HEINRICH NIKOLAUS GERBER’S

REDISCOVERED MANUSCRIPT OF JOHANN

SEBASTIAN BACH’S SUITE IN E MINOR
(BWV 996): A COPY OF BACH’S HITHERTO
UNKNOWN REVISED VERSION
Christoph Öhm-Kühnle

T
he Suite in E minor (BWV 996) by J. S. Bach has long been of
interest to instrumentalists because evidence suggests (see
below) that it may have been performed on a variety of
instruments, such as the lute, lute-harpsichord, or harpsichord.1
Additionally, as with all of Bach’s harpsichord and clavichord works,
today it is played on the modern piano; even more frequently,
however, it can be heard performed on the modern guitar.

In this article, the author presents several new findings regarding

the music score of the suite, findings suggesting that Bach’s yet
unknown final revision of the suite may be documented through H.
N. Gerber’s manuscript copy of the composition. Gerber’s copy,
rediscovered in 1984, has not been analyzed completely . This essay
attempts to remedy that lack.

The autograph of the Suite in E minor (BWV 996) is lost. Just

three sources, written during the eighteenth century, exist. Two of
them were certainly written during Bach’s lifetime: a copy by Bach’s
colleague and relative Johann Gottfried Walther (1684–1748),
identified here as Source A, and a later one by Bach’s student
1
The author has previously published a shorter version of these research results
regarding the suite BWV 996 in “Zum Notentext der Suite e-Moll (BWV 996)—Eine
textkritische Untersuchung der Abschrift von Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber,” Bach-
Jahrbuch 92 (2006): 295–302. Publication of the translated and expanded version of
this article is by the kind permission of the Bach-Archiv, Leipzig.
Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber (1702–1775), identified as Source B.
Gerber’s copy had been lost since the beginning of the twentieth
century. In 1984 the manuscript was found at an antiquarian book-
store by Wolfgang Wiemer. Wiemer subsequently described it in Bach-
Jahrbuch.2 Wiemer’s main goal in the article was to document the
manuscript’s particular ornamentation (appoggiaturas in the first
movement are seen only in Gerber’s manuscript). This was seen as the
most interesting aspect of Gerber’s copy.

Two other manuscripts were discovered together with the one in

question: H. N. Gerber’s manuscript of the Toccata in E minor, BWV
914 ( bound together with Gerber’s manuscript in the Suite in E
minor BWV 996), and a chorale collection. These two sources have
been fully investigated; the results and music scores were published
immediately afterwards.3 After that, Gerber’s copy of BWV 996 was
deemed of no further interest, and no further research on the Gerber
manuscript was done.

Almost two decades later, in 2006, the author of the article on

hand was invited by a lute-harpsichord specialist and by the owner of
the Gerber BWV 996 manuscript to investigate further the ornamen-
tation in this copy, with a view toward determining its possible
suitability for a keyboard instrument (namely the lute-harpsichord)
rather than the lute. Although it became obvious during the research
that the ornaments in Gerber’s copy suit keyboard instruments very
well, the idea that they are (also) suitable for lutes remains valid. This
conclusion however, merely confirms other evidence that strongly
suggests the piece had been performed on lute-harpsichord and very
likely had been written specifically for this instrument.4 The numer

2
“Ein Bach-Doppelfund: Verschollene Gerber-Abschrift (BWV 914 und 996) und
unbekannte Choralsammlung Christian Friedrich Penzels,” Bach-Jahrbuch 73 (1987):
29–73.
3
See the edition of the Toccata in E minor (BWV 914): J. S. Bach, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher
Werke (in the following abbreviated as NBA for Neue Bach-Ausgabe), Ser. V, Vol. 9:1
Toccaten (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1976; hereafter NBA V/10), and the edition of the
chorale collection: Johann Sebastian Bach und seine Schule: Neu entdeckte Choral– und
Liedsätze (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1985).
4
This is documented in sources such as Uta Henning, “Zur Frage des Lautenklaviers
bei Johann Sebastian Bach,“Alte Musik als ästhetische Gegenwart: Bach–Händel–Schütz,”
convention report (Stuttgart, 1985): 465-69; Hans-Joachim Schulze, “Wer intavolierte
ous technical difficulties encountered when it is attempted on the
regular Baroque lute tuned in D minor (although today it is frequently
performed in transcriptions for modern bass lute, as well as for
guitar), and the affinity the setting has for the keyboard (e.g, in the
Gigue) have made it a welcome piece for harpsichordists since the
eighteenth century.5 These factors suggest convincingly that the suite
is eminently suitable for lute-harpsichord, an instrument that Bach
also owned (two lute-claviers were in his estate) and helped to
develop.6

