The last sketch for the Duetto was rejected (it was crossed out) after it appeared at the top of the page for this movement. The significance of this rejected sketch which can be easily identified as the opening subject of “Et in unum” which appears in the B-minor Mass, BWV 232, has been discussed widely among Bach scholars who arrive at various possible, speculative scenarios:
1. This was Bach’s original sketch for the text before him, but it did not work out, so he abandoned it in favor of another previously composed cantata movement that could be adapted to the existing text more easily.
2. Bach copied this sketch from another earlier cantata composed for a different occasion, very possibly from a secular cantata composed during the Köthen or even Weimar period. It was rejected because Bach realized that it was not suitable for the new text that Picander had provided.
3. Shortly before the first performance of this cantata on September 5, 1733 as Bach was composing this cantata with only three movements still to be completed (one is only a short recitative of 16 bars), Bach decided to stop composing all the movements, a process which took more time than he had available to him and began looking for previously composed music that might be suitable even if only portions of such could be adopted for this purpose. Bach first wrote out this sketch, trying to make it fit the words, but then he abandoned it in favor of another mvt. from a previously composed, unidentified cantata which provided for a better fit.
3. Bach returned to this sketch (or to a possible earlier cantata movement containing this music) after August 1748 until October 1749 for inclusion as the “Et in unum Dominum” movement that is part of the Symbolum Nicenum section of the B minor Mass BWV 232.
But the reliable facts are as follows:
1. The watermark in the paper is an “MA” (or “AM” as seen from the back side). This is the same watermark that appears on paper that Bach used for the “Missa” (Kyrie, Gloria or Section I) portion of BWV 232 that was prepared in 1733. This watermark was used by Bach from July 6, 1732 until February 2, 1735.
2. The first performance date for BWV 213 is clearly fixed as September 5, 1733, a date documented by a reference in Picander’s printed version of the text, a newspaper report and an entry on September 3, 1733 in Breitkopf’s (a Leipzig printer) account books for the printing of a presentation copy for Bach:
Dem Hn Capellmeister Bach vor ein Drama
auf den Geburtstag des Churprintzen 1 Bogen, 50 RPr.
150 Dr. Pr. nebst Censur…..2 -
3. All the movements in BWV 213 with the exception of Mvt. 11 (Aria Duetto) and Mvt. 13 show clear evidence that they were original compositions (no parodies involved). This means that the latter two movements are parodies. The parody source for Mvt. 13 has been identified as given above.
Some discussions of this matter can be found in the following sources:
Arnold Schering: Bach Jahrbuch, 1933, p. 49 (Schering was the first to point out the connection between the rejected sketch and the duet mvt. from BWV 323)
Friedrich Smend: Messe in h-moll, NBA KB II/1 Bärenreiter, 1956, pp. 147-151
Werner Neumann: Festmusiken für das Kurfürstlich-Sächsische Haus I, NBA KB I/36, p. 64-65
Robert L. Marshall: The Music ofJohann Sebastian Bach:The Sources, the Style, the Significance, Schirmer Books, New York, 1989, pp. 180-183
John Butt: Bach: Mass in B Minor, Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 52-53.
George B. Stauffer: The Mass in B Minor, Schirmer Books, New York, 1997, pp. 111-115
Konrad Küster: Bach Handbuch, Bärenreiter/Metzler, 1999, pp. 508-509
Martin Geck: Bach: Leben und Werk, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 482-483.
Hans-Joachim Schulze: Die Bach-Kantaten, Leipzig, 2006, p. 675
The Original Set of Parts:
The parts are included in a double folder, the inner folder without any writing on it and the outer folder having on it C.P.E. Bach’s title:
Glückwünschungs-Cantate | auf einen Sächsischen Prinzen | a | Soprano | Echo | Alto, Tenore e Baßo | 2 Corni | 2. Hautb. | 2 Viol. | 2 Viole conc. | Viola | e | Cont. | di | J. S. Bach.
As on the autograph score, Zelter added Die Wahl des Herkules and No. 12. The latter number was later crossed out and replaced with 8. Someone later added the text incipit: Laßt uns sorgen.
The chain of ownership is the same as that of the autograph score given above.
The condition of the parts is similar to the autograph score.
There are 17 parts that have been prepared by 10 different copyists in addition to J. S. Bach who also copied certain mvts along with the usual revisions and addition of articulation, ornamentation, phrasings, etc.
1. Canto. Solo: Contains mvts. 1, 3, 4, 13 and tacet for the remaining mvts.
2. Alto: mvts. 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 13; tacet for the remaining
Copyist 1: from the beginning until m 96 of Mvt. 11
Copyist 2: from m 96 of Mvt. 11 to the end
3. Echo: Mvt. 5 only; copyist 1
4. Tenore: mvts. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13
J. S. Bach: Mvt. 8; Copyist 1: all the remaining mvts.
5. Baßo. Solo: mvts. 1, 12, 13
Copyist 1: mvts. 1, 12, 13
6. Cornu 1: mvts. 1, 13
Copyist 1: Mvt. 1; J. S. Bach: Mvt. 13
7. Corn: 2: Copyist 1: Mvt. 1; J. S. Bach: Mvt. 13
8. Hautbois 1mo: mvts. 1, 5, 7, 13
Copyist 1: Mvt. 1; J. S. Bach: mvts. 5, 7, 13
9. Hautbois 2do: mvts. 1 and 13
Copyist 1: Mvt. 1 (except for Bach’s addition of mm 53-60
J. S. Bach: Mvt. 13
10. Violino 1mo: mvts. 1, 3, 7, 9, 12 and 13
Copyist 1: mvts. 1, 3, 12, 13
J. S. Bach: mvts. 7 and 9
11. Violino 1mo: (Doublet) mvts. 1, 3, 9, 12, 13 (13 is incomplete)
Copyist 3: Mvt. 1; copyist 4: Mvt. 3, Mvt. 9; copyist 2: Mvt. 12 and the first 6 mm of Mvt. 13.
