abridged from Howard H. Cox, ‘The Scholarly Detective: Investigating Bach’s Personal Bible’ (in ‘Bach’ 25/1, 1994, pp. 28-45)
WHAT IS IT?
The book now popularly known as “The Bach Bible” or more accurately as “Bach’s Calov Bible” essentially is a biblical commentary, largely excerpted from Luther’s writings and prepared and published in Wittenberg during the years 1681 and 1682 by the seventeenth-century theologian Abraham Calov. Bach acquired it (6-part commentary, bound in 3 in-folio volumes) in 1733. His copy resurfaced in the USA in 1934. In it there is large number of corrections, markings (highlighting passages) and even some annotations. And yes, they are Bach’s !
Professor Howard H. Cox was in charge of the scientific analysis of the hand penned material in the Bach-Calov Bible, located in the Ludwig Fuerbringer Library of the Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri) between 1982 and 1985. This resulted in the ground-breaking publication of The Calov Bible of J.S. Bach, in which he was able to attribute ‘with high probability’ almost all hand-penned entries (inlcuding the text markings) to J.S. Bach. This ‘resumé’ of both the research and the results, he published in 1994.
PROVENANCE?
When, in November 1750, Bach’s estate was divided among his widow and nine surviving children, the Calov Bible passed to his wife, Anna Magdalena.[2] Thereupon follows a provenance gap of nearly 100 years, with no more than a few segments having been filled in – a task achieved only by working in reverse from the twentieth century date of the Bible’s rediscovery. In June 1934 the Bible surfaced in the home of a Michigan farmer, Leonard Reichle, during a district meeting of the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, held in the small town of Frankenmuth. One of the delegates, Reichle’s cousin, Pastor Christian Riedel of Detroit, stayed with Reichle. During Riedel’s visit, Reichle showed him a Bible which he said his father had purchased in Philadelphia at some time between 1836 and 1847, explaining that the book had come into his possession when his father died in 1879. Recognizing Bach’s unique signature and noting the 1733 date on the bottom right-hand comer of the title page (which apparently the Reichle family had not noticed), Riedel identified the book inquestion as Volume III of Bach’s Calov Bible (Fig. 1). Subsequently, the signature (and therefore the book) was verified as authentic by the German scholar, Hans Preuss of Erlangen. A few months later, the first two volumes of the Bible were found stashed away in the Reichle attic.
Under pressure to give the Bible to Bach’s birth house in Eisenach, Reichle, conscious of the German political climate in the mid-thirties, refused, and in 1938 placed the books in the Ludwig Fuerbringer Library of the Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri.[3] In 1968 the Bible surfaced again when the German scholar Christoph Trautmann, having searched it out, persuaded the Concordia Seminary to lend the book for a 1969 Bachfest display in Heidelberg. A member of the executive committee of the Neue Bachgesellschaft, Trautmann kept the Bible, studying it for a year before returning it to the Seminary. In 1969 Trautmann published an article in the journal, Musik und Kirche, which first brought the Calov Bible to the attention of the scholarly world.[4]
The importance of Bach’s Bible lies in the abundant penned entries found on more than 250 of its pages. First of all, there are the marginal comments, four of which relate music to worship. Then, there are a number of corrected spellings and the insertion of several missing texts, the result of a multitude of printer’s errors. By far the most common, however, are the underlinings of Calov’s theological commentary and the accompanying marginalia, which resemble quotation marks.
To tell the story of Bach’s Bible and to give a general description of its contents was a very important contribution. But without having made a scholarly examination of the script, Trautmann set forth opinions which raised serious doubts concerning the authenticity of most of the hand-penned material. He accepted the four comments relating music to worship and all of the entries made with red ink; however, this left the bulk of the writing and markings open to question. What made the resulting situation especially difficult was the fact that only a small portion of the markings are script, most being underlinings and marginal marks. Trautmann’s suggestion “that the identity of the writer could never be known” put the Calov Bible in a state of limbo with only a few passages reliably assignable to Bach.
Such was the state of affairs at the time I became involved. It was Alfred Mann, then Director of the Bethlehem Bach Choir and Secretary of the newly formed American Chapter of the Neue Bach Gesellschaft, who asked me if I would make a study of Bach’s Bible on behalf of the American Chapter. When I acceded, he procured a microfilm copy of the Bible for my use and also gave me a copy of Trautmann’s article. Rarely has a research project had such a modicum (such a small quantity, DW) of source material!
My first look at Bach’s Bible left me quite bewildered. Like many other Bach enthusiasts, I assumed that one would find comments indicating Bach’s thinking in the selection of texts for his compositions. [… And, indeed, there are 4 comments on music], but three of them quite general in character – all linking music to worship. And there is 1 geographical remark, in which Bach mentions a town named Schwereborn (mentioned by Luther in the commentary) as being close to Erfurt. Apart from these 5 references, all notations relate specifically to the text, showing that the interest of the writer was in the biblical text, itself, or in the commentary accompanying it.