The handwritten instrumentation notice (by an unknown writer,

using eighteenth-century terminology) on the cover of J. G. Walther’s
copy of the composition, “aufs Lauten Werck,” also suggests that it
was written for the lute-harpsichord; at least it shows that, in the
eighteenth century, it was regarded as a composition suited for this
instrument. Since there is a record of a lute-clavier bought in Weimar,
(built in 1715 by Bach’s relative Johann Nikolaus Bach), 7 Bach likely
had access to a lute-clavier during the time-frame in which this
composition must have been composed (the safest way of dating the
composition’s origin is placing it in the time-frame when the earlier
copy was written: between 1710 and 1717, with a slight possibility of
an earlier date of origin).

Johann Sebastian Bachs Lautenkompositionen?” Die Musikforschung 19 (1966): 32 and

following. An article with greater emphasis on the technical aspects of a recon-
structed lute-harpsichord is found in Uta Henning’s “The Most Beautiful among the
Claviers: Rudolf Richter’s Reconstruction of a Baroque Lute-Harpsichord,” Early
Music 10/4 (1982): 477–86.
5
The writer of the third eighteenth-century manuscript of the Suite in E minor BWV
996 transposed the composition a fourth higher, so that it perfectly fits the best-
sounding range of the most common Baroque keyboard instruments, such as the
harpsichord or clavichord; the manuscript is contained in a collection of keyboard
works, all by the same writer, possibly Bach himself or a student of Bach. See NBA
V/10, Kritischer Bericht, ed. Hartwig Eichberg and Thomas Kohlhase (Kassel:
Bärenreiter, 1982; hereafter NBA V/10, KB), p. 120; see also Thurston Dart, “Bach’s
Early Keyboard Music: A Neglected Source (Brussels, B.R., Fétis 2960),” Acta
Musicologica 42 (1970): 236–38.
6
See Uta Henning, “Die ‘Laute auf dem Claviere’: Zur Rekonstruktion des Theorben-
flügels nach Johann Christoph Fleischer (1718) durch Rudolf Richter (1986),” Basler
Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis 12 (1988): 109–122.
7
Reinhold Jauernig, Johann Sebastian Bach in Thüringen (Weimar: Thüringer Volksverlag,
1950), 99 (note 14).
 The author’s research results, which are the subject of this article,
reveal not only a few more ornaments (differing from those in the
known versions of the composition), but also a large number of
previously over looked differences from the received version of the
original score itself. These differences and the reasons for them make
an interesting subject for detailed study. In the following essay,
Gerber’s copy is compared to the edition in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe8
and to Walther’s manuscript, which has been considered the most
authoritative source—a view that should now be brought into
question by these new findings. 9

Unluckily, the music edition of BWV 996 in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe

was published just before Gerber’s manuscript was rediscovered. As
a consequence, this otherwise highly valuable and thorough edition
had to be based mainly on the only known early copy, written by J. G.
Walther (see SOURCES below). A nineteenth-century edition edited by
Hans Bischoff (which was based in part, but not fully, on Gerber’s
version before it was temporarily lost) then was used for the compari-
son of Source A (Walther) and Source B (Gerber) in the critical
commentary of NBA V/10. Despite the overall romantic approach of
Bischoff’s edition, which added legato slurs and dynamic markings,
and which did not document editorial additions of ornaments or
textual versions not contained in Gerber’s manuscript (although
Bischoff did state in the introductory notes to the score that he chose
ornaments according to his own taste, without noting their specific
sources), scholars accepted the edition by Bischoff as a documenta-
tion of the original source by Gerber.(This may have been caused by
Bischoff’s remark in the edition identifying the Gerber manuscript as
one of his sources.)

