind him. He stayed away until February 1706. On his return the Consistory demanded an explanation of his absence, and took the opportunity to remonstrate with him on other matters. They charged him “with having been hitherto in the habit of making surprising variationes in the Chorals, and intermixing divers strange sounds, so that thereby the congregation were confounded.” They charged him with playing too long preludes, and after this was notified to him, of making them too short. They reproached him “with having gone to a wineshop last Sunday during sermon,” and cautioned him that, “for the future he must behave quite differently and much better than he has done hitherto” (see the whole charge in Spitta, i. 315 ff.). Bach also was on bad terms with the choir, whose members had got out of hand and discipline. Before his Lübeck visit he engaged in a street brawl with one of the scholars. Then, as later, he was a choleric gentleman. In November 1706 he got into further trouble for having “made music” in the church with a “stranger maiden,” presumably his cousin Maria Barbara Bach, then on a visit to Arnstadt; he married her a year later. Clearly the relations between the Consistory and the brilliant young Organist were becoming difficult, and Bach’s migration to Mühlhausen no doubt was grateful to both. His resignation was made formally on June 29, 1707.

70 Bach was appointed on June 15, 1707, to succeed Johann Georg Able. Mühlhauson prided itself upon its musical traditions. Bach’s Cantata, No. 71, written in February 1708 for the inauguration of the Mühlhausen Town Council, was engraved (the parts only), the only one of the 206 Cantatas which have come down to us which was printed during Bach’s lifetime. He also composed Cantatas 131 and 196 at Muhlhausen, and perhaps three others. See infra, p. 188.

71 Bach’s petition to the Mühlhausen Consistory for permission to resign his post is dated June 25, 1708, and is printed in full by Spitta, i. 373. Bach mentions the Weimar post as having been offered to him, but bases his desire to resign the organ of St. Blasius, partly on the ground that his income was inadequate, partly because, though he had succeeded in improving the organ and the conditions of music generally, he saw “not the slightest appearance that things will be altered” for the better. Mühlhausen, in fact, was a stronghold of Pietism and unsympathetic to Bach’s musical ideals.

72 He was Court Organist and Kammermusikus. In the latter post Bach was of use as a Violinist and Clavier player. The Court band, or Kapelle, on special occasions appeared in Hungarian costume, which Bach presumably donned. His income began at a sum nearly double that he had received at Arnstadt and Mühlhausen.

73 The character of his employer, Duke Wilhelm Ernst of Saxe-Weimar, must be reckoned a factor in the development of the youthful Bach. The Duke was not only a cultured artist, but was also a man of genuine piety.

74 Though Bach retouched them in later years and wrote others, it may be stated in general terms that his Organ works were the fruit of the Weimar period, which lasted from 1708 till 1717.

75 Bach’s promotion to the position of Concertmeister had taken place certainly before March 19, 1714, on which date Spitta (i. 517) prints a letter in which Bach gives himself the title. The increase in his income early in 1714 also supports the conclusion, while a letter of January 14, 1714, written by Bach, is not signed by him as Concertmeister. It would seem that his promotion took place in the interval between the two letters. As Concertmeister it was part of his duty to provide Cantatas for the church services. Twenty-two were written by him at Weimar. See infra, p. 188, for a list of them.

76 Friedrich Wilhelm Zachau died on August 7 or 14, 1712.

77 Spitta (i. 513) infers that, in the later years of the Weimar period, Bach spent part of the autumn of every year in visits to the Courts and larger towns of Germany in order to give Organ recitals and to conduct performances of his Cantatas. Besides the visit to Halle, in 1713, to which Forkel alludes, Bach performed at Cassel in 1713 or 1714 before the future Frederick I. of Sweden, who presented him with a ring which he drew from his finger. Bach’s feet, an admirer recorded, “flew over the pedal-board as if they had wings.” In December 1714 he visited Leipzig and performed Cantata No. 61, _Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland._ In 1716 he was again invited to Halle, and at about the same time performed at Meiningen. Forkel records the famous contest with Marchand, the French Organist, at Dresden in 1717.

