bach double chorus

The Double Chorus in Bach's St. Matthew PassionReview by: Daniel R. MelamedJournal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Spring 2004), pp. 3-50Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Musicological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jams.2004.57.1.3 .Accessed: 19/12/2012 08:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and American Musicological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Musicological Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:39:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Double Chorus in J. S. Bachs St. Matthew Passion BWV 244

DANIEL R. MELAMED

For Joshua Rifkin

The double-choir scoring of J. S. Bachs St. Matthew Passion BWV 244(with its two orchestras, two continuo groups, and double comple-ment of singers) is widely considered the works most characteristicmusical feature and plays a leading role in almost every analysis and historicaldiscussion. This tendency can be traced to Bach himself. In his musical mate-rials and in references to the work in his circle, the St. Matthew Passion was almost always described as a composition for two choruses.1 Bach also empha-sized this aspect of the scoring in the best-documented form of the piece, therevised version of 1736 known from an autograph score and a set of originalperforming parts.2 In making several changes to an earlier version of the workdating from the 1720s, most notably in providing two basso continuo lines inplace of the single one that had served before, the composer enhanced the independence of the two choruses and fostered the impression that the twovocal and instrumental ensembles are equal participants.3

[ Journal of the American Musicological Society 2004, vol. 57, no. 1] 2004 by the American Musicological Society. All rights reserved. 0003-0139/04/5701-0001$2.00

For stimulating and collegial conversations about the ideas in this paper I am grateful to JoshuaRifkin and Michael Marissen. Insightful suggestions also came from Christoph Wolff, Eric Chafe,and Anne Stone, whom I thank as well.

1. A score of an early version (see n. 3) is headed doi Cori; in Bachs 1736 autographscore (see n. 2), the title page for Part 2 of the Passion describes the work as a due Cori; the1754 obituary of Bach largely by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and Johann Friedrich Agricola listsFnf Paionen, worunter eine zweychrige befindlich ist (Werner Neumann and Hans-Joachim Schulze, eds., Bach-Dokumente, 3 vols. [Kassel: Brenreiter, 196372], 3:86); and AnnaMagdalena Bach, probably in sorting Bachs materials after his death, labeled a stray part simplyzum Gro Bassion (facsimile in Johann Sebastian Bach: Neue Ausgabe smtlicher Werke, ser. II,vol. 5, Matthus-Passion: Kritischer Bericht [hereafter NBA II/5 KB], ed. Alfred Drr [Kassel:Brenreiter, 1974], 61).

2. The score is Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin/Preuischer Kulturbesitz (hereafter D-B) Mus. ms.Bach P 25; the parts are D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 110, described in NBA II/5 KB.

3. The earlier version is documented in a score, D-B Am. B. 6/7, reproduced in NBA, ser. II,vol. 5a, Matthus-Passion: Frhfassung, ed. Alfred Drr (Kassel: Brenreiter, 1972) and discussedin more detail below. All other sources connected with the earlier version are thought to derivefrom this one; see NBA II/5 KB, 8185.


4 Journal of the American Musicological Society

The related idea that the work balances two matched ensembles againsteach othera feature typically regarded as symmetryhas itself been atheme of almost every discussion of the St. Matthew Passion. Some move-ments do appear symmetrical on the page, but this is a potentially misleadingview that has probably been fueled by the experience of modern performancesthat use two large choirs: seen from a distance, the two ensembles, each visu-ally dominated by a large number of singers, do look equal. The focus on sym-metry also stems from an obsession in the literature with the works spatialdimension. Writers from Philipp Spitta to Arnold Schering and beyond havedwelled on the physical circumstances of the Passions performances underBach: the works supposed design for the St. Thomas Church with its sym-metrical lofts (since altered); the placement of the Soprano in ripieno thatparticipates in No. 1 Kommt, ihr Tchter and No. 29 O Mensch, beweindein Snde gro (sometimes dubiously called a third chorus) in a distinctspace; and the identity and placement of the organs used for each chorus.4

The focus on the works physical dimensions has gone together with anemphasis on the 1736 version. With its better documentation, fuller realiza-tion of the Passions double-chorus potential, and the added draw of repre-senting (together with a few revisions from the 1740s) Bachs Fassung letzterHand, this version has attracted interpretive attention. Its most significant dif-ferences from the earlier version involve matters of scoring, and this has helpedkeep these issues at the forefront of thinking about the work. The St. MatthewPassion has been stamped as a symmetrical double-chorus piece.5

Bachs use of a double chorus in the St. Matthew Passion has also been astarting point for various interpretations of the works meaning. For example,

4. Philipp Spitta, Johann Sebastian Bach, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hrtel, 1880),37071; Arnold Schering, Johann Sebastian Bachs Leipziger Kirchenmusik (Leipzig: Breitkopfund Hrtel, 1936), 17374; and Friedrich Smend, Bachs Matthus-Passion: Untersuchungenzur Geschichte des Werkes bis 1750, Bach-Jahrbuch 25 (1928): 7374, 79. Smend hardly takesup the double-chorus disposition until late in his discussion. Of course the placement of the twoorgans was an issue only in the version heard in 1736, given that Bach substituted harpsichordcontinuo for Chorus 2 in the early 1740s. I am also not aware of evidence that the works forceswere divided between two locations before 1736.

5. Stereophonic recording technologyfor which a symmetrically conceived St. MatthewPassion seems ideally suitedmay have strengthened this view both by sounding example and bymetaphor. This is the approach taken in an article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 30 March2000, headed Lutheran Church Goes Bach to Basics with Stereo Sound: Long before the ad-vent of the hi-fi, the world had stereo sound. Two hundred years ago, Johann Sebastian Bach waswriting massive pieces to be performed with musicians and singers on opposite sides of a church,audience in the middle, and music all around. But double-chorus writing does not necessarilyimply surround-sound; Henrich Schtzs advice in his Psalmen Davids sampt etlichen Motetenund Concerten (Dresden: Gimel Bergen, 1619) to place each capella chorus next to the favoritiof the opposite choir (creutzwei) was arguably intended not to separate the two choruses indouble-choir pieces but rather to concentrate the source of their sound. What is more, stereo itselfdoes not really attempt to surround but rather aims for the illusion of depth by the creation of anaural image.