8
NBA V/10.
9
J. S. Bachs Klavierwerke, vol. 7, ed. Hans Bischoff (Leipzig [1888]).
 H. N. GERBER’S COPIES OF BACH’S COMPOSITIONS:
THEIR QUALITY AND DATES OF ORIGIN

Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber was Bach’s student in Leipzig from the

second half of 1724 until at least 1725. Gerber’s son’s account says
that he studied with Bach until 1727,10 but Alfred Dürr lists sources
suggesting 1725 as the year when Gerber finished his studies with
Bach.11

Numerous copies of Bach’s compositions made by Heinrich

Nikolaus Gerber during the time of his studies with Johann Sebastian
Bach exist.12 They include all of the Inventions and Sinfonias, all of
the French Suites, four of the English Suites as well as the suites
BWV 818 and BWV 819, the Partita in E minor, BWV 830, a
collection with music for organ containing BWV 662a, the Well-
tempered Clavier I (although a different writer finished the score from
BWV 864)13 as well as the Toccata in E minor BWV, 914 (which, until
recently, was bound together with Gerber’s manuscript of BWV
996),14 the Toccata in G major, BWV 916, and the Suite in E minor,
BWV 996, which is the subject of this article.

It is possible to date the manuscripts by comparing examples of

Gerber’s handwriting, especially with regard to the shape of the
augmentation dots.15 The point in time at which the shape of the
augmentation dots changed from a rather ornamental shape (which is
open toward the top) to the regular shape used nowadays is (accord-
ing to his own dating of his manuscript copy of the Well-tempered
Clavier I) November 21, 1725, at the latest, since all later manuscripts
display the modern form of the dots. The much greater number of
augmentation dots in Gerber’s copy of BWV 996 employ the (early)
ornamental shape; therefore the manuscripts was probably written
10
Ernst Ludwig Gerber, Historisch-Biographisches Lexicon der Tonkünstler, vol. 1, (Leipzig
1790), 491–92. E. L. Gerber also discusses the order in which H. N. Gerber studied
and copied Bach’s compositions during his studies; see, for example, Alfred Dürr,
“Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber als Schüler Bachs,” Bach-Jahrbuch 64 (1978): 7–18.
11
Dürr, 17.
12
Dürr, 10.
13
Dürr, 13.
14
Wiemer, “Ein Bach-Doppelfund.”
15
Dürr, 12–13.
before 21 November 1725. Since Gerber’s son Ernst Ludwig states
that his father first copied Bach’s Inventions and Sinfonias, which H.
N. Gerber dated on the manuscript as 22 January 1725, the lower
limit of the time frame also is determined, assuming E. L. Gerber’s
information is authoritative (although E. L. Gerber sometimes
presents incorrect information, as in Bach’s Albinoni thoroughbass
settings),16 it still seems appropriate to place the Inventions and
Sinfonias at the beginning of someone’s studies, leaving the Suites for
a later time.

H. N. Gerber’s manuscript copies of Bach’s compositions are all

of high quality, and are reliable sources; indeed a few of them are the
only copies of Bach’s revised versions of his works (as is the case with
his copy of the French suites, in particular, Suite No. 5 in G major
(BWV 816).17 His manuscript copy of Bach’s Inventions and Sinfonias
is one of the most accurate sources for these works. Sinfonia No. 5 in
E flat major (BWV 791) even contains ornamentation signs in Bach’s
handwriting that were probably added during Gerber’s lessons with
Bach.18

In Gerber’s manuscript copy of BWV 996 several ornaments are

written in a kind of red color, most likely made with red chalk. The
color of these red chalk markings is less opaque than and visibly
different from the dark red ink used in most of the manuscript. The
ornaments in red chalk appear only on the first page of the prelude;
in the suite, however, several corrections in the same red chalk appear.
The exemplifying ornamentation (appearing just at the beginning of
the composition) suggests that the ornaments were probably written
during a lesson, and that the student was expected to prepare the rest
of the composition in the same manner. A comparison to Gerber’s
manuscript copy of the Inventions (which has added ornamentation
signs written by Bach himself) would seem to be called for; however,
the ornaments in Gerber’s copy of BWV 996 can not be identified

16
Dürr , 14–15.
17
NBA, ser. 5, vol. 8, Kritischer Bericht : 72–74.
18
NBA, ser. 5, vol. 3, vi.
clearly as written by Bach, and are probably in Gerber’s handwriting19
(see facsimile below).

