Bach
and the “Great Passion“
I
Figural:
Florid; the terms are used for a
decorated line or to distinguish concerted music from plainchant or
simple vocal polyphony.
On
11 April 1727 at approximately 1:30 P.M. in the Thomaskirche zu
Leipzig, a work was premiered which would have a great impact, not
only on the career of its creator and his family and those performing
it, but on history (and especially music history). The work was the
Paßions-Musik nach dem Evangelisten Matthäus
[Passion-Music after the Evangelist Matthew] (better
known as the Matthäus-Passion [St. Matthew
Passion]) BWV 244b (BC D 3a). The creator of this work (who
also conducted the premiere mentioned) was Johann Sebastian Bach,
Kantor of the Thomas-Schule and Directoris Chori Musici in
Leipzig.
Why
is this work considered to have such an impact? What are its
origins? What is its liturgical context? How has it been received
in later years and by later generations? And how has it been seen
within the Bach family? Even more so in this work than any of his
other Passion settings and pasticcios, Bach seems to have crossed all
creedal divides and social and artistic differences. In this work
(more than in his secular cantatas), Bach comes closest to opera and
theatre. And yet, it is one of the most mysterious works Bach ever
wrote. Let us see why and investigate this work.
II
First,
let us get things into context. Before Johann Sebastian Bach took up
the post of Kantor of the Thomas-Schule and Directoris Chori
Musici in Leipzig on 5 May 1723 (only nearly 4 years before the
premiere of the SMP) upon election to the position left vacant by the
death of Johann Kuhnau, the annual performance of figural Passion
music was only a relatively newly-founded tradition in the city. The
evidence of pre-1700s performances is at best sketchy. Of course,
responsorial Passion performances had been a staple in the liturgical
life of Leipzig since at least the 16th century, but
figural Passions were relatively few and far between. The two
crowning examples we have are that of Thomaskantor Sebastian Knüpfer
(whose Saint Matthew Passion was performed before the
Sermon on Judica Sunday 1669 at the Nikolaikirche) and Thomaskantor
Johann Schelle (who performed a now-lost 19-part Passion).
The
evidence of performance of Passion Oratorios (like those of Bach) was
even newer when Bach took up the post. The first performance of a
Passion Oratorio in Leipzig took place at the Neukirche on 26 March
1717 (one year after the work’s premiere and composition) by
the then organist and music director Johann Gottfried Vogler. The
work featured at this performance was the Brockes-Passion by
the then Kantor in Frankfurt-am-Main Georg Philipp Telemann. Four
years later, Bach’s predecessor Johann Kuhnau composed and
premiered his only known Passion work (the Markus-Passion)
at the Vespers services at the Thomaskirche on 11 April 1721. This
work was possibly performed again the following two years. By this
time, the decision was made by the Leipzig town council that the
performance of Passion music would be an annual tradition and would
alternate between the two main churches (the Nikolaikirche and the
Thomaskirche).
The
annual composition and performance of figural Passion music was also
a new project for Bach himself when he took up his Leipzig post. Up
to that time (5 May 1723), Bach had only two occasions to compose and
perform figural Passion music, both stemming from commissions. These
works (the Weimar pasticcio on the anonymous Hamburger
(Keiser/Bruhns) Markus-Passion [BWV deest, BC D 5a] of
ca. 1713 and the so-called “Weimarer Passion”
[BWV deest, BC D 1]) will be discussed in their turn at a later time.
At
any rate, after the composition and premiere of his Johannes-Passion
(BWV 245, BC D 2a) on 7 April 1724, Bach was in search for
material for his next Passion project. He came across the 1725 text
Erbauliche Gedanken auf den Grünen Donnerstag und
Charfreitag über den Leidenden Jesum by the Leipzig
Oberpostamt and later Postsekretär and
Oberpostkommisar Christian Friedrich Henrici
(better known by his pseudonym Picander). Possibly he wanted to set
it to music (this is not known, as any results were lost), or
possibly it set him to thinking of setting a new work based on the
Passion story as related by St. Matthew (that he included six
movements of this text in his Matthäus-Passion is
well documented). By the early part of 1725, however, he decided to
abandon the project and revert to a fresh setting of the “Weimarer
Passion” (his Johannes-Passion BWV 245 BC
D 2b).