It was, for me, then, important to approach this study with the attitude of finding what was there, instead of looking for something that might be there.
For this reason, I decided that rather than electing to proceed along Trautmann’s path, I would begin a fresh study of the text, using Trautmann only for reference. And so I began to compile a list of the pages bearing entries, in order that I might classify them as to category and assess their intrinsic values. Over a period of three or four years I performed the necessary operation of going through all 4,355 pages of the microfilm copy several times, examining each page meticulously. In fact, each time I went through the film, I found a few entries I had not previously seen.
In search for a method of testing the authenticity of the markings
I became steadily more convinced that the question of authentication had to be met head on. And, given the character of the source material, it appeared to me almost from the beginning that an ink analysis capable of relating the underlinings and marginal marks to the script was the only way to find a solution to the problem. In the search for a laboratory capable of ink analysis, my first contact was with the Winterthur Museum in Delaware. I had learned from my son, a museum curator, that the major museums had developed laboratories which made use of highly sophisticated methods in the examination of artifacts. Winterthur had such a laboratory and the specialist with whom I spoke had done research on paper, although he had never analyzed inks. He suggested a private investigator in the Washington, D. C. area, who had done work for the FBI. Thus began a three-year pursuit of laboratories capable of ink analysis -a search which often seemed fruitless, but, in the end, paid off.
Crocker Nuclear Laboratory (Davis, California) – testing the inks
By the Spring of 1982, I received a call from a professor at San Jose State University in California, who told me that someone at the Smithsonian Institution had informed him of my search for an ink-analysis laboratory. He went on to say that the University of California at Davis had recently developed such a process and was currently testing old manuscripts. Indeed, I discovered later that the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory there had tested the printing inks of a Gutenberg Bible and other incunabula, although it had not yet tested writer’s ink. In anticipation of this situation I had previously worked out a procedure for relating the few entries of known authorship with the much more extensive groups of entries of unknown origin, knowing all along that if a laboratory did emerge that could test the inks, there would have to be a method by which the results could be utilized. This preparation included a list of assumptions and the making of lists of entries to be tested according to categories. (this paper is also published in Cox 1985, DW) It was this paper on “Methodology” that was sent to the Crocker Laboratory. Subsequently, arrangements were made for me to transport the Calov Bible to the laboratory for testing.
The Crocker Laboratory’s analytical process is fully non-destructive. First, the cyclotron generates a beam of protons which, when directed to pass through a square millimeter of ink and the paper to which it is attached, in effect causes x-rays to be emitted by the ink and paper. The resulting x-ray readout is sent to a computer which provides an immediate analysis of the spectrum in terms of both qualitative and quantitative elemental composition. The technique has become known as “PIXE,” or “particle induced x-ray emission.” The computer printouts typically include the readings of nineteen elements from “Sodium” on the light end of the Periodical Table to “Lead” on the heavy end. The heavy elements are more stable and more useful for comparative purposes. The units listed are infinitesimal quantities approaching nanograms (billionths of a gram). The relationships of inks are determined by placing the data on graphs. By means of computer processing the data are then revised from absolute quantities to proportional ratios. Several of the most common heavy elements are used as norms. In the case of the inks of the Bach Bible these elements were manganese, iron, copper, and zinc. To use iron as an example: the computer assigns the number “100” to every entry in that column. The readings for all of the other elements for each entry are then given in proportional ratios to iron. The same procedure is then used for the other three elements – manganese, copper, and zinc. These ratios are then plotted on graphs. Where clusters of points appear, a common source is indicated. Where the different combinations of ratios consistently reveal clusters, the entries represented by those points may be said to derive from the same ink. (See Fig. 2.)
A total of 152 usable samples were taken, 91 of which consisted of samples of black manuscript ink. Thus, the remainder of the process (from which we derived the concluding evidence concerning the authenticity of the penned entries) focused on the black manuscript ink. Dr. Bruce Kusko, a physicist at the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory who worked closely with me, is responsible for the scientific analysis. To the best of our knowledge, the Bach Bible was the first historic document in which manuscript ink was tested for research purposes.
At first, the samples grouped themselves in two large clusters however, as Bruce Kosko refined the technique, the large clusters subdivided into nine smaller ones. Although we had common ink groupings for most of the clusters, we did not find any entries that could be identified. What we needed now was a handwriting analysis of the marginal comments that had been tested.