Three ornaments in the prelude display a different style of

handwriting, one that is rather vague and less accurate (see the
comparison below); they point to possible time pressure at the time
of notation, such as during a lesson, while the teacher performs the
piece at the instrument. Probably Bach actually performed and/or
dictated these ornaments during one of Gerber’s lessons, with Bach
performing and Gerber writing at a table—this would explain a few
mistakes in Gerber’s copy; Bach may just have looked through the
beginning of the copy and then performed the suite in the lesson so that
Gerber could write down the other corrections and revisions himself.
It is unlikely that Gerber wrote the ornaments entirely without Bach’s
supervision (as a homework or a later revision), considering the major
corrections in the sarabande and the prelude (made in the same red
chalk color)—revisions that Gerber, as a thorough copyist (see above)
and admiring Bach student, would surely not have undertaken without
consultation. Additionally, some ornaments in the prelude are
identical to those in Walther’s copy (see Summary below), further
increasing the likelihood that Gerber had the original autograph as a
model for making corrections or that the author of the music advised
him to make the corrections.

19
This may also be seen in Gerber’s manuscript copy of the English Suite BWV 806
(previously in the Landes- and Universitätsbibliothek Halle, now owned privately)
and the Partita BWV 830 (Bach-Archiv Leipzig, Sign. Go. S. 8). His appoggiaturas
are usually very similar in form, with stems (going in different directions) that are
usually rather long (but sometimes short), and always with particularly small note
heads and very short beams, making them look somewhat like snail horns.
Facsimile 1. Johann Sebastian Bach, Suite in E minor (BWV 996), Praeludio.
Facsimile excerpt of the manuscript copy by Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber:
added ornaments in red chalk (visibly lighter), page turn marking prestissimo
volti instead of Presto marking, different handwriting style of a trill on the note
G-sharp in measure 9 (the measure in the upper right corner of the excerpt).
Original in private possession, facsimile printed with permission of the
owner.
Facsimile 2. A closer view of measure 9 (see description above).

COMPARISON

The following new discoveries are listed in a format similar to that

found in the commentary of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe. The versions in
Bischoff’s edition are also listed whenever they are the source of
incorrect information in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe. Sometimes the
versions of the third manuscript source (Source C, see description
below) is also listed, since Gerber’s manuscript displays many
similarities to this source. To illustrate the significant differences of
Gerber’s version, several music excerpts are provided. In some
instances (Examples 4, 5, and 6), the Neue Bach-Ausgabe does not
follow Walther’s copy, because his manuscript is rhythmically
incorrect; in such cases Walther’s version is described in the text.
 The music examples of Gerber’s copy show the original
polyphonic setting of his copy, with mostly separate rests for each
voice and separate stems for each note in a chord. By contrast, the
examples from the Neue Bach-Ausgabe show that edition’s general style
of presentation, which foregoes polyphonic notation for the sake of
readability. In our musical examples of Gerber’s manuscript, no
additions or corrections have been made (e.g., added courtesy
accidentals, changed stem directions, or regrouping of notes), with the
exception of a clef change in the upper system (from C clef to violin
clef).

Example 1 (Praeludio, measure 12) shows several characteristics of

Gerber’s copy: appoggiaturas (unique to Gerber’s copy), which enrich
the sound and harmonies of the composition, and mordent trills,
which appear so often (mostly where regular trills appear in Walther’s
manuscript) that they cannot simply be mistakes (as Bischoff
thought).20 Rather they are of a different kind of ornamentation,
resulting in a homogenous sound that stresses the primary notes. The
example also shows longer slurs than in Walther’s manuscript, an
additional characteristic of Gerber’s copy.

Example 1. Praeludio, measure 12, in the version of Heinrich Nikolaus

Gerber.

20
Bischoff, introductory notes to the music score of the Suite in E minor (BWV 996)
in J. S. Bachs Klavierwerke, vol. 7, ed. Hans Bischoff (Leipzig, [1888]), 54.
Example 2. Praeludio, measure 12, in the version of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe and
Walther.

In Examples 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the sarabande, Gerber’s version

differs rhythmically in the upper voice. Walther’s inaccurate version
of the upper voice has been changed in the Neue-Bach-Ausgabe (see
Examples 4 and 6). In these cases Gerber’s manuscript contains a
rhythmically correct version.21 Even if Gerber himself corrected a
seemingly inaccurate rhythm here (as in Walther’s copy)—one
contained in the original from which he copied (most likely an
autograph by Bach or a lost, fourth copy)—Gerber’s copy (Source B)
is an authoritative revised version, since he was a student under
Bach’s supervision when he wrote it. Still, it is unlikely that Gerber
himself would have changed significant melodic phrases as has been
done here—phrases that are now accented differently (and, it seems
to the author, are improved musically):

Example 3. Sarabande, measure 10, in the version of Heinrich Nikolaus

Gerber and Source C (in Source C transposed to A minor).