By
the following year (1726), a score was starting to take some shape
for a Passion according to Saint Matthew, when he again abandoned the
project for a newer pasticcio based on his earlier (ca. 1713) work.
By this time (late 1726-early 1727), he no doubt encountered a new
text by Picander in his series Ernst-Schertzhaffte und
Satyrische Gedichte. This, coupled with the text mentioned
earlier, would form the libretto that Bach used for his setting of
the St. Matthew Passion.
Much
has been written about the actual dating of the earlier version of
this work. Whilst it is likely that Bach did perform it on 15 April
1729, there are many factors that point to a composition and premiere
date of 11 April 1727. Chief amongst these is the fact that there
are parallels between the Violin I part in the aria “Mache
dich, mein Herze, rein” and a Viola part in the Sanctus BWV
232iii (which was being copied out for a new performance
on Easter Sunday 13 April 1727).
In
accordance with the Order of Worship, Bach composed the Passion in
two parts. Here is a table for the Order of Worship for Good Friday
Vespers services for the two main churches in Leipzig during Bach’s
tenure:
Ordnung
der Vesper "Mittags-Predigt" an den Leipziger
Hauptkirchen am Karfreitag ( ca. ab 1721) zur Zeit
Bachs in Leipzig
|
Gemeinde
|
Chor
|
Prediger
& Minestranten Mit Ausnahme der
Kanzelstücke im Rezitationston gesungen
|
1
|
volles
Geläut
|
Als
"de tempore" Lied "Da Jesus an dem Kreuze
stund"
|
|
2
|
|
Passion
Teil I
|
|
3
|
Lied "O
Lamm Gottes, unschuldig"
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
Kanzelgruß Ankündigung
der Predigt
|
5
|
Lied "Herr
Jesus Christ dich zu uns wend"
|
|
|
6
|
(Vater
unser - still gebetet ? - )
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
Verlesung
des Predigttextes aus der Passionsharmonie nach
Bugenhagen, daraus den Abschnitt des Begräbnisses Jesu
|
8
|
|
|
Predigt (ca.
1 Std.)
|
8
|
|
|
Kanzelsegen
|
10
|
|
Passion
Teil II
|
|
11
|
|
Motette "Ecce
quomodo moritur justus"
|
|
12
|
|
|
Kollekte Segen
|
13
|
Lied: Nun
danket alle Gott
|
|
|
N.B.:
Gottesdienstbeginn ca. 13:30 Uhr - Mehrer in einer Zeile
stehenden Teile werden in der Abfolge von links nach rechts lesend
abgehalten.
Gültige
Ordnung für folgende Tage des Kirchenjahres in Leipzig: -
Karfreitag
The work premiered on 11 April 1727 and repeated
on 15 April 1729 bears some significant differences to the version we
know nowadays. We will investigate these differences later.
In March
1729, Bach was faced with a predicament. He was commissioned (as
Kapellmeister “vom Haus aus” to the court of
Anhalt-Köthen) to compose and perform a funerary cantata for his
former employer Prince Leopold. He also had to work on the Passion
setting for that year. He chose to repeat the work he premiered on
11 April 1727 that year.
For the
funerary cantata, Bach set out on an ambitious venture. Most of the
music was parodied from other works, with the exception of the
Recitatives and the Dictum movements. Again, the text was provided
by Picander in his series (Vol. II). The text was again printed (and
the work performed [?]) in 1732 with some alterations. This is the
cantata “Klagt, Kinder, klagt es aller Welt”
BWV 244a (BC B 22). The music for the arias that open and close the
first section of this four-section work were taken from the
Trauer-Ode BWV 198 (which was performed in October 1727
during the state funeral observances for the Queen of Poland and
Electress of Saxony Christianne Eberhardine). The music for the
remainder of the arias (including the closing number of the work) was
taken from this earlier version of the St. Matthew Passion.
Bach
would again revisit the “great Passion” (as he and his
family called the St. Matthew Passion) three more times
in the course of his life (performing it twice for certain). He
would make some changes in each case from the time before. He would
perform it again on 29 March 1736 (BWV 244 BC D 3b) and on 23 March
1742 (same). He would again revise it between 1743 and 1746, but
there is not concrete evidence of any further performances in Bach’s
lifetime.