Of the 91 black ink samples, 57 included marginal writing, with the other 34 consisting only of underlinings and marginal marks. The number of handwriting examples available and the proportion of them to the other markings now seemed sufficient for a study that could be decisive. One of the observations apparent to the critical eye examining the Calov Bible marginalia is the fact that there is a considerable variety in handwriting styles. I believe that this is the factor which misled Trautmann. For, when one looks at other Bach manuscripts, the same variety of style is apparent. Let me cite one example: The notation “NB.” in the Calov Bible (of which there are approximately 30 examples) is written in two strikingly different ways. One might logically assume that two different hands are represented. However, numerous examples of both are found in other Bach manuscripts. Indeed, I discovered both of them in a single authenticated manuscript, Bach’s “Short But Most Necessary Draft for a Well-appointed Church Music”
Hans-Joachim Schulze – the handwriting
I tried to satisfy the need for a handwriting analysis in two ways. First, I made a study of Bach’s handwriting by looking at other Bach manuscripts. Being now quite familiar with the penned material in the Calov Bible, I was able to catalog parallel examples in the other manuscripts.. However, in order to present a convincing case, I felt it important to have the judgment of a recognized Bach handwriting expert. Therefore, I had photos made of the 57 samples involving handwriting and took them to the Leipzig Bach Archiv, where I conferred with Hans-Joachim Schulze, its director. Schulze divided the samples into three groups:
– (1) those that were definitely Bach: 36 items;
– (2) those that were probably Bach: 10 items;
– (3) those that were possibly Bach: 11 items.
The results: almost all of Bach!
Returning from Leipzig, I gave the new material to Bruce Kusko. From this time on, everything began to fall into place: the authenticated handwriting, the underlinings, and the marginal marks came together in the same ink groups; the same was the case with Schulze’s three groups. Conclusions could now be drawn with the strong probability that all of the penned material in Bach’s Calov Bible came from the hand of J. S. Bach – or at the very least, we could now say that the burden of proof would henceforth be placed on the doubter.
What does this new material tell us about Bach?
What does this new material tell us about Bach? First of all, we must recognize the Calov Bible as a very private document. Everything which Bach wrote on its margins or marked within its text reflects his personal interests. It is Bach speaking to himself. Rarely do we have such a historical document, shorn of all outside influences.
Secondly, it can be said that what Bach said to himself privately is consistent with the theological interests represented in his sacred music, even though the texts for his sacred choral works were, for the most part, provided by librettists. The same can be said with reference to his letters.
It is impossible to do justice to all that Bach wrote and marked in his Calov Bible in a paper of this length. However, I will mention three subjects which seem to have captured Bach’s interest. These may be designated as: (1) God’s providential order; (2) Bach’s divinely appointed vocation; and (3) the origin of church music.
1. God’s providential order
It is noteworthy that the block of material which is most marked is Calov’s commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. This may be characterized as “practical theological wisdom”: the set of attitudes by which one confronts daily life in God’s world. Here is much advice on how one finds one’s place in the power structure of society. Concern for justice, the assessing of real values, the handling of one’s emotions (especially as it concerns being astute and discreet in relating to others, including one’s superiors); and, most importantly, the recognition of God’s governance over the entire historical process – these are the interests which dominate Calov’s commentary (de facto: Luthers public lectures on Ecclesiastes from 1526, published in 1532, DW). One should accept his lot, do his best, extend good will to others (even if they are unkind or injurious), and leave matters in God’s hands. One finds comments here and there in Bach’s letters which reflect the attitude that God is in control. When Bach received his appointment at Weimar he requested dismissal from the church at Mühlhausen, writing: “Now, God has brought it to pass that an unexpected change should offer itself to me.”[5] And, in a time of discouragement at Leipzig, he wrote to his boyhood friend, Georg Erdmann, a letter which included the following statements:[6] …it pleased God that I should be called here to be Director of Music and Cantor of the Thomas Schule… I cast my lot, in the name of the Lord, and made my journey to Leipzig… Here, by God’s will, I am still in service.