21
For a further description of this problem in Walther’s copy, also see: NBA 5/10,
KB, 123 and following.
Example 4. Sarabande, measure 10, in the version of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe,
in which the note values have been changed (in Walther’s copy, the upper
voice is set as: quarter note g', eighth note f<', eighth note e', dotted half note
e', then five sixteenth notes: e', f<', g', a', b').

Example 5. Sarabande, measure 13, in the version of Heinrich Nikolaus

Gerber and Source C (in Source C it is transposed to A minor; also the first
slur is missing but the note values are identical to Gerber’s copy).

Example 6. Sarabande, measure 13, in the version of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe,

in which the note values have been changed.
(In Walther’s copy, the upper voice is set as: dotted quarter note a<',
sixteenth note g<', sixteenth note a<', dotted half note b', then seven thirty-
second notes: a', g', f<', e', d', c<', b. In contrast to the Neue Bach-Ausgabe,
Walther’s copy also contains a slur above the first two notes of the upper
voice).
 Examples 7 and 8 show another difference between Gerber’s and
Walther’s manuscripts: in Gerber’s version, the upper voice turns to
the major key earlier, with a g<' appearing already on beat 2 of the
measure for the final chord of the movement. Such an early turn to
the major key occurs several times in this suite (in the allemande and
the gigue; in both cases the reading is found also in Sources A and C).
This sharp sign in the Courante in Gerber’s manuscript is another one
of several similarities to Source C, therefore suggesting an identical
origin for Gerber’s manuscript (Source B) and Source C (possibly
Bach’s revised autograph) and also suggesting that Walther’s
manuscript (Source A) is inaccurate in this case. Since C also contains
elements only appearing in Walther’s copy, such as the arpeggio sign
in measure 11 of the Courante, Source C cannot be a copy of Gerber’
manuscript, where the sign is missing.

Example 7. Courante, measure 22, in the version of Heinrich Nikolaus

Gerber and Source C (in Source C transposed to A minor; Source C also
contains a slur over the second to fourth notes in the upper voice, but is
identical otherwise).

Example 8. Courante, measure 22, in the version of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe

and Walther: missing sharp sign before g'.
 LIST OF ALL NEWLY FOUND DIFFERENCES IN THE PRAELUDIO
BETWEEN GERBER’S COPY AND THE EDITION OF THE SUITE IN
THE NBA AND WALTHER’S COPY

In the following discussion, the author presents a complete list of

all newly discovered differences in the first movement (Praeludio) of
Gerber’s manuscript (Source B), when compared with Walther’s
manuscript (Source A) and the edition in the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA
V/10). In significant cases, Gerber’s manuscript copy is also
compared with the edition of Bischoff and/or with Source C. The
differences are listed according to the system applied in the
commentary of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe: measure number (Arabic
numeral); voice layer, counted from the top (Roman numeral);
rhythmic symbol (Arabic numeral, NB: appoggiaturas are not counted
but all other notes, rests, and notes connected through slurs are
counted as rhythmic signs); description of the differences.

SOURCES

A: Manuscript copy written by Johann Gottfried Walther contained

in a collection from the estate of Johann Ludwig Krebs. Location:
Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Signature: Mus. ms. Bach P 801. Date of
origin: ca. 1710–1717.22 The first edition by Peters is based on Source
A. The Neue-Bach-Ausgabe (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1982) is based mainly
on Source A.

B: Manuscript copy written by Heinrich Nikolaus Gerber. According

to the later handwritten title page, owned in 1877 by Dr. W. Rust,
Berlin. Later it was owned by Dr. Erich Prieger, then it was lost.
Today it is in a private collection. Date of origin: between January 22
and November 21, 1725 (see above regarding H. N. Gerber’s copies
of Bach’s compositions: their quality and dates of origin). The edition
by Bischoff (Steingräber, [1888]) is based mainly on Source B and the
first edition by Peters.