The Double Chorus in Bachs St. Matthew Passion 5

one view attempts to explain the double-chorus disposition in theologicalterms, arguing that it represents an expression of a dialogic element (broadlyconstrued) essential to the libretto.6 Another sees Bachs choice of double-choir scoring as a reflection of aesthetic and philosophical ideals, in particularas the ultimate expression of unity in variety.7 Most often the ambitiouslyscored work is cited not only as Bachs culminating personal and musicalachievement as a composer of church music at the end of his first four years inLeipzig but also as the pinnacle of Protestant church music in general.8

The St. Matthew Passion may well represent all these things, but we need toexamine carefully our assumptions about the work as a double-choir composi-tion, especially in light of what we have learned about the forces Bach used inhis church music performances. Bach designed the performing parts for hispassions (as well as for his other concerted church music) for use by a limitednumber of vocalists disposed in a particular way. In place of the modern dis-tinction between soloists (who typically sing recitatives and arias but are other-wise silent) and chorus members (who sing only choral movements), Bachobserved the typical early eighteenth-century division of singers into con-certists who sang everything and ripieno singers who might join them in choruses. This division of labor is made clear by the design of his original per-forming materials, which (roughly speaking) put all the music in concertistsparts and only the choral movements in ripienists when they are called for.9

The picture is relatively clear in Bachs passions because they employnamed character roles meant for exactly one singer each, making it possible to understand the design and use of the original performing parts with littleambiguity. For example, Joshua Rifkin argued convincingly that the materialsfor the St. John Passion BWV 245 were designed for four concertists (includ-ing a Tenor Evangelist and Bass Jesus) who sang the four vocal lines in essen-tially every movement, supported by four ripienists who reinforced choralmovements.10

6. Lothar Steiger and Renate Steiger, Die theologische Bedeutung der Doppelchrigkeit in Johann Sebastian Bachs Matthus-Passion, in Bachiana et alia musicologica: FestschriftAlfred Drr zum 65. Geburtstag am 3. Mrz 1983, ed. Wolfgang Rehm (Kassel: Brenreiter,1983), 27586.

7. Ulrich Leisinger, Forms and Functions of the Choral Movements in J. S. Bachs St.Matthew Passion, in Bach Studies 2, ed. Daniel R. Melamed (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995), 7084.

8. For example, Christoph Wolff, Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician (New York:W. W. Norton, 2000), 298.

9. This has been understood since the nineteenth century; see Spittas comments on the St.Matthew Passion in Johann Sebastian Bach 2:371. The question in recent debates over themakeup of Bachs vocal forces essentially boils down to this: In the absence of surviving ripienovocal parts, did additional singers participate in a given performance, either by reading selectivelyfrom the concertists parts or by using now-lost parts of their own?

10. The starting point for fresh thinking on this subject was Rifkins 1981 conference presen-tation published in its full form as Bachs Chorus, in Andrew Parrott, The Essential Bach Choir(Woodbridge, U.K.: Boydell Press, 2000), 189208. The heated scholarly literature on this issue



In some ways a performance of a Bach passion by a small group of principalsingers and a similarly small group of supporting voices is very different fromone that uses a large chorus and that distinguishes the choirs role absolutelyfrom the soloists duties. For example, a substantial vocal and instrumental en-semble can suggest a kind of monumentality that was probably not part of aworks effect in Bachs time.11 The use of distinct soloists, especially for Jesus,further implies a representationally dramatic conception of oratorio passionsettings that the composer and contemporary listeners probably did notshare.12 Nonetheless, in a single-chorus work like the St. John Passion it is stillpossible to discern the roles and relationships of the various forces even in aperformance that uses a large choir and distinct soloists.

In most modern performances of Bachs St. Matthew Passion, though, it isextremely difficult to understand the organization of forces and particularlythe double-chorus disposition. The design of Bachs original performing ma-terials for this composition, with its eight principal vocal parts, suggests thatthe Passion was performed by eight concertante singers, each of whom sangarias and who joined together in groups of four to form the two choruses.(There are no ripieno vocal parts for this work.) Modern performances of theSt. Matthew Passion that sharply differentiate soloists from the chorus and thatuse two large choirs tend to highlight the few antiphonal choral movements, ifonly by listeners anticipation of hearing the massed forces. In such a perfor-mance these movements are also potentially the most powerful (loudest)pieces, but they account for only a small proportion of the work and are nottextually or musically the most significant.

Other modern practices also make the original disposition hard to perceive.Distinct singers are often used for arias and for the words of the Evangelist andJesus, masking these characters membership in a particular chorus and con-fusing their roles as concertists. Further obscuring the works scoring is the

is listed in Parrotts appendix 7. Rifkins evidence for Bachs practices (and the power of his argu-ment) comes from a reading of Bachs original performing parts, many of which survive andwhich strongly suggest purposeful design for use by one singer each. Most of the arguments forlarger ensembles take a very different approach, claiming that documents (most notably Bachs famous memorandum to the Leipzig Town Council of 1730) express his ideal for a chorus oftwelve or sixteen for the presentation of a given work, or that larger numbers of singers were avail-able and thus presumably used.

11. Donald J. Grout and Claude V. Paliscas reference to the works epic grandeur is typicalof the tone of most modern discussions of the St. Matthew Passion (A History of Western Music,5th ed. [New York: W. W. Norton, 1996], 420).

12. In Bachs performances the singer who delivered Jesus words also participated in cho-ruses presenting the words of accusers and sang arias providing reflective commentary; that is, thebass concertist sang everything in the bass range except certain small interlocutors parts, just aseach of the other concertists sang arias, choruses, chorales, and sometimes small dramatic parts.On this issue see John Butt, Bachs Vocal Scoring: What Can It Mean? Early Music 26 (1998):99107; and idem, Bach and the Performance of Meaning, Newsletter of the American BachSociety, fall 2001, 5.



common use of just one soloist in each vocal range to sing arias, sometimeswith the orchestra of Chorus 1 and sometimes with that of Chorus 2. Thisruns roughshod over the division of the arias among eight concertists, each of whom sang with the orchestra from his own side. The use of only one solosinger in each range strengthens the false impression that the works double-chorus division lies primarily in the chorus and in the instrumental ensemble.It also makes it difficult to see that the singers in each of the two ensembleshave distinct responsibilities in most of the work, both as soloists and as members of a chorus.

Partly because of performances like these, the double-chorus disposition ofthe St. Matthew Passion has been misconstrued, and our understanding of theworks scoring, especially our interpretation of the relationship of the two en-sembles, needs rethinking. Rifkin suggested that the works vocal forces couldbe viewed as a redistribution of the eight singers Bach had used in the St. JohnPassion. This is a plausible reading and a large step in the right direction, but itwould be a mistake to regard Bachs scoring simply as a redeployment of theearlier works four concertists and four ripienists as eight concertists. In fact, Isuggest that the St. Matthew Passion owes a great deal to the usual division ofsingers into concertists and ripienists and that its singers can best be viewed asa principal group who are effectively concertists (Chorus 1) and a secondgroup that functions in most of the work as a ripieno ensemble (Chorus 2).

