Johann Sebastian Bach

by Christoph Wolff

  The contract generally reflects the long and distinguished musical tradition at Our Lady’s Church, but some of its surprisingly detailed points, especially regarding the choice of cantata texts and music as well as the style of chorale accompaniment, reveal Heineccius’s strong interest in musical matters. There is no evidence that Bach objected to any of these instructions. The musician and the pastor enjoyed a relationship marked by mutual respect: for his Christmas cantata BWV 63, Bach used a text by Heineccius, and the two dined together with August Becker at the dedication of the completed organ in 1716, a clear indication that Bach’s rejection of the Halle offer had no lasting effect. The position, incidentally, was filled in May 1714 by Melchior Hoffmann, but his attempt at moonlighting with the Leipzig Collegium Musicum got him fired in little more than a month. On July 30, the church board appointed Gottfried Kirchhoff, who stayed at Our Lady’s for more than thirty years until, in 1746, Wilhelm Friedemann Bach accepted the post that his father had “found reasons to reject” (as the Obituary put it).14

  In his March 19 letter to August Becker, Bach makes it clear that economic reasons forced him to refuse the appointment and firmly rebuffs any accusation of having engaged in shady tactics:

  It is not to be assumed that one will go to a place where one’s situation is worsened; but this I could not learn accurately in a fortnight or three weeks, since I am wholly of the opinion that even after many years one cannot rightly know one’s livelihood in a place where one must count incidental fees as part of one’s income, let alone in a fortnight; and that is more or less the reason why I first accepted and then, on request, in turn rejected the appointment. But it is by no means to be inferred from all these circumstances that I should have played such a trick upon the Honored Church Board in order to induce my most Gracious Master to increase my salary, since the latter already shows so much graciousness toward my service and art that I do not have to journey to Halle in order to have my salary increased. Accordingly I regret that the assurance of the Honored Church Board has thus had a somewhat uncertain outcome, and add the following: Even if I had received just as good a salary in Halle as here, should I not then have been bound to prefer the prior service to the other one?15

  An issue the letter does not raise, because it would have been of no interest to its recipient, was that of personal career choice, a choice that Bach was clearly aware of making. The prospect of having at his disposal a new and very large organ would, without any doubt, have furthered the organist and virtuoso in Bach; the Cuntzius organ under construction would have opened up unanticipated and fabulous perspectives. On the other hand, the section of the Halle agreement regarding the opportunity to compose and perform cantatas on a regular monthly schedule must have appealed to him so greatly that he used it as a bargaining point to achieve basically the same goal in Weimar. Indeed, he could envision that composing for and performing with the Weimar court capelle would be more satisfying than working with the Halle church ensembles—even though as city organist and music director in Halle, unlike the post of court organist and concertmaster in Weimar, he would not be subordinate to any other musician. The decision against Halle, then, amounted to nothing less than a profound change in his basic orientation: away from a primary focus on organ and keyboard skills and toward the broader options and deeper commitment of a composer, with an ever-expanding musical horizon.

  Although we have no information about Bach’s negotiations with the Weimar ducal court, we can assume that he never formally asked for dismissal, since the court was ready to adjust his salary, rank, and duties. To be sure, the court could have blocked Bach’s departure regardless, but if it had, Bach would certainly have mentioned to Becker that he had not obtained permission to leave court service. For all intents and purposes, he could count on the continuing support of the court, notably from Duke Ernst August at the Red Palace. For the time being, he could be pleased with what he procured for himself: a salary increase, a title change within a newly defined rank order, and, most important, expanded responsibilities, especially the assignment “to perform new works monthly.”

  MOSTLY MUSIC FOR “THE HEAVEN’S CASTLE”

  Unlike any other member of his extended family, Bach had from the very beginning engaged in composition, as he explored in particular—indeed in a systematic way—the various genres of keyboard music. The extent to which he devoted himself to composing a substantial repertoire of organ and harpsichord works was by no means common practice, let alone a requirement for the job of organist. Bach had also gained substantial experience in creating vocal music: the three Mühlhausen town council cantatas and the large-scale Weissenfels Hunt Cantata of 1713 clearly defined both his remarkable accomplishment and his promise, while establishing his reputation beyond that of organist and keyboard virtuoso. However, his deliberate career decision of early 1714 translated for the first time into a real mandate as a composer in that he assumed the principal responsibility for composing new works, specifically cantatas for the palace church according to a monthly schedule. Where the opportunity of composing vocal works had until then been most agreeable and sought-for yet random and exceptional, it now became his job, and the newly appointed concertmaster threw himself wholeheartedly into the task. Indeed, he managed to turn the novel assignment into a real program, spurred by the same kind of self-propelled energy he had previously directed toward keyboard composition.

  Bach’s concertmaster promotion dated from March 2, 1714, two days before Oculi Sunday, so that the fourth Sunday following his new appointment fell on March 25. It was this double feast day of Palm Sunday and Annunciation for which Bach prepared the inaugural cantata to be performed in his new capacity: “Himmelskönig, sei willkommen,” BWV 182, scored for four voices (SATB), recorder, violin, two violas, violoncello, and continuo (violone and organ) (Table 6.1). The concurrence that year of Palm Sunday and the Marian feast, a rarity in the liturgical calendar, provided an incentive for the ambitious overall design of the piece. Consisting of eight movements, with ten-part scoring for the tutti movements, it permitted Bach to make a major artistic statement and, at the same time, to show the court capelle at its best.