78 Forkel’s brief account follows the _Nekrolog._ Bach was in Halle in the autumn of 1713, a year after Zachau’s death. The latter’s post was still vacant and a new and particularly large Organ (sixty-three speaking stops) was being erected. The authorities pressed Bach to submit himself to the prescribed tests, and he complied so far as to compose a Cantata and to conduct a performance of it. On his return to Weimar he received a formal invitation to accept the post. After some correspondence Bach refused it, partly, perhaps chiefly, on the ground that the income was inadequate. The refusal was answered by the groundless accusation that he had merely entertained the Halle proposal in order to bring pressure upon Weimar for a rise of salary. The misunderstanding was cleared away by 1716, when Bach visited Halle again. In the interval Zachau’s post had been given to his pupil, Gottfried Kirchhoff. The whole matter is discussed at length in Spitta, i. 515 ff.

79 Frederick Augustus I. of Saxony was elected, as Augustus II., to the throne of Poland in 1697. He died In 1733.

80 Louis Marchand, b. 1669, d. 1732; Organist to the French Court and later of the Church of St. Honoré, Paris. His arrival in Dresden was due to his being in disgrace at Versailles. Whether or not he was offered a permanent engagement at the Saxon Court, he was regarded as the champion of the French style, and as such the challenge was issued to him by Bach.

81 Francois Couperin, b. 1668, d. 1733; Organist of St. Gervais, Paris. Forkel’s judgment upon his art is not supported by modern criticism.

82 Bach, however, admired Marchand’s compositions sufficiently to give them to his pupils. See Pirro, p. 52.

83 Jean-Baptiste Volumier, an acquaintance of Bach, according to Spitta (i. 583). Eitner, _Quellen Lexikon._ says that he was born in Spain and educated in France. Grove’s _Dictionary_ declares him a Belgian. In 1709 he was appointed Concertmeister to the Saxon Court. He died at Dresden in 1728.

84 It is more probable that Bach was at Dresden either expressly to hear Marchand or upon one of his autumn tours.

85 Some years earlier Flemming had witnessed Handel’s triumphant descent on the Saxon Court, but had failed to establish friendly relations with him. See Streatfield’s _Handel_, p. 87.

86 The article on Marchand in Grove gives a different version of the affair, based upon Joseph Fétis (1784-1871). According to this story of the event, Bach, summoned from Weimar, attended Marchand’s concert incognito, and after hearing Marchand perform, was invited by Volumier to take his seat at the Clavier. Bach thereupon repeated from memory Marchand’s theme and variations, and added others of his own. Having ended, he handed Marchand a theme for treatment on the Organ and challenged him to a contest. Marchand accepted it, but left Dresden before the appointed hour.

87 The Prince was brother-in-law of Duke Ernst August of Saxe-Weimar. Bach was, therefore, already known to him and showed the greatest regard for him both at Cöthen and after he had left his service.

88 The reason for Bach’s migration from Weimar to Cöthen was his failure to obtain the post of Kapellmeister at the former Court upon the death of Johann Samuel Drese in 1716. The post was given to Drese’s son. On August 1, 1717, just before or after his Marchand triumph, Bach was appointed Kapellmeister to the Court of Cöthen. Duke Wilhelm Ernst refused to release him from his engagement, and Bach endured imprisonment from November 6 to December 2, 1717, for demanding instant permission to take up his new post. Probably his last work at Weimar was to put the _Orgelbüchlein_ into the form in which it has come down to us (see articles by the present writer in _The Musical Times_ for January-March 1917).

With his departure from Weimar in 1718 Bach left behind him the distinctively Organ period of his musical fertility. Though his compositions were still by no means generally known, as a player he held an unchallenged pre-eminence.

89 He was appointed to Cöthen on August 1, 1717, and was inducted at Leipzig on May 31, 1723.

90 The date actually was November 1720. At Cöthen Bach had an inferior Organ and little scope for his attainments; his chief duties were in connection with the Prince’s band. The yearning to get back to the Organ, which eventually took him to Leipzig in 1723, shows itself in his readiness to entertain an invitation to Hamburg in 1720.

91 Three Organ movements by Bach upon Wolfgang Dachstein’s melody, _An Wasserflüssen Babylon,_ are extant. See notes upon them and their relation to the Hamburg extemporisation in Terry, _Bach’s Chorals,_