From this point of view it is evident that the significance of Bachs scoringemerges not in the few short antiphonal pieces in which the choirs appear tobe equivalent, but rather in the movements that put the two choruses to un-equal uses and those that employ them as a unified ensemble. Overall, thedouble-chorus disposition of the St. Matthew Passion turns out to play a muchsmaller role than one might think and does not appear to have been funda-mental to the works conception. We can even say that the St. Matthew Passionis not essentially a double-chorus composition and certainly not a symmetricalone. Its disposition instead represents Bachs development of a kind of vocalscoring with which he had briefly experimented in the St. John Passion, assign-ing additional duties to a ripieno ensemble. In the St. Matthew Passion Bachtook fuller advantage of the possibilities this approach opened up, using hisadditional voices to suggest double-chorus scoring in certain movements butmostly assigning Chorus 2 a secondary role. In this regard the St. MatthewPassion represents less a break with traditional practice than an expansion of it.

This view of the St. Matthew Passions scoring intersects with issues of the works genesis and history. The limited documentation of an early versionsuggests that Bachs conception evolved over time, moving only gradually toward independence of the two choirs. This has been pointed out before, but the works evolution may have spanned a longer time and possibly haveinvolved more stages than has been understood.13 Only at the end of the

13. See, for example, Smend, Bachs Matthus-Passion, 75.



process1736, with a few further changes in the 1740sdid the Passion be-come something like a true double-choir piece. Even so, the 1736 version canbe fruitfully analyzed in ways that take into account its conceptual origins as aparticularly ambitious single-chorus work.

The Passions forces and the nature of its double-chorus writing also turnout to be closely connected to the practical circumstances of its performancesunder Bach. Bach tailored its demands to the kinds of musicians at his dis-posal, and this helps explain how he was able to mount such an ambitiouswork. Finally, it becomes clear that one of Bachs achievements in the St.Matthew Passion lay in his suggestion of double-chorus scoring using re-sources that did not go far beyond those needed for a single-chorus work. Byrethinking the roles of certain singers and instrumentalists he was able to bringout aspects of his text (particularly its dialogue features) and achieve musicaleffects that single-chorus practice could suggest but not fully realize.

The double-chorus design and its origins

Some of the most important features of scoring in the St. Matthew Passionhave their origin in pieces like Bachs earlier and more typical St. John Passion.The original vocal material for that work consists of a set of principal parts forfour concertists (containing essentially all the arias, recitatives, choruses, andchorales), four shorter ones for ripienists (containing choruses and chorales),and a few very brief parts containing small roles.14 Table 1 lists the vocal partsused in 1725. The table does not account for all of the complications here.Among other things, the ripieno parts date from 1724 and the concertistsparts from 1725; and their labels reflect the final state of the parts, not neces-sarily the labeling at the time of copying. The functional purposes of theseparts is not in doubt, though, and it is clear that they divide the music of thePassion in usual eighteenth-century fashion, providing the concertists with es-sentially everything in their ranges and the ripienists with the music they needto double the choral movements.

But there is one atypical feature: the ripieno parts for the St. John Passionare indispensable to a performance of the work. One reason is that the bassripieno part contains Peters words, sung in recitative. More important is thedistribution of music for No. 32 Mein teurer Heiland, a continuo aria forbass combined with a four-part setting of a chorale stanza. The solo line forthis aria is in the bass concertists part, and the music for the chorale combinedwith it appears in all the others (that is, the other three concertists parts andthe four ripieno parts).

The absence of the chorale line from the bass concertists part has been dis-cussed as evidence that the part was designed to be used by only one singer,

14. D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 111, described in NBA, ser. II, vol. 4, Johannes-Passion: KritischerBericht, ed. Arthur Mendel (Kassel: Brenreiter, 1974), and analyzed in Rifkin, Bachs Chorus.



not more.15 But it is actually more important that this design makes the bassripieno part essentialwithout it, necessary material would be missing.16 Thisis not just a matter of Bachs realization of the work for performance but in-volves the very design of the movement: Bach counted on two singers in thebass range, and their presence allowed him to pit a solo voice against a com-plete four-part ensemble. (Compare the other bass aria in the St. John Passion,No. 24 Eilt, ihr angefochtnen Seelen, in which the soloist is questioned[Wohin?] by only the three upper parts; the movement requires no addi-tional bass singer.)

Mein teurer Heiland is conceptually important because in it Bach imag-ines an ensemble of ripieno singers assigned to a role independent of that ofthe concertists. This use of the ripienists is not a factor anywhere else in the St. John Passion; otherwise, they fulfill their usual roles except that the bass ripienist was also asked to sing Peters music, at least in some performances.17I think that this aspect of the scoring of Mein teurer Heiland has been underemphasized and that it points to Bachs rethinking, however briefly, ofthe possible role of ripienists.

These parts for the St. John Passion are a useful point of departure for understanding the St. Matthew Passion. Bachs performing materials for the

15. This is one of Rifkins principal examples in Bachs Chorus.16. For example, in the cadence of the second chorale phrase (m. 12) Bach relies on the ri-

pieno bass line to provide VI root motion. By implication the other ripieno parts are essentialtoo, though the three upper lines of the chorale are in the concertists parts and were also sung bythem.

17. In those passages he arguably ceases to be a ripienist.

Table 1 Bachs Vocal Parts Used in 1725 for the St. John Passion (D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 111)

Heading and contents

Soprano Concert. (includes Maid)Alto Concert.Tenore EvangelistaBasso. Jesus

Soprano ripienoAlto RipienoTenore Ripien.Basso Ripien. (includes Peter)

[Bass (Pilate)]a

[Tenor (Servant)]a

aMissing from the 1725 materials but approximate replacement survives.



1736 version of that work call for forces closely parallel to those required forthe St. John Passion; they are summarized in Table 2. These parts are designedfor four concertists in Chorus 1Soprano, Alto, Tenor Evangelist, and BassJesusjust as in the earlier piece. The St. Matthew Passion also requires fouradditional singers, just as the St. John Passion does, but instead of serving asripienists they are additional concertists; this is made clear by the assignmentof arias to them. Bach thus drew on the same number of singers but deployedthem differently.