  The poetic makeup of the libretto links it to Salomo Franck, the secretary of the ducal consistory in Weimar, who was to publish two annual cycles of cantata texts, for 1715 and 1717.16 The text draws on Psalm 40:8–9 for the recitative (no. 3) and on Paul Stockmann’s 1633 Passion hymn “Jesu Leiden, Pein und Tod” for the penultimate movement (no. 7). In a typical Lutheran reinterpretation, the Marian Feast of the Annunciation is given a Christological focus: instead of honoring Mary, it venerates Christ as the true King of Heaven. Through the sacred poetry of the cantata, the piece becomes an effective and expressive musical sermon on the Palm Sunday gospel (Matthew 21: Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem), lauding Christ the healer of the world (no. 4), admonishing the faithful to meet him properly (no. 5), praying “Let me not abandon, Lord, the banner of thy cross” (no. 6), foreshadowing Christ’s Passion and its meaning (no. 7), and culminating in the anticipation of the believers’ entry into the eternal Jerusalem, “the Salem of gladness” (no. 8). The Sonata is designed in overture manner and, by featuring a concerted violin-recorder duo accompanied almost exclusively by plucked strings, creates a distinct ensemble sound that draws immediate attention to the unfolding musical score and, no less important, insures that the leading role of the new concertmaster would not be lost on the audience.

  TABLE 6.1. Cantata “Himmelskönig, sei willkommen,” BWV 182

  1. Sonata:

  Grave. Adagio—rec, v, [rip v], 2va, bc (C [4/4]; G major)

  2. Chorus:

  Himmelskönig, sei willkommen—SATB, instrumental tutti (C; G major)

  3. Recitativo:

  Siehe, ich komme, im Buch ist von mir geschrieben—B, bc

  4. Aria:

  Starkes Lieben, das dich, großer Gottessohn—B, v, 2va, bc (C; C major)

  5. Aria:

  Leget euch d
em Heiland unter—A, rec, bc (C; E minor)

  6. Aria:

  Jesu, laß durch Wohl und Weh—T, bc (3/4; B minor)

  7. Chorale:

  Jesu, deine Passion—SATB, instrumental tutti (; G major)

  8. Chorus:

  So lasset uns gehen in Salem der Freuden—SATB, instrumental tutti (3/8; G major)

  Cantata performances in the Himmelsburg (“Heaven's Castle”), or palace church, primarily involved the core group of the Weimar court capelle, whose personnel is described on two complementary lists (combined in Table 6.2).17 From March 1714, the group consisted of three leaders, seven singers, and five instrumentalists. Compared with the size of the capelle in 1700, the only earlier year for which membership is documented,18 the ensemble had grown from twelve to fifteen. The members of the capelle fell into the category of joint servants, in the employ of both dukes. However, the singer Thiele and the bassoonist Ulrich appear on the private payroll of Duke Wilhelm Ernst, as do the field musicians, who, in Weimar as elsewhere, were carried on the military budget and augmented the court capelle on demand. The singers Blühnitz and Alt (son of the vice-cantor), who appear only on the 1714 list, seem to count among the secondary members of the capelle. The exact number of secondary members, who must have included vocalists as well as instrumentalists, cannot be determined, as the individuals would have been listed without any musical designation under the broader category of lackeys, where Bach had found himself at one time. The town musicians were also drawn upon fairly regularly, and eight choristers from the gymnasium were delegated for court service.19 Georg Theodor Reineccius, teacher of the fourth class at the gymnasium and town cantor, directed the school ensembles, while the court cantors Christoph Alt (also teacher of the fifth class at the gymnasium) and Johann Döbernitz led the choirboys delegated from the gymnasium to the court cantorei. Altogether, the resources for mounting sacred and secular musical performances at the Weimar court, by smaller and larger ensembles, were considerable and quite adaptable.

  For cantata performances under Bach’s direction, it is safe to say that the concertmaster led the capelle from the first violin. Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach writes that “in his youth, and until the approach of old age, he played the violin cleanly and penetratingly, and thus kept the orchestra in better order than he could have done with the harpsichord.”20 So it is particularly appropriate that in performing his first cantata under the new arrangements, Bach presented himself simultaneously as composer, concertmaster, and violin soloist. The absolute leadership role of the concertato violin in the opening movement of BWV 182 is clear from the first measure, as it is in the first aria (no. 4). Since Bach could not play violin and organ at the same time, the organ part would have been taken over by one of his best students, such as Johann Martin Schubart or Johann Caspar Vogler, who had been with him since Arnstadt and Mühlhausen, respectively.21 Otherwise, the scoring of cantata 182 required a minimum of seven to eight players—concertmaster plus instrumentalists—and a corresponding four-part vocal ensemble.23

  TABLE 6.2. The Weimar Court Capelle, 1714–15 (combined list)