22
According to the dating system for Walther’s writing styles applied by Hermann
Zietz, Quellenkritische Untersuchungen an den Bach- Handschriften P 801, P 802 und P 803
aus dem, “Krebs’schen Nachlaß” unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Choralbearbeitungen des
jungen J. S. Bach, Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft, ed. Georg von Dadelsen
(Hamburg: Wagner, 1969), 1:210.
C: Manuscript copy in a compilation volume (written probably during
the second half of the eighteenth century) that contains early
compositions by J. S. Bach for keyboard instruments. In 1836 it was
sold by Breitkopf & Härtel, Leipzig, to the musicologist Fétis. From
his estate it came to the Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels. Location:
Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels, Signature: II. 4093.

Note that since all differences listed below are not contained in
the edition of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (in the following abbreviated as
NBA), this fact is not continuously mentioned. Some of the
ornaments mentioned below from Source B were first described in
the article by Wolfgang Wiemer.23

Praeludio

4/I/13–14 In Source B the short trill sign is placed visibly after the
dotted eighth note, between the note and the
following sixteenth note, possibly suggesting a trill
starting from the main note and therefore emphasizing
the main note and the fifth in the cadence (since most
other ornaments in this manuscript are placed very
neatly).

5/I/3–10 The slur is missing in Source B.

5/I/11 In Source B there is an appoggiatura inserted from

below (in red chalk).

5/I/14 In Source B there is a mordent trill instead of the short

trill sign.

6/I/1 The short trill sign also appears in Source B (in red
chalk).

7/I/9 In Source B an appoggiatura has been inserted from

above (in red chalk); additionally, in Source B a
mordent trill stands above the main note, in contrast
to the short trill in the edition by Bischoff. In the
23
Wiemer, 32.
 NBA, the short trill sign from Bischoff is mentioned as
the version from Source B. Therefore, it wrongly
accepts Bischoff’s edition as a correct depiction of
Gerber’s copy.

8/I/4 The accidental before c<' in Source B is in red chalk

(because it is a correction).

8/I/3–5 In Source B there is a slur; the slurs over the following

note groups also appear in Source B, but those above
rhythmic signs 6–9 and 10–14 are imprecisely drawn
and could also be interpreted as slurs above 6–10 and
11–14.

9/I/1 In Source B a short trill sign appears (in red chalk) in

a different hand writing style (possibly written by
Gerber under time pressure during the lesson); it is
drawn rather imprecisely and is directed towards the
upper right side (as seen in the ornaments on 14/I/17
and 15/I/4).

9/I/5 In Source B an appoggiatura note has been inserted

from below (in red chalk).

10/I/1–2 In Source B there is a mordent sign clearly placed

between the dotted eighth note and the following
sixteenth note (since the other ornaments in Gerber’s
copy are placed very accurately, this could suggest
holding the main note a bit longer before starting the
trill).

12 For measure 12, see also Examples 1 and 2.

12/I/1 In Source B there is a clearly visible mordent trill (in

red chalk); in Bischoff’s edition the mordent trill is
printed small (without a reason given, the small font
would suggest that the sign is less authoritative or not
stemming from Gerber’s copy).
12/I/1-3 In Source B the slur appears on rhythmic signs 1–3
instead of 2–3.

12/I/11 In Source B there is a mordent trill with Nachschlag (the

Nachschlag is written in red chalk) instead of the short
trill sign.

13/I/1–3 In Source B the slur appears on rhythmic signs 1–3

instead of 2–3.

13/I/6–8 In Source B the slur appears on rhythmic signs 6–8

instead of 7–8.

14/I/1 In Source B there is a mordent trill instead of the short

trill sign; additionally, Source B contains an
appoggiatura from above (in red chalk).

14/I/3 In Source B there is an appoggiatura inserted from

below (in red chalk).

14/I/3–12 In Source B there is a long slur over rhythmic signs

3–12 (eighth note b to eighth note e').

14/I/12ff. In Source B the upper voice has the correct rhythmic

note values: dotted eighth note e', thirty-second note
g, sixty-fourth note a, sixty-fourth note b (in Walther’s
copy the rhythmically inaccurate note values are dotted
eighth note e', thirty-second note g, thirty-second note
a, and thirty-second note b).