The most significant consequences are not in the Gospel narrative butrather in the dialogue movements, in which this scoring allows Bach to pitone, two, or four voices against a second complete vocal ensemble in fourparts. (These movements are summarized in Table 3.) In the opening chorusNo. 1 Kommt, ihr Tchter, the double vocal forces give Bach the resourcesto present a command uttered by one four-part chorus (Sehet! in Chorus 1),a countering question from another complete ensemble (Wen? in Chorus 2),and an answer to that question in the first ensemble (den Brutigam). Therecitative No. 19 O Schmerz is sung by the tenor of Chorus 1 accompaniedby an instrumental ensemble drawn from his side, answered by phrases of a chorale harmonization scored (as in the St. John Passions Mein teurerHeiland) for a four-part ensemble of voices and doubling instruments pro-vided by Chorus 2. Bach goes a step further in the aria No. 20 Ich will beimeinem Jesu wachen paired with O Schmerz. He retains the choraleliketexture introduced in Chorus 2 in the recitative, but in the aria he entrusts itwith material that is a continuous part of the musical line, not just a phrase-by-phrase response to it. (Note that the music of Chorus 2 corresponds funda-mentally to material presented in the ritornello rather than simply beingsuperimposed on it as in Mein teurer Heiland.)

The duet No. 27a So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen is sung by the sopranoand alto of Chorus 1, who are interrupted by a full ensemble in Chorus 2(Lat ihn! haltet! bindet nicht!). (Its second part, No. 27b Sind Blitze sindDonner, exceptionally uses the two ensembles equally.) In the aria No. 30Ach! nun ist mein Jesus hin that opens Part 2 of the Passion, Chorus 2 provides a motet on texts from the Song of Songs to complement the poeticaria sung in Chorus 1. The aria No. 60 Sehet, Jesus hat die Hand (whoserecitative No. 59 Ach Golgatha does not use Chorus 2) pits the alto fromChorus 1 against the whole ensemble of Chorus 2, the latter repeatedly inter-jecting the questions Wohin? and Wo? Textually and in scoring, this move-ment closely resembles No. 24 Eilt, ihr angefochtnen Seelen from the St.John Passion. In that movement, though, Bach chose to match the bass soloistwith the leftover concertists (soprano, alto, and tenor, doubling them with theripienists); here he uses a full four-part ensemble provided by Chorus 2.

In the recitative No. 67 Nun ist der Herr zu Ruh gebracht, the next-to-last number in the St. Matthew Passion, each of the singers in Chorus 1 pre-sents a line of recitative and is answered by the whole of Chorus 2. At the endof the Passion Bach thus lays out the entire vocal forces of the work, exposing



the voices of Chorus 1 individually and those of Chorus 2 as an ensemble.(Note, though, that each statement of the phrase Mein Jesu, gute Nacht isbegun by a different voice in Chorus 2, calling attention to the individualmembers of that ensemble.) The final tutti aria No. 68 Wir setzen uns mitTrnen nieder (discussed below) uses Chorus 2 to answer phrases sung byChorus 1 and to provide an accompanying refrain.

These dialogue movements are arguably the most important non-Gospelpieces in the work. They include the opening aria (a tutti setting expresslycalled aria in the original text sources because of its poetic text), the closingrecitative and tutti aria, the opening number of Part 2, and some of the mostmusically weighty interpolated pieces. They are certainly the movements thatdistinguish the St. Matthew Passion from typical pieces in the genre, and Ithink we need to regard them as Bachs principal motivation in scoring thework for two vocal ensembles that could function independently when calledon.18

18. In Die theologische Bedeutung der Doppelchrigkeit, Lothar Steiger and RenateSteiger argue for the theological centrality of the Passions dialogue texts, suggesting that dramaticeffects in what they call the Turbae were not the primary intent of the double-chorus scoring(p. 275). Rather, they see the scoring as closely tied to dialogue texts (p. 277) and to larger theo-logical issues, including a connection between the story as narrated and present-day belief (p. 284). Although they do make a case for the significance of dialogue, nothing they point out ac-tually requires a double chorus; all the effects they cite were achievable with single-choir resources.Still, they are correct in emphasizing these movements as the motivations for Bachs scoring.

Table 2 Bachs 1736 Vocal Parts for the St. Matthew Passion (D-B Mus. ms. Bach St 110)

Heading and contents

Chorus 1

Soprano Chori 1mi

Alto 1.ChoriTenor 1.Chori EvangelistaBasso 1.Chori Jesus

Soprano (includes Maid 1, Maid 2, Pilates wife)Basso (includes Judas, Priest 1)Basso (includes Peter, Priest 2, Caiphas, Pilate)

Chorus 2

Soprano Chori IIAlto Chori II (includes Witness 1)Tenore Chori II (includes Witness 2)Basso Chori II

Belonging to neither chorus

Soprano in Ripieno (chorale melodies in Nos. 1 and 29)


Tab

le 3

Dia

logu

e M

ovem

ents

in th

e St

. Mat

thew

Pas

sion

Mov

emen

tC

horu

s 1 (

[Die

Toc

hter

] Z

ion)

Cho

rus 2

(D

ie G

lub

igen

)vo

ices

inst

rum

ents

voic

esin

stru

men

ts

No.

1

Kom

mt,

ihr T

cht

er

SAT

Btu

tti

SAT

Btu

tti

No.

19

O S

chm

erz

Tob

bl re

cord

ers a

nd o

boes

da

cacc

iaSA

TB

strin

gs c

olla

par

teN

o. 2

0 I

ch w

ill b

ei m

eine

m J

esus

wac

hen

Tob

bl o

boe

SAT

Bst

rings

and

flut

es c

olla

par

teN

o. 2

7a

So is

t mei

n Je

sus n

un g

efan

gen

SAob

bl fl

utes

and

obo

esSA

TB

strin

gs a

nd w

oodw

inds

col

la p

arte

No.

27b

Si

nd B

litze

, sin

d D

onne

rSA

TB

tutt

iSA

TB

tutt

iN

o. 3

0 A

ch! n

un is

t mei

n Je

sus h

in

B[A

]st

ring

and

woo

dwin

d rit

orne

llos

SAT

Bst

rings

col

la p

arte

No.

59

Ach

Gol

gath

aA

obbl

obo

es d

a ca

ccia

[no

role

for C

horu

s 2]

No.

60

Seh

et, J

esus

hat

die

Han

dA

obbl

obo

es d

a ca

ccia

SAT

Bst

rings

and

obo

es c

olla

par

teN

o. 6

7 N

un is

t der

Her

r zu

Ruh

geb

rach

tS/

A/

T/

Bst

rings

acc

ompa

ny re

cita

tive

SAT

Bob

oes a

nd st

rings

col

la p

arte

No.

68

Wir

setz

en u

ns m

it T

rne

n ni

eder

SA

TB

tutt

iSA

TB

tutt

i



But the scoring of these movements owes less to double-choir antiphonalwriting than it does to single-chorus writing like that in the St. John Passionbecause these movements represent the same type as Mein teurer Heilandfrom that work: concerted numbers presented by the principal forces, sup-ported by an additional and auxiliary vocal ensemble given its own lesser material. In each passion these movements are made possible by the availabil-ity of two complete four-part vocal groups, whether by Bachs demanding thepresence of ripieno singers and giving them material of their own in one num-ber (as in the St. John Passion) or by his repeatedly using additional singers asan independent ensemble (as in the St. Matthew).