III
After
Bach’s death, the work was still kept alive within his
immediate circle and his family. His students (principally Altnickol
and Agricola) and their pupils both made copies of the work. The
work had such an impact especially on Karl Philipp Emanuel Bach that
he not only kept a copy of the score, but also incorporated some of
its music into his own Passion settings. After the younger Bach’s
death, most of his musical estate (and that of Agricola and
Altnickol) came, one way or another, into the possession of the
Sing-Akademie zu Berlin. Here Karl Friedrich Zelter (during his
directorship of the institution) made a performance score of the St.
Matthew Passion that he intended to use, but never did.
Eventually, he passed the word and work onto a student of his named
Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. The latter would make his
own score out and organize three performances of the work in 1829
(Berlin), in 1830 (Leipzig), and in 1841 (Leipzig), making changes in
the score each time.
In 1854,
a performance of the work was organized in England. The same year,
the work was published by the Bach-Gesellschaft (edited
by Julius Rietz).
Let us now investigate the text and the work in
more detail, now that we have put the work into some historical and
liturgical context.
IV
The text
to the “Great Passion” can be broken down into three
basic groups of movements: the Biblical text, the madrigalian
numbers, and the chorales. The Biblical text (unlike the works of
Emanuel Bach or those of some of Bach’s contemporaries [such as
Telemann]) is completely unaltered. That is, there is
no part of the Biblical text (outside of the very first Evangelist
recitative, which skips the word “alle” between “Jesus”
and “diese”) that is either skipped or reorganized, but
rather Picander and Bach set out the text word-for-word as it appears
in the 1545 Lutherbibel. There has been much stated about how
central to Bach the word of Scripture was (so much so that in all the
extant scores and parts in Bach’s hand of the work, the
Scriptural sections are in red ink). For him (as for Luther
himself), the main aim of music was for the glory of God and the
instruction, education, and enjoyment of his fellow-man.
The
madrigalian movements (the texts that form the arias [this includes
the opening and closing movements of the work] and accompanied
recitatives in the work) are of a different caliber. Here Picander
looked to contemporary examples for inspiration. In the opening and
closing movements, Picander seems to have continued with the
mainstream tradition of Introitus and Exordium that one could find in
the Passion settings of Heinrich Schütz, but to a farther degree
and more dramatic extent. Interestingly enough, in the aria “Ach,
wo ist mein Jesus hin?” Picander interpolates (in the Choir
part) a quotation of Verse 1 of Chapter 6 from the Song of Songs
(Song of Solomon). Although in keeping with the Orthodox Evangelical
(Lutheran) doctrine and tone, Picander reflects the style and mood
and concerns of the contemporary Enlightenment movement and the
Pietist movement of the latter 17th century. In style,
his text very much reminds one of the text “Der für
die Sünde der Welt gemarterte und sterbende Jesus”
of 1712 by the Hamburg town councilor and poet Barthold Heinrich
Brockes (and in fact, the “B” sections of Movements 27b
and 68 could be said to be parodied texts from Brockes). These
movements were intended to bring the listener into meditation on the
actions just occurred in the Passion story.
Of like
vein are the Chorales. These most orthodox Evangelical movements
serve in some degree as the centerpieces of the work. In the
original text, there were 16 Chorales (1 interpolation in the
recitative “O Schmerz!” one interpolation [organs only]
in the opening aria “Kommt, ihr Töchter”, and 14
four-part chorale settings). In 1736, this was altered in two ways:
the original text used for Movement 17 was changed and music written
down, and Movement 29 was changed out from the original 4-part
Chorale setting “Jesum lass ich nicht von mir” to a
chorale fantasia on “O Mensch, bewein’ dein’ Sünde
groß”. Finally, in 1742, the organ interpolation in
Movement 1 (Verse 1 of “O Lamm Gottes, unschuldig”) was
set for ripieno Soprano Choir (which was also added in Movement 29).
Now let’s look at the musical setting.
V
As
mentioned earlier, Bach wrote four different settings of the St.
Matthew Passion. Let us look at each of these.
