Chapter XX: 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,_