This supplemental group of singers came to be identified as a second cho-rus, but its conceptual origin probably lay in an expanded ripieno practice. Isuggest that Bach first tried out this disposition of forces in one movement inthe St. John Passion and that its success there played a role in his decision toscore the St. Matthew Passion as he did. In their most important and distinc-tive role in the work, the voices of Chorus 2 function as what we might call independent ripienists, making it difficult to see the work as a true double-chorus piece.

The status of Chorus 2

That the St. Matthew Passion is not, essentially, a double-chorus composition isfurther made evident by the secondary status of Chorus 2 throughout thework. In much of the double-chorus St. Matthew Passionnot only in thedialogue movements discussed aboveChorus 2 is decidedly not coequalwith Chorus 1. Rather, it is a subordinate group, and Bach mostly uses itssingers effectively as ripienists in support of Chorus 1.19

In the dialogue movements that assign distinct roles to the two vocal en-sembles, the choruses are used asymmetrically. Chorus 1 always takes the lead,whereas Chorus 2 always interrupts or offers commentary; nowhere doesChorus 1 support material presented principally in Chorus 2. This differencemay be connected with the dialogue poetry itself in that Chorus 1 is associatedwith an individual allegorical character, the Daughter of Zion, whereasChorus 2 represents a collective group of Believers.20 The distinction in

19. Typologies of double-chorus writing in the work have pointed out Chorus 2s secondarystatus but have not pursued the implications. See, for example, Otto Brodde, Theologische Kon-zeptionen in mehrchriger Musik, Schtz-Jahrbuch 1981, 711; and Jn Albrecht, Die Entwick-lung der Mehrchrigkeit bis zu ihrer Anwendung in Bachs Werk, in Johann Sebastian Bach:Weltbild, Menschenbild, Notenbild, Klangbild, ed. Winfried Hoffmann and Armin Schneider-heinze (Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag fr Musik, 1988), 17579. Both are cited in Leisinger, Formsand Functions, 77.

20. The only surviving form of the original libretto, a reprint in a compilation of Picanderspoetry, is reproduced in Werner Neumann, ed., Smtliche von Johann Sebastian Bach vertonteTexte (Leipzig: Deutscher Verlag fr Musik, 1974), 32124; and in NBA II/5 KB, 7378. The



numberindividuals as opposed to a groupis musically reflected in Bachsconsistent use of Chorus 2 as a complete ensemble, in contrast to his tendencyto use the voices of Chorus 1 individually in dialogue numbers (though theyare also used in a duet in No. 27a and as a complete group in No. 1). (SeeTable 3.) The difference in their status is manifested in the role Chorus 2plays, always responding to Chorus 1. The two ensembles have equivalentroles only in No. 27b, the lone poetic movement in the Passion in whichChorus 2 is treated as a musical equal to Chorus 1.21

This uneven division of labor between the two choirs almost certainly re-flects the conceptual origin of Chorus 2 as a supporting ensembleas a ri-pieno group with a degree of independence on the model of the choraleensemble in Mein teurer Heiland. Seen this way, the St. Matthew Passion isnot far removed from the St. John Passion in its use of forces but expands aprinciple first tried out in the earlier work, assigning a supporting role (occa-sionally independent) to a second vocal ensemble.

The subordinate role of Chorus 2 is not limited to these dialogue piecesbut extends to other kinds of movements as well. To begin with, the two vocalensembles in the St. Matthew Passion do not have equal status in the Gospelnarrative. All the narrative recitative is in Chorus 1 except the words of thetwo false witnesses in No. 33. In the 1736 version this material was sung bythe alto and tenor of Chorus 2 accompanied by the continuo instruments ofthat group. But this was clearly an exception made for some special reason wedo not know; in the earlier version of the work (discussed below) these voicesare not labeled as belonging to Chorus 2, meaning that all the Gospel narra-tive was originally in Chorus 1. The placement of the narrative recitative inChorus 1 makes the St. Matthew Passions disposition (with a Tenor Evangelistand Bass Jesus) essentially identical to that of the St. John Passion.

Next, many of the ensemble movements are sung by the two choirs in unison. This includes all the chorales, including No. 29 O Mensch, beweindein Snde gro, made the closing number of Part 1 in 1736 in place of afour-part setting No. 29a Jesum la ich nicht von mir. Many of the Gospelchoruses (summarized in Table 4)22 also either use the two choruses in unison

identification of the two choirs with the Daughter of Zion and the Believers, respectively, extendsonly to these dialogue movements; neither the texts nor the labels in the libretto suggest thatthese allegorical characters come into play in any of the solo movements except the recitative No. 59 Ach Golgatha, which is in the voice of the Tochter Zion only and so does not useChorus 2. The concluding Aria tutti No. 68 Wir setzen uns mit Trnen nieder probablyneeds to be understood as combining the two dialogue partners.

21. At this point the printed libretto indicates that the two allegorical characters in the pre-ceding dialogue No. 27a So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen join together, labeling this part of the text 2 and suggesting that the two voices become equal. For musical effect, Bach chose toreflect this by writing antiphonally rather than in unison.

22. Table 4 closely parallels material in Arthur Mendel, Traces of the Pre-History of BachsSt. John and St. Matthew Passions, in Festschrift Otto Erich Deutsch zum 80. Geburtstag am



or have only a small instrumental differentiation in their first measures (seeTable 4, category B). In the two crucifixion choruses Nos. 45b and 50b, forexample, the two flute lines begin independently but are unified after threeand a half measures, just as all the other voices and instruments are through-out. Some of these unison ensemble numbers appear at the most important moments in the narrative, and it is significant that Bach did not turn to double-chorus effects in these places but rather relied on routine ripieno reinforcement.

And that is exactly what this represents: in the chorales and most of theGospel choruses, the two vocal ensembles combine just as they would if they

5.September 1963, ed. Walter Gerstenberg, Jan LaRue, and Wolfgang Rehm (Kassel: Brenreiter,1963), 44.