14/I/17 In Source B there is a short trill sign (in red chalk), but
in a different handwriting style (also see measure 9 and
measure 15); 14/I/17 must be read as 14/I/16
according to Gerber’s copy because of the different
note values in it, resulting in different numbering of
the rhythmic signs (14/I/17 is just the place of this
note according to the version in NBA).
15/I/4 In Source B, the mordent trill (which is also contained
in Source A!) appears in red chalk (in the other hand-
writing style—likely written by Gerber under time
pressure; see also measures 9 and 14), suggesting that
the corrections and additions in red chalk were made
with a knowledge of Bach’s autograph (which
obviously still contained many details of the earlier
version that Walther copied) or under Bach’s
supervision.

16 The Presto marking does not appear in Source B. (It

does not appear in Source C either, strongly suggesting
a (lost) common source for B and C, very likely Bach’s
revised autograph.) Instead, after measure 16 (which
by coincidence appears on the bottom of the first
page), the page-turn advice prestissimò volti appears. This
instruction appears again in Source B at the page-turn
of the Gigue: therefore, it is possible that Gerber’s copy
reproduces the original version and that Walther
mistakenly deciphered the page-turn instruction as a
Presto marking, since Bach often abbreviates the page-
turn advice in different ways (which, written in his
generous hand, are hardly readable). Note: Although
one would expect this section of the overture-like
prelude to be performed in a flowing (not slow)
tempo, Bach usually does not add additional
performance instructions, such as in the French
Overture, BWV 831; furthermore, Walther’s Presto
marking changes the musical expression of the section.
On the other hand, Gerber could have copied the
composition from a lost additional copy (see Summary
section below) in which the Presto marking was
mistakenly omitted. However, most of Gerber’s copies
of Bach’s works were made from autographs, and
Bach probably supervised Gerber’s work closely. This
strongly speaks for the first theory, which suggests that
Gerber here documented the more correct (revised)
version of the composition.
16/I/1 In Source B there is an appoggiatura inserted from
above (in red chalk).

57/I/1 The first note of the measure in Source B is incorrectly

written as a sixteenth note. However it is placed
correctly (as is the following note).

58/II/2 In Source B there is a tie, according to the voice-

leading, from the quarter note a to the first rhythmic
sign of the lower voice in measure 59 (eighth note a),
instead of a tie in the upper voice from rhythmic sign
I/5 (sixteenth note a) to rhythmic sign II/1 in measure
59 (eighth note a) in the lower voice (as in the NBA,
where Walther’ copy has been misunderstood, since he
always writes short slurs and ties, so that it is often
difficult to determine where they belong exactly).

59/I/2 In Sources B and A there is a tie from quarter note e'

to the first note in the upper voice of measure 60
(eighth note e', rhythmic sign I/1), which is missing in
the NBA (although it is appears correctly in Walther’s
copy).

73/I/4 The last note of the measure in Source B is incorrectly

written as an eighth note (the previous note however
is written correctly).

74/I, V/1 In Source B there are fermata signs.

SUMMARY

The newly discovered differences between the Gerber manuscript

and the currently accepted score of BWV 996 (and to the edition in
the Neue Bach-Ausgabe) are as follows:

1) The Gerber manuscript offers correct or more precise

versions of certain passages (see, for example, the Courante,
measure 22; the Sarabande, measures 10 and 13).
 2) The Gerber manuscript contains variants with respect to
ornamentation (see Praeludio, measure 12), articulation (see
Praeludio, measure 12), and the main body of the score (see
Sarabande, measures 14, 18, and 20).

3.) It contains additions (see for example, the appoggiaturas in the

Praeludio).

In particular, the rhythmically correct upper voice and the added

notes in the Sarabande strongly suggest a revision of the score by J. S.
Bach after Walther’s copy was made. The revisions recognizable by
the use of red chalk—the changes in the Sarabande and the
appoggiaturas in the Praeludio—were made during the same stage of
revision (which was, perhaps, already a second revision, made during
Gerber’s lesson; see below). Since it is unlikely that Gerber made the
red chalk-corrections in the Sarabande without supervision by his
teacher, J. S. Bach, the appoggiaturas were probably also written under
Bach’s supervision or dictated by Bach.24 Two significant trill signs
(which are not placed at obvious places, such as cadences), written in
red chalk in Gerber’s copy (in measures 6 and 15 of the Praeludio), also
appear in Walther’s manuscript (their authenticity presumably
traceable back to a lost Bach autograph). These trill signs furnish
further evidence that Gerber made the corrections under the
supervision of Bach rather than later in life.