  Sources: (a) introduction of two new court marshals and list of participants (April 6, 1714); (b) survey of ducal servants (c. 1715).22

  Because of the unique architectural design of the Himmelsburg, the performance took place in the elevated gallery space designated as Capelle (see illustration, p. 150, and discussion, Chapter 5). From 1712 to 1714, a major renovation of the entire performance space of the Himmelsburg was undertaken. The plans called for a significant expansion of the musicians’ Capelle that would result in more floor space, a higher vaulted ceiling for the cupola, and better lighting.24 Also, the large wooden ceiling cover for the rectangular aperture was repaired, redesigned, and repainted. It worked by means of a slide mechanism,25 closing off the sanctuary ceiling for church services without organ or polyphonic music and for rehearsals in the Capelle, which in winter was heated separately. For regular church services, the cover was left open.26 Thirteen new armchairs were acquired in October 1713, and a year later the armchair for the capellmeister was newly upholstered; these fourteen chairs accommodated the principal members of the court capelle during the sermon and other parts of the service. Thiele, as master of the pages ranking above the capellmeister, would have taken his more prominent place with the court pages elsewhere in the church, while the court cantor supervised the choirboys situated by the positive organ on the first arcade gallery behind the altar; they joined the capelle only for the cantata performance preceding the sermon. When additional players and choristers were present on the Capelle, they could be seated there on “six red-painted” benches.27

  Most details about participating musicians cannot be determined, but the surviving performance materials for Bach’s Weimar cantatas suggest that a great deal of variety was possible because of the considerable expert resources available. On the whole, however, the architectural and acoustical conditions favored a relatively small instrumental-vocal ensemble. The old capellmeister Drese seems to have been inactive as a performing musician for most if not all of Bach’s Weimar period. His son, the vice-capellmeister, certainly conducted the performances for which he was responsible and perhaps also took over his father’s share, but we don’t know whether he played an instrument or sang when he was not conducting. We don’t know to what extent Bach could involve students of individual court musicians, including his own. And we don’t know whether the harpsichord available in the Capelle (like the organ, under service contract with Trebs) was ordinarily used for cantata performances in addition to the organ. At the very least, the harpsichord must have been substituted as a continuo instrument during the construction periods that rendered the organ unplayable. Considering the recent changes made to the organ, which included improvements in the pedal (addition of Untersatz 32 foot, larger wind chests) and the redesign of the separate barrel vault above the organ for better sound reflection, the continuo group would presumably have carried greater weight. We know from original Weimar performing parts that even works of chamber-music-like qualities (e.g., the cantatas BWV 18 and 199) included violoncello, fagotto, and violono in addition to the organ, indicating that the bass fundament received proper emphasis.

  A 1702 description of the Wilhelmsburg palace refers to the Himmelsburg with its Capelle as “a world-famous masterpiece of architecture…there one hears with the greatest pleasure the most delicate and most agreeable music, made by virtuoso and adroit vocal and instrumental musicians.”28 After the improvements to the church were completed in 1714, the quality of sound projected from the Capelle into the marble-walled church below would have been even more spectacular, augmenting the illusionary effect of music made in and coming from heaven.

  In March 1714, Bach began translating his duty “to perform new works monthly” into an extraordinary artistic program closely related to his goal of “a well-regulated church music.” Until then, he had been able to compose and perform cantatas only rarely and irregularly, but earlier works such as cantatas BWV 18, 54, and 199 demonstrate the direction in which the new concertmaster planned to move. The sequence of cantatas for the years 1714–17 only confirmed Bach’s commitment to defining his personal cantata style broadly yet in line with the most recent practices at Protestant princely courts in Thuringia.

  The “modern” German church cantata actually originated in 1700 near Weimar, at the neighboring court of Saxe-Weissenfels. The capellmeister there, Johann Philipp Krieger, set to music the Geistliche Cantaten statt einer Kirchen-Music (Sacred Cantatas Instead of a Church Music) by the young Lutheran theologian and poet Erdmann Neumeister. A native of the duchy, Neumeister was active at various places in central Germany before moving to the distinguished chief pastorate of the St. Jacobi Church in Hamburg. For his innovative collection of sacred poems, which were closely related to the prescribed lessons throughout the ecclesiastical year, Neumeister took as his model the libretto of the Italian secular cantata. (He also adopted the new
name in place of the standard German term Kirchen-Music, which designated the principal musical piece following the gospel lesson.) Neumeister thus made use of the prevailing types of metric and rhymed verse found not only in cantatas but also in opera librettos: recitatives and arias, free and varied literary forms that originated in the seventeenth-century Italian madrigal. This kind of madrigalistic poetry was aimed at advancing the expressive relationship between words and music and therefore seemed eminently suitable for spiritual meditations set to music. At the same time, the poetically driven decision to accept the recitativearia form immediately revolutionized the style of church music, which was now closely and lastingly tied to the world of opera. This connection made church music susceptible to further new developments, such as the adoption of the dacapo aria, the tripartite structure of the later seventeenth-century Venetian opera that, with its repeat of the first part of the piece (ABA), became the dominating aria type of the early eighteenth century.