Table 4 Gospel Choruses in the St. Matthew Passion

Chorus No. Speakers Text

A. One choir only

1 4d Disciples Wozu dienet dieser Unrat?1 9b Disciples Wo willst du, da wir dir bereiten1 9e Disciples Herr, bin ichs?2 38b Bystanders Wahrlich, du bist auch einer von denen1 61b Some bystanders Der rufet dem Elias2 61d Bystanders Halt! la sehen

B. Unison/unified

1/2 45a The people Barrabam [8-part homophony]1/2 45b The people La ihn kreuzigen [distinct flutes]1/2 50b The people La ihn kreuzigen [distinct flutes]1/2 50d Whole people Sein Blut komme ber uns1/2 63b Captain and those with him Wahrlich, dieser ist Gottes Sohn gewesen

C. Antiphonal/eight-part r four-part

1/2 58b Passersby Der du den Tempel Gottes zerbrichst1/2 58d High priests/learned/elders Andern hat er geholfen1/2 66b High priests/Pharisees Herr, wir haben gedacht

D. Antiphonal/double chorus

1/2 4b High priests/learned/elders Ja nicht auf das Fest1/2 36b High priests/learned/elders Er ist des Todes schuldig1/2 36d High priests/learned/elders Weissage uns, Christe1/2 41b High priests/elders Was gehet uns das an?1/2 53b Soldiers Gegret seist du



were disposed as concertists and ripienists in a single-choir work.23 In a passiondominated by Chorus 1, that ensemble is joined by Chorus 2 for reinforce-ment in choral numbers. In these kinds of movements there is thus effectivelyno difference in vocal scoring between the St. Matthew Passion and the St.Johnthe double-chorus disposition of the former simply disappears.

Chorus 2 does participate independently in some Gospel choruses but notequally with Chorus 1. Six Gospel choruses call for one choir only (Table 4,category A), and they are dominated by Chorus 1, which sings four, includingthe words of the individually identifiable disciples (Nos. 4d, 9b, and 9e), justas it does the other named interlocutors. Only two pieces are entrusted toChorus 2, and they appear to be exceptions. In the pair of bystanders cho-ruses Nos. 61b and 61d divided between Chorus 1 and Chorus 2, Bach be-gins with Chorus 1 but gives the words of the dissenting group to Chorus 2,representing a rare use of the two choirs for dramatic purposes. No. 38b, alsogiven to Chorus 2, is harder to explain; perhaps Bach thought that as a directresponse to Peter, whose words are sung in Chorus 1, it belonged in the otherchoir. Overall, Chorus 1 seems to have been the norm for single-choir Gospelnarrative, departed from only for special reasons.

Even the antiphonal Gospel choruses in which both choirs participate areless than they seem. Three of the largest such pieces begin antiphonally butquickly move to unison writing for the two choirs, making them effectivelysingle-choir movements doubled with ripieno voices, just like the unisonpieces (Table 4, category C). No. 58b Der du den Tempel Gottes zer-brichst is in eight parts for only six measures (or less) before the two choirsjoin up. In No. 58d Andern hat er geholfen the antiphonal section lastsonly two measures. In No. 66b Herr, wir haben gedacht the opening threeand one-half measures move in loose seven-part writing, the two sopranoparts largely shadowing each other in thirds and the bass lines in unison. Atthe least these pieces show that Bach did not make much use of his double-choir forces even in these long and important Gospel settings; for the mostpart these movements rely on ripieno doubling of Chorus 1 by Chorus 2.24

The handful of Gospel choruses that are truly antiphonal throughout(Table 4, category D) are few and short, and even their effects are not uniqueto the St. Matthew Passion. Each of these choruses is built on short antiphonalphrases, and many respond to an opening statement on the tonic with anoverlapping answer by the other choir on the dominant. This approach seemsideally suited to double-choir scoring, but several pieces from the single-choirSt. John Passion do something very similar by contrasting voices and instru-ments.25 For example, No. 23f Wir haben keinen Knig denn den Keiser alternates voices and instruments; Nos. 2b and 2d Jesum von Nazareth also

23. Parrott also points out the ripieno effect of the scoring (The Essential Bach Choir, 81).24. See below on the scoring of these movements and their possible origin.25. Mendel noted this in a slightly different context (Traces of the Pre-History, 4445).



behave this way, though a little less obviously. Antiphonal effects in the St.Matthew Passion are realized with two choirs but were also suited to a single-chorus ensemble of voices and instruments.

In using the additional voices of Chorus 2 essentially as a ripieno groupdoubling the principal voices in Chorus 1, Bach demonstrated that the role ofa second vocal ensemble could be defined along a continuum with subordi-nate ripieno status (tutti doubling of concertists in a few movements) at oneend and full independence as a second group of principal singers at the other.This range of possibilities had long been a part of German church music practice. It is made explicit, for example, in the varying uses to which HenrichSchtz put his forces in the works in the Psalmen Davids (1619).26 In fourpieces in that collection, in fact, Schtz explains that the second chorus func-tions as a capellathat is, much like a ripieno group. In Ich hebe meineAugen auf SWV 31, for example, Chorus 2 participates only as a completefour-part ensemble in passages whose fundamental texture is (sometimes ani-mated) homophony, always in close relation to Chorus 1. This stands in con-trast to the use of the voices in Chorus 1 individually in concerted textures,imitatively, and alone (that is, without Chorus 2).27

This is the role of Chorus 2 in the St. Matthew Passion, too, but it is partic-ularly difficult to perceive in a performance by large forces centering around abig choral ensemble divided in half. In such a realization the dominance ofChorus 1 is hard to discern because the membership of the Tenor Evangelistand Bass Jesus in that group is obscured by a division of labor that excusesthem from singing arias and Gospel choruses, and (often) by the lack of a dis-tinct tenor belonging to Chorus 2. The two choirs in a performance staffedthis way are essentially equalthe listener is far more aware of their contrast-ing relationship to the soloists than of their relationship to each other.Nonetheless, we can still hear traces of ripieno reinforcement in the manymovements in which the two vocal ensembles sing together, and this is prob-ably how listeners in the eighteenth century would have understood these effects.

26. A work to which it is likely Bach had access; see Daniel R. Melamed, Die alte Chor-bibliothek der Kirche Divi Blasii zu Mhlhausen, Bach-Jahrbuch 88 (2002): 20916.

27. Of SWV 31, 33, 39, and 41 Schtz wrote in the preface: wird Coro secondo fr einCapell gebraucht / und dahero starck bestimmet / weil aber Coro I. welches ist Coro Fauoritohingegen schwach / und nur von vier Sngern ist. The widely cited translation by GeorgeBuelow (A Schtz Reader: Documents on Performance Practice, American Choral Review 27,no. 4 [1985]: 8) renders this, In these works the second chorus is intended to be sung by a largeensemble. Since accordingly the first chorus would be a small ensemble, but I do not think thatthis does full justice to Schtzs point about the status of the second chorus as a ripieno group.Parrott provides a more literal translation (The Essential Bach Choir, 4): the second choir is usedas a capella and is therefore strong [in numbers], while the first choir, which is the coro favorito[literally, the favoured choir], is by contrast slender and comprises only four singers.