12. Violino 2do: mvts. 1, 3, 12, 13
Copyist 1: mvts. 1, 3
J. S. Bach mvts. 12 and 13
13. Violino 2do: (Doublet) mvts. 1, 3, 12 and 13
Copyist 5: Mvt. 1 mm 1-113 and mm 169 to end of the mvt.
Copyist 6: Mvt. 1 mm114-168
Copyist 7: Mvt. 3 mm 1-49.
Copyist 8: Mvt. 3 mm 49-148
Copyist 9: mvts. 12 and 13
14. Viola: mvts. 1, 3, 12, and 13
Copyist 1: mvts. 1 and 3
J. S. Bach: mvts. 12 and 13
15. Viola 1 certata: Mvt. 11 only
Copyist 10 (C.P.E. Bach)
16. Viola 2 certata: Mvt. 11 only
Copyist 10 (C.P.E. Bach)
17. Continuo: (also with title: Basso Continuo where the music begins) contains all mvts.
Copyist 1: almost all the mvts. stopping at m 63 of Mvt. 13
Copyist 2: from m 64 to 80 (the end) of Mvt. 13
Comments on the Original Parts:
Many questions have been raised regarding the very large number of copyists employed by Bach and the confusion apparent in the various stops and stops and even interleaving of efforts by those who prepared the violin doublets. As in the case of other sacred cantatas, particularly those that were prepared for performance during the extended Christmas-New Year, Easter and Pentecost feast days, a very similar situation prevailed. One explanation which helps to account for the not so unusual situation encountered here is that J. S. Bach was pressed for time and waited until the last possible moment (figuratively) before beginning to compose this cantata and had the primary copyists begin copying out the parts before the entire score had been completed.
The evidence from the score, as listed above, makes it quite clear that Bach gave up composing each movement from scratch when he began Mvt. 11 as indicated by the change in the appearance of the score from a ‘composing’ score with many corrections to that of a ‘clean copy’ with few or no corrections.
Note the interruption of the copy process by the primary copyist (1), who copied the greatest portion of all the parts, in the Alto part in the middle of Mvt. 11; in both Cornu parts Mvt. 1, but not Mvt. 13; in Violino 2do mvts. 1 and 3, but not 12 and 13; in Viola mvts. 1 and 3, but not 12 and 13; and in Continuo all mvts. but not the end of Mvt. 13. All of these instances point to the fact that Bach had not yet finished copying (transposing? and arranging) music from mvts. that had been composed to a different text at an earlier time. That Bach initiated the copy process with his main copyists before completing the final mvt. or mvts. of a cantata can be sufficiently documented by a number of instances where it is obvious that Bach composed and later added the final chorale to the parts personally after all the copy work had been completed by the copyists with the exception of the final mvt. or mvts.
Along with the 19-year-old C.P.E. Bach, who was probably called upon at a very late stage of the copy process after J. S. Bach had completed Mvt. 11, there is a ‘little army’ of very young copyists who are called upon to copy the Violino 1mo and Violino 2do doublets from the already existing first copies of these parts. Note that J. S. Bach personally copied mvts. 12 and 13 for the Violino 2do from his score and then turned it over to five copyists (only 4 mvts. are involved here!). Nevertheless, even under the watchful eyes of the master, copyist 5 breaks off in the middle of Mvt. 1, while copyist 6 continues from that point but does not finish this movement, leaving the remaining to be completed by the original copyist 5 who had begun copying this mvt. Three additional copyists are used for the remaining three mvts. The NBA KB (p. 52) comments: “Die Vielzahl der hier eingesetzten Kopisten, von denen die meisten einen recht unbeholfenen Duktus schrieben, läßt an pädagogisch bestimmte Maßnahmen Bachs denken. Gerade die Bachschen Violindubletten sind häufig der Tummelplatz für frühe Schreibversuche.” [The large number of copyists used here, most of whom demonstrate rather clumsily flowing lines in their penmanship suggests that Bach had some pedagogical purpose in mind. It is precisely these violin doublets which become the playground for early attempts at writing musical notation."]
There is only one continuo part since this was not performed in a church where a transposed Organo would have been necessary. Since Bach, in checking over the Continuo part added the direction pizzicato tthe beginning of Mvt. 5, a direction not found in the score, it is clear that the Continuo part was intended for harpsichord with only string instruments (a single string instrument?) as part of the continuo group and that these instruments would be reading their parts from this single Continuo part. The NBA KB makes no mention of a figured bass for this Continuo part, but this might easily be explained by Bach not having sufficient time to include a figured bass, particularly if Bach himself were to conduct the performance from the harpsichord. It is also highly likely that the performers in Bach’s Collegium musicum would have performed this music at sight without any rehearsal, a procedure well-documented by members of the ensemble who played and sang under Bach’s direction (See: Bach’s Collegium musicum in Leipzig and Its History).