The general character of the suite’s revision documented in

Gerber’s copy is characterized by two different features: on the one
hand, it has a new sound character that either tends to stress the
primary notes more (with mordent trills) or enriches the harmonies
(with appoggiaturas); on the other hand, it displays a more exact
notation through the corrections in the upper voice of the Sarabande.

24
Bach’s revisions of the Suite in E minor (BWV 996) (for example, the adding of
appoggiaturas) happened during the very months of 1725 when Bach entered two
similarly ornamented partitas (BWV 827 and BWV 830) into the second music
collection for his wife Anna Magdalena. The Partita in E minor (BWV 830) especially
displays enormous similarities in its Sarabande to the French Overture-like Praeludio
of BWV 996. The comparison of these two compositions might have influenced the
revision of BWV 996.
 The accuracy and high quality of Gerber’s other known copies of
Bach’s compositions is generally known (as stated above). It is very
unlikely that Gerber, as a young and admiring student of Bach, would
have changed the music score himself manner without the approval
or direction of Bach himself. The very accurate copy of the
Inventions and Sinfonias that Gerber made just prior to copying
BWV 996, suggests a similar quality in the case at hand.

Furthermore, Gerber’s copy (Source B) reveals numerous

previously unknown similarities with the third source of the compo-
sition (Source C), such as the missing Presto marking in measure 16 of
the Praeludio, the earlier turn to the major tonality in measure 22 of the
Courante, and the upper voice in measures 10 and 13 of the
Sarabande (see examples above). These similarities suggest a common
origin for both sources, such as Bach’s autograph or perhaps a fourth
source, which now is lost.

Another possibility previously suggested by Thurston Dart25 (but

questioned by Dömling and Kohlhase)26 is that Source C (containing
early compositions by Bach) is indeed an early Bach autograph (in our
case with a transposed version of Bach’s revised Suite BWV 996) but
not the model for Gerber’s copy, since Source C is transposed to A
minor (Gerber would then have had to transpose the composition
back to E minor).

Indeed, the most likely possibility is that Source C is a copy of an

early autograph collection by Bach that was possibly owned by a
student of Bach (although, as Kohlhase stated earlier, it could also be
a copy by an unknown writer who assembled early Bach manuscripts
later).27 In any case, it contains authentic early compositions of J. S.
Bach, which might be revisions in some instances (as in the case of
BWV 996).

25
Dart, 236 and following..
26
Wolfgang Dömling and Thomas Kohlhase, “Kein Bach-Autograph: Die
Handschrift Brüssel, Bibliothèque Royale, II 4093 (Fétis 2960),” Acta Musicologica
(1971): 108-09.
27
NBA V/10, KB, 120.
 Several identical details in Source C and Source A (Walther)28
further support the theory that Source C is an autograph or a copy of
an early collection autograph, for these similarities are not found in
Source B (Gerber). This fact also suggests that Source C is not a copy
of B (Gerber). Although the differences between A and C are much
more numerous than the similarities (because the composition had
been revised), it is likely that Bach’s revised autograph still contained
the details shared by A and C, especially if the corrections were just
added to the original autograph score (which is almost certain, since
more substantive revisions, such as added measures, do not appear in
Gerber’s copy). Another reason why Source C could not be a copy of
Source B is that all corrections of Source B in red chalk (such as in the
Sarabande) are missing in Source C.

A particular, important, and basic difference between Walther’s

and Gerber’s copies derives from the different personal backgrounds
of the writers. Walther was a colleague of Bach in Weimar and was
almost the same age as Bach; Gerber was a young student.
Exemplified ornamentation of parts of a composition (done so that
the student can add similar ornaments to the rest of the work) is
typical for a pedagogical situation, as in the case on hand. Bach then
probably used this occasion to revise the score once more (his earlier
revision being documented in Gerber’s copy by variant readings
written in regular ink—for example, the different note values in the
Sarabande’s upper voice) by dictating the improvements and
corrections to Gerber (such as the amendments made with red chalk
in the Sarabande), or by performing the suite during a lesson and
having Gerber write down the corrections in red chalk according to
Bach’s performance.

28
Among these similarities is the following: Courante, measure 11 (arpeggio sign
before first chord of the upper system—although it is missing in the score of the
NBA).