Other double-chorus works

This way of thinking of a ripieno ensemble/second chorus may also help ex-plain a matter connected with the early history of the St. Matthew Passion. Itwas recognized some time ago that the work shared music with a piece thatBach provided in 1729 for a memorial service for his former employer inCthen. This composition, known as the Cthen Funeral Music BWV 244a, islost, but its surviving text strongly suggests that the music of most of its ariasand choruses was borrowed from extant works by Bach. One source was the1727 Trauer-Ode La, Frstin, la noch einen Strahl BWV 198, written forQueen Christiane Eberhardine of Poland (a work later also mined for Bachslost St. Mark Passion BWV 247). This piece was the source of the opening andclosing numbers of the first of the Funeral Musics four parts.

The other source was the St. Matthew Passion.28 Among the borrowedmovements (in addition to the arias Nos. 6, 8, 13, 23, 39, 49, 57, and 65)were the Passion aria No. 20 Ich will bei meinem Jesu wachen, which be-came the Aria a 2. Chren that closed Part 3, Geh, Leopold, zu DeinerRuh, a dialogue between the Mortals and the Chosen; and the closing Ariatutti of Part 4 and the entire work, Die Augen sehen nach Deiner Leiche,apparently based on the Passions No. 68 Wir setzen uns mit Trnen nieder.Both borrowed movements require eight voices, but the rest of the FuneralMusic apparently called for at most four vocal lines, to judge from the borrow-ings from the Trauer-Ode. Bachs mixing of music from these two works ismuch easier to understand if we view the St. Matthew Passion as a single-chorus work whose ripieno group took on an additional role in the two bor-rowed movements Nos. 20 and 68. The various movements could coexistprecisely because additional singerswho we can hypothesize took partthroughoutcould serve variously as ripienists and as an independent secondchorus.

Even among surviving works the St. Matthew Passion was not the onlyplace where Bach used additional voices as both a ripieno group and a secondchorus. Two other works illustrate the same conception of forces. Preise deinGlcke, gesegnetes Sachsen BWV 215, the only surviving authentic cantatathat calls for two choirs, was assembled in 1734 for a visit to Leipzig by theSaxon elector on the anniversary of his ascent to the throne.29 Its openingmovement is cast for two four-part vocal ensembles supported by a single in-strumental band and one continuo group. In this movement the two choirs

28. The direction of parody between the Passion and the Funeral Music, and the philosophi-cal implications of the order of composition, were matters of heated debate in Bach scholarshipfor decades. See the summary in Joshua Rifkin, The Chronology of Bachs Saint MatthewPassion, Musical Quarterly 61 (1975): 36087.

29. NBA, ser. I, vol. 37, Festmusiken fr das kurfrstlich-schsische Haus II, ed. WernerNeumann (Kassel: Brenreiter, 1961), 87172. Some of the music of this movement (or perhapsof the model for its A section Es lebe der Knig, der Vater im Lande BWV Anh. 11/1) wasreused in the Osanna of the Mass in B minor BWV 232.



are used symmetrically: after an opening tutti (mm. 3347) Chorus 2 largelyprovides supporting material (mm. 4775) for Chorus 1, but the roles of thetwo choruses are then reversed, with Chorus 2 presenting material supportedby Chorus 1. (The same swap happens in the B section of this da capo move-ment.) In this sense, the movement is a symmetrical double-chorus piece thatuses the two choirs equally.

The remainder of the cantata consists of three recitative/aria pairs for tenor(movements 2 and 3), bass (4 and 5), and soprano (6 and 7); an accompaniedrecitative for those three voices (8); and a concluding chorus in four voices(9). Bachs original performing parts make the roles of the eight voice parts inthese movements clear. (See Table 5.) The three recitative/aria pairs are sungby the voices of the first chorus, as is the three-voice accompagnato No. 8;these are clearly the works concertists (more precisely, three concerted singersand an alto, who is given no solo music). The voices of the second chorus,which had equal status to those of the first in the double-chorus openingmovement, sing no solo numbers. They participate in the concluding four-voice movement, but there they simply double the first chorusthat is, theyfunction as a ripieno ensemble in support of the concerted singers of the firstchorus.30

The scoring of BWV 215 is thus strongly reminiscent of that of the St.Matthew Passion in calling for four principal voices supplemented by four addi-tional singers who serve sometimes as a second chorus and sometimes as a ripieno ensemble. The additional voices in this cantata do not sing recitativesor arias as they do in the Passion, but in their flexibility they illustrate the sameprinciple at work there: they are fundamentally ripienists but can be more independent when called on.

Another composition in which we can see a parallel to Bachs use of a sec-ond chorus in the St. Matthew Passion is the motet Singet dem Herrn einneues Lied BWV 225.31 The double-choir motet was a genre in which thesymmetrical use of two choruses was a norm, but in this work Bach distin-guishes the two ensembles in a familiar way. In the opening movement ofBWV 225, two four-part ensembles are used equally at the beginning, oftenexchanging identical material. But in the fugue that follows (Die KinderZion sein frhlich, from m. 75), imitative entrances are presented first byChorus 1 with harmonic supporting material in Chorus 2. Beginning with thebass entrance at measure 96, the voices of Chorus 2 peel off one by one tojoin those of Chorus 1 in a second contrapuntal exposition, exactly the way

30. The heading at the top of J. S. Bachs autograph score (D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 139) callsBWV 215 a Drama per musica overo Cantata gratulatoria, though the surviving printed li-bretto does not identify characters by name. The parody model BWV Anh. 11 is lost, but its textis also called a Drama per Musica and it names three allegorical characters: Landes-Liebe,Landes-Glckseligkeit, and Landes-Frsehung. A reprint of Picanders text for this work is repro-duced in Neumann, ed., Smtliche von Johann Sebastian Bach vertonte Texte, 35051.

31. NBA, ser. III, vol. 1, Motetten, ed. Konrad Ameln (Kassel: Brenreiter, 1965), 336.



ripienists might in a concerted vocal work.32 In the second movement a poeticAria in Chorus 1 is answered by a chorale harmonization in Chorus 2 in atexture reminiscent of that of several movements in the passions.33 In the finalmovement, the two choirs once again begin antiphonally (Lobet den Herrnin seinen Taten) before combining in unison for the final fugal section(Alles, was Odem hat, lobe den Herrn), another ripieno effect. In this motetand BWV 215, just as in the St. Matthew Passion, Bach assigned roles to thetwo choruses that are sometimes identical but sometimes distinctly different.