For the performances on 11 April 1727 and 15 April
1729, Bach used essentially the same score with one difference: in
1729, he wrote out the second organ and continuo parts. In 1727,
only one part for these was used for both orchestras. We will treat
both as one and the same score for purposes of simplicity.
A quick
note here. We today speak of “versions” of a work like
the St. Matthew Passion. However, this is not in
keeping with the historical context of the work, but rather putting
our modern concepts of a finished product into historical periods.
In the Baroque period, they did not have the concept of posterity
like we do nowadays. Each work was considered a complete work for
the intended occasion and occurrence. Therefore, when we speak of
the St. Matthew Passion, for example, we should realize
that there are in fact five different St. Matthew
Passions, one for each occasion. There are factors that go
into this: the availability of performers, personal and contextual
tastes, time constraints, etc. That said; let us look at these
different Passion settings.
The only
extant copy we have of the 1727/1729 St. Matthew Passion is
a score that was once thought to have been made by Bach’s pupil
and future son-in-law Johann Christoph Altnickol. However, in 2002,
Dr. Peter Wollny established that it was actually copied out by an
Altnickol pupil Johann Christoph Farlau. It is the most different
from the later scores and parts.
To begin with, there is only one part written out
for Organ and Continuo throughout the entire work. This means that
it reflects both orchestras at once.
Another
difference could be seen in the very first movement. Unlike the
later scores, in both orchestras the Flutes and Oboes mimic each
other. In other words, Oboe I and Oboe II imitate each other and
Flute I and Flute II imitate each other. There are a lot of voicing
differences as well (throughout the work). Finally, the
interpolation normally assigned to the Ripieno Soprano Choir is
instead assigned to the Treble Clef of the Organs (as the Ripieno
Soprano parts are non-extant).
Throughout
the work, Bach incorporates an affect that he learned from the
anonymous Hamburger (Keiser/Bruhns) Markus-Passion: he
sets the words of Christ with a “halo” of strings (except
in the climatic scene where Christ says “Eli, Eli, lama
asabthani”, in which case only the continuo accompanies it).
Another difference could be seen in the continuo
parts. In the recitatives, the continuo parts are sustained
throughout. We will later look at how this was changed.
The next
few differences occur towards the middle of the work. In Movement
17, the text set is Verse 7 of “O Haupt, voll Blut und Wunden”.
This is changed by 1736 to the more familiar Verse 6. In Movement
19, Bach uses an ensemble of two Traverse Flutes, two Oboes da
caccia, Strings, and continuo. This is changed by 1736 to two Flauti
dolci, keeping the other forces the same. Finally, in Movement 29,
Bach uses a four-part setting of Verse 6 of “Meinen Jesum lass
ich nicht”. This is changed by 1736 to the fantasia mentioned
above (which was actually a reworking in E Major of the first
movement of his Johannes-Passion BWV 245 BC D 2b in
E-Flat Major, which was again a reworking of a movement from his
“Weimarer Passion” in D Major).
In part
II, there are some differences as well. To begin with, in the early
version, the aria that opens it is set for Bass. This is changed by
1736 to be set for Alto. The Violin solo part in Movement 39 comes
from Coro II, the Gamba parts in Movements 34 and 35 are not present
(only appearing first in the 1742 “version”), the Violin
solo part in Movement 42 comes from Coro I, and in Movements 56 and
57, the parts that would later be performed by Gamba were performed
by Lute.
When Bach
came back to the St. Matthew Passion in 1736, he
made some changes. He reverted to the voicing we know now in all
movements. He changed the Traverse Flutes to Flauti dolci in
Movement 19, and he substituted Movement 29 for the Chorale Fantasia
we know now. He switched the Lute parts to Gamba, and switched out
Movement 17 for the more familiar Verse 6.
Bach again revisited the Passion (for the last
performance of his lifetime) in 1742. The venue for this performance
(the Nikolaikirche) was already exhibiting (as it would later in
1749) problems with one of its organs. For this performance, he had
to substitute a Harpsichord for Coro II. In order to better sustain
this new situation, he added Gamba parts in Coro II (which means that
he added Gamba parts in Movements 34 and 35 as well). He furthermore
added a Ripieno Soprano Choir part to Movements 1 and 29. The final
change to the work came in 1743-1746. In this version, he completely
revised the Continuo parts. Now, instead of sustained notes
throughout, only the Jesus recitatives would be sustained (like we
know now).
