|
Thomas Braatz wrote (December 26, 2002):
BWV 140 – Provenance:
The autograph score was lost early on. There is absolutely no information about its whereabouts beginning with the distribution of cantatas after Bach’s death.
The original parts found their usual way to the St. Thomas School through the bequest of Anna Magdalena soon after Bach’s death. Missing from this group of parts are the violin doublets and possibly a doublet of the continuo part as well.
A number of copies were made, one of which was a copy of the score by Christian Friedrich Penzel (very likely only a copy of the parts at the St. Thomas School) and is dated the 10th of August 1755. However, the fact that the Corno part is missing in this score might point to a copy directly from Bach’s score, since there are other instances where Bach did not have the Corno in the score but a Corno part was found among the original set of parts.
The copyists involved in the original set of parts are Johann Ludwig Krebs (who copied the greatest number of parts), copyists 1, 2, 3, 4 and J. S. Bach, who completed certain parts, added the figured bass to the b.c., made corrections and added articulation marks.
Text:
A question comes to mind, a question that still remains unexplained: Did the librettist already complete this text during the year of the chorale cantatas (1724/25)? This particular liturgical Sunday did not occur during this year, hence this cantata text could have been written at that time, but the cantata’s music not composed until 1731.
Date of 1st Performance:
Since the 27th Sunday after Trinity occurred only twice during Bach’s tenure in Leipzig: 1731 and 1742, Alfred Dürr, using the various methods available to him (watermarks, handwriting analysis to determine which copyists were involved, etc.), narrowed down these two options to leave only one: November 25, 1731. It does not appear that Bach performed it a second time in 1742 (this despite the fact that he would not have to compose a new cantata for such a Sunday that rarely occurred.) This assumption can be made because none of the parts show evidence that the parts had been used a second time. |