These statements might be considered mere formalities except for numerous parallels which Bach marked in the Calov Bible commentary. Consider two sentences which Bach underlined:
Therefore, whoever wants to be a Christian and lead a godly life must learn to bear his own concerns and to commend governance to God, learning to pray sincerely in the Lord’s Prayer: Lord, Thy will be done.[7]
Thus joy and sadness, peace and restlessness, fortune and misfortune, death and life lie utterly and completely in God’s hands.[8]
2. Bach in defense of his office
Closely related to Bach’s firm belief in divine providence was the conviction that his vocation, his “office,” was a divine appointment. This conviction stands at the center of a shattering conflict which occurred between Bach and the Rector of the ThomasSchule, Johann August Ernesti. On the surface, this conflict revolved around the question of who had the authority to appoint a student prefect, the Cantor or the Rector. But, underneath, as Paul Minear has logically argued, was the more fundamental issue of the continuing prominence of music in the curriculum of the school. Ernesti was an eminent classical scholar, who continued to lecture at the University while he was Rector of the school. This conflict generated several intense letters from Bach to the Town Council, the Church Consistory, and finally to the King. Bach appealed for a defense of his office, a term which he used sixteen times in these communications. In the Calov Bible there are eight passages of commentary having to do with one’s office, all of which Bach marked – some emphatically. The following passage (which includes underlining, marginal marks beside each line, and two marginal NBs) evidently captured Bach’s attention:
Thus you should not judge the beginning but rather the end, for if you are in an office and want to help and counsel matters, ingratitude will greet you and people will value little and forget your good deed, compensating good with wickedness, your great beneficence with idle thanklessness. If you are faint hearted, you will soon become annoyed and give up, but do not do so; hold firmly, persevere, carry out your office.[9]
Another passage, also providing strong ammunition for Bach is emphatically marked with the same three indicators:
It is true, as has been said, that anger must exist, but take care that it occur as is proper and in your command, and that you express anger not for your own sake but for the sake of your office and for God’s sake; and that you not confuse the two -your own cause with that of your office. For yourself, you must show no anger, no matter how severe the offense has been. However, where it concerns your office, you must show anger, even if you yourself have not been wronged.[10 – complete marked passage]
3. The divine origin of organized church music
Finally, Bach evidently found especially pertinent the origin of organized church music in the Temple cult as it is described in the books of Chronicles. In a section of six chapters (I Chronicles 23-28), David is said to have assembled all the leaders and to have laid out the entire Temple organization. Furthermore, I Chronicles 25 lists the appointment of twenty-four representatives of the three guilds of musicians for the on-going worship services in the Temple. Not only were these musicians trained both as instrumentalists and singers, but each of them also became the leader of a choir of twelve singers. The presumption is that music was performed in the Temple hourly, around the clock. In the margin Bach wrote this comment:
“NB. This chapter is the true foundation of all church music pleasing to God.”[11]
At the end of Chapter 28 there is a summary statement in which David hands over the plans for the Temple to Solomon and says: “Behold, the hierarchy of the priests and Levites for all the services in the house of God.” Calov began his cornrnentaiy to this verse with the words: “It is clear, however, from this divine model…,” words which Bach underlined. Following this, he has written in the margin:
“NB. A splendid example, that besides other forms of worship, music, too, was especially ordered by God’s spirit through David.”
The culmination of this picture is the account of Solomon’s having the Ark brought into the newly completed Temple (II Chronicles 5). For this occasion, the Levitical musicians performed mightily. The three grand directors, Asaph, Hernan, and Jeduthun, were there together with a full choir and orchestra, bringing with them 120 priests who blew trumpets. At the height of that rendition, the Temple was filled with a cloud as the glory of the Lord entered it. Bach underlined these verses, writing in the margin:
“NB. With a devotional music God is always present with His grace.”[12]
We may assume that it was in this musical organization of the Temple that Bach found his roots, [and of his ‘office’ (- see sub 2)]
[2] see Bach-Dokumente II, pp. 504-505.
[3] see Robin Leaver, J. S. Bach and Scripture (St. Louis: Concordia, 1985), pp. 16-20 and Gerhard Herz,Bach Sources in America (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1984), pp. 191-195. [addition, DW: Rumour has it that it was ‘lost’ (displaced), but in reality it was safely kept. but first not and latter incorrectly catalogued (Calov: Biblia Illustrata)]
[4] Christoph Trautmann, “Calovii Schritften. 3. Bände’ aus Johann Sebastian Bachs Nachlass und ihre Bedeutung für das Bild des lutherischen Kantors Bach,” Musik und Kirche 39 (1969): 145-160.
[5] see Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, eds. Bach-Dokumente I: Schriftstücke von der Hand Johann Sebastian Bachs (Kassel/Basel: Bärenreiter, 1963), pp. 19-20 and The Bach Reader, pp. 60-61.
[6] see Bach-Dokumente I, p. 67 and The Bach Reader, p. 125.
[7] see Howard H. Cox, ed. The Calov Bible of J. S. Bach (Ann Arbor: UMI Press, 1985),p· 424; facs. 144, col. 1058. Trans. by Ellis Finger.
[8] See Cox, Calov Bible, p. 425; facs. 147, col. 1063.
[9] See Cox, Calov Bible, p. 431; facs. 165, col. 1102.
[10] See Cox, Calov Bible, p. 445, facs. 218, cols. 53-54.
[11] See Cox, Calov Bible, p. 418; facs. 110, cols. 2047-2048.
[12] See Cox, Calov Bible, p. 419; facs. 112, col. 2088.