Of all the versions, we have the complete score
from the 1742 version and parts from the 1736 and 1743-1746 versions.
As stated earlier, the only source we have of the earlier version is
the Farlau copy.
In all his performances, Mendelssohn-Bartholdy cut
out some arias, shortened some more, and completely revised the work
(both in the recitatives and in instrumentation). Let us now look at
the work in performance.
VI
Much has
been debated about the performance of the St. Matthew Passion
(and Bach’s works in general). Here are my thoughts on
the issue (based on Bach’s own words [or reasonable translation
thereof]):
In 1730
(in response to his perceived harassment by the officials and out of
concern for the deteriorating condition in religious music),
Sebastian Bach wrote a treatise he entitled “Kurtzer,
iedoch höchstnöthiger Entwurff einer wohlbestallten Kirchen
Music; nebst einigem unvorgreiflichen Bedenkken von dem Verfall
derselben." (“Short, but most Necessary
Draft on a well-regulated Church Music, with some modest Thoughts on
the Decline of the same”). In it, he outlines both
what he thinks would be a well-regulated Church music and also the
current circumstances he faced in Leipzig. For the vocal ensembles
he states that in the main churches (Hauptkirchen) of St. Thomas, St.
Nicholas, and the New Church (Neukirche), each would use three voices
per part, meaning three sopranos, three altos, three tenors, and
three basses, with the residual (2 per part) for the Petruskirche
(University Church).
This would mean for the St. Matthew Passion, there
would needs be 6 per part (three per Choir), or a total of 24
choristers. Add to this the three for the Ripieno Soprano Choir of
the 1742 and 1743-1746 versions, and one would look at a total of 27
choristers (12 for Coro I, 12 for Coro 2, and 3 for the Ripieno
Soprano Choir). For the sung roles, Bach would have used the residue
(the 2 per part that was also used for the University Church).
In the same work, Bach outlined the orchestral
forces that would be used for such music. He states that there would
be:
2 or even 3 for the Violino I
2
or 3 for the Violino II
2
for the Viola I
2
for the Viola II
2
for the Violoncello
1
for the Violon(e)
2,
or, if the piece requires, 3, for the Hautbois
1,
or even 2, for the Basson
3
for the Trumpets
1
for the Kettledrums
for a
total of 18 persons, at least, for the instrumental music. He
further adds that if the piece requires it there would be two
flutes.
For a work like the St. Matthew Passion, therefore,
one would of course not include the Trumpets or Kettledrums (as these
were more associated with festival occasions). That means that each
orchestra would include two Flutes, two Oboes, two or three each of
Violins I and II, two Violas, 1 Bassoon, two Violoncello, and one
Violon. Also included would be one Harpsichord and one Organ for a
total of 20 instruments each.
No
recording that I have heard attempts this. However, there are some I
would recommend all the same. Of the earlier version, I would
heartily recommend the Rondeau Production Catalogue #ROP4020/21/22
featuring the Thomanerchor Leipzig and Gewandhausorchester Leipzig
under the leadership of Thomaskantor Georg Christoph Biller from
2007. I would recommend the McCreesh recording of the 1736 version
and the recording by John Butt of the 1742 version. As to the
1743-1746 version, I would recommend Karl Richter’s 1979
recording and the 1970 recording of the Thomanerchor Leipzig and
Dresdner Kreuzchor under the joint conductorship of brothers Erhard
and Rudolf Mauersberger featuring the Gewandhausorchester Leipzig. I
would recommend the Spering recording of Mendelssohn’s 1841
version and the recording of the 1829 version of the work (I don’t
remember by who). Also recommended is Jos van Veldhoven’s
recording of BWV 244a.
In
conclusion, Bach’s St. Matthew Passion has had a
long, rich history. Its dramatic elements (which had possibly got
Bach in trouble with the authorities because of its “theatrical”
nature) seem to veer the work into the realm of sacred Opera. Yet it
remains the ultimate statement of one man’s faith.
Written
in Mesa, Arizona, USA on 10 April 2009 by David Glenn Lebut Jr.
|