The assignment of arias

Even though it is possible to view Chorus 2 in the St. Matthew Passion as a ri-pieno ensemble in many movements, Bach did also use it as a second group ofconcertante singers, assigning solo arias to each of its voices and distributingthe Passions accompanied recitatives and arias among eight singers rather thanfour. This is another aspect of the works scoring that often suffers in modernperformances. Bachs division of arias between the voices of the two ensem-bles is obliterated when only one soloist in each range is used, as financial limitations often require.34 In such performances the only distinction betweenthe arias in Chorus 1 and those in Chorus 2 is that a different orchestra accompanies.

32. For example, in Ich hatte viel Bekmmernis BWV 21, movement 11. This use of ripi-enists does not play a role in the St. Matthew Passion, although it is possible to view the concludingsection of No. 1 (from m. 73) in this way.

33. Double-choir motets in the central-German repertory sometimes did differentiate theroles of the two ensembles in movements that combined a chorale stanza with another text.Bachs instruction in the autograph score of BWV 225 (D-B Mus. ms. Bach P 36) that the rolesof the two choruses were to be reversed in an unspecified second verse was not realized in his per-forming materials.

34. Spitta lamented this practice and its consequences, although he saw only a slight favoringof the first chorus in the distribution of arias (Johann Sebastian Bach 2:371).

Table 5 Bachs Vocal Parts for Preise dein Glcke, gesegnetes Sachsen BWV 215 (D-B Mus.ms. Bach St 77)

Part/heading Movements included in the parts

Canto 1mo 1 6 7 8 9Alto 1mo 1 9Tenore 1mo 1 2 3 8 9Basso 1mo 1 4 5 8 9

Canto 2 1 9Alto 2do 1 9Tenore 2do 1 9Basso 2do 1 9



Bachs assignment of arias to the voices of Chorus 2 and those voices inde-pendent role in dialogue movements elevate their status beyond that of ordi-nary ripienists, but his distribution of the solo numbers among the eightsingers is hardly equal and once again confirms the priority of Chorus 1. (SeeTable 6.) Each of the voices in Chorus 1 other than the tenor (who sings theEvangelists words) has more arias than its Chorus 2 counterpart; overallChorus 1 has twice as many. (No. 30 Ach nun ist mein Jesus hin was origi-nally given to the bass of Chorus 1.) The arias assigned to Chorus 1 also sur-pass those given to the other group in vocal demands. For example, Tenor 2sings only No. 35 Geduld, a continuo piece, and its companion recitativeNo. 34 Mein Jesus schweigt with its transparent accompaniment; Tenor 1has to contend with an obbligato and with second-chorus forces both in therecitative No. 19 O Schmerz and in the aria No. 20 Ich will bei meinemJesu wachen. The lone aria for Soprano 2, No. 8 Blute nur, hardly com-pares in difficulty to No. 13 Ich will dir mein Herze schenken or No. 49Aus Liebe will mein Heiland sterben required of Soprano 1, and has no accompanied recitative.35

However Bach decided on the distribution of the arias, the very assignmentof some of them to voices other than the principal singers (here, Chorus 1) isstriking, and the practice may be connected with another of Bachs passionperformances. In 1726 Bach presented a St. Mark Passion he attributed toReinhard Keiser, a work he had also performed in his Weimar years.36 In hisLeipzig performances he put the music for Peter and Pilate in a vocal part(called Tenor Petrus et Pilatus) separate from that containing the TenorEvangelists music, clearly demonstrating that Peters and Pilates words werepresented by a singer distinct from the tenor concertist. (In the Weimar-eramaterials all of this music was in the Tenor Evangelists part and may evenhave been sung by him.) The separation of the recitatives for these two charac-ters is unremarkable in light of what we know of Bachs Leipzig practice inpassion performancesmost of the words of interlocutors in Bachs passionmaterials appear outside the concertists parts. Unusual for Bach was his reas-signment in the St. Mark Passion of Peters crying aria Wein, ach wein itztum die Wette to the singer of the additional tenor part as well.37

35. In the 1736 version, the vocal line in No. 8 is never without unison instrumental doubling.

36. The remnants of Bachs performing materials are D-B Mus. ms. 11471/1 and N. Mus.ms. 468, and manuscripts in private possession. The literature on this work is summarized inDaniel R.Melamed and Reginald L. Sanders, Zum Text und Kontext der Keiser-Markuspassion,Bach-Jahrbuch 85 (1999): 3550. A detailed study of Bachs performances is in preparation by theauthor.

37. The aria appears in the additional part, but the situation is actually a little more compli-cated: the copyist of the Leipzig Tenor Evangelist part started to enter Peters music at a couple ofpoints, then erased it. He also entered the aria and Pilates music, which was then bracketed.Unfortunately we do not know exactly when this happened and thus cannot be certain that the



There was a strong tradition of reflective commentary by Peter at this pointin the passion story. For example, the aria No. 13 Ach, mein Sinn appears at the parallel place in Bachs St. John Passion, as does its onetime substituteNo. 13a Zerschmettert mich. The text of Ach, mein Sinn is drawn from a poem by Christian Weise called Der weinende Petrus, and it expressessimilar sentiments to those in Wein, ach wein (actually an adapted choralestanza) from the St. Mark Passion. In Bachs St. John Passion, the aria at thismoment in the narrative is apparently not sung by Peter, despite the origin ofits text in Weises poem, which is cast in Peters voice; its music is found in thetenor concertists part, not in the bass ripieno part that contains Peters wordsin the Gospel narrative.

But in the St. Mark Passion we probably have to understand the aria Wein,ach wein as sung by Peter himself, and this is a big step for Bach for two rea-sons. First, it assigns an aria to a named character, weakening the division Bachand his librettists typically observed between participants in the Gospel narra-tive and the more abstract voices of the accompagnati and arias.38 Second, italso takes an expressive aria out of the hands of the principal singers of thework, a practice not documented anywhere else in Bachs church music otherthan the St. Matthew Passion. If Bach indeed made this assignment in the St.Mark Passion in 1726, then it may have been a model for his practice in the St.Matthew Passion. If the assignment of this relatively easy aria for Peter actuallytook place in a later performanceand the surviving sources of the workmake it impossible to say with certaintythen conversely the experience ofperforming BWV 244 may have suggested the practice to Bach in the St.Mark Passion. Either way, the assignment of arias to members of Chorus 2 inthe St. Matthew Passion is connected to Bachs practice in the St. Mark andshows him experimenting with ways to use the singers available to him.

distribution of tenor material described above dates from 1726; it may be later. But at some per-formance(s) under Bach, the music for Peter and Pilate was indeed sung from the additional part.The removal of Peters music in 1726 is certain; the displacement of his aria and of Pilates musicmight also belong to that year.

38. This may also reflect the influence of poetic passion oratorios in which named charactersin the narrative are more likely to be assigned reflective arias.

Table 6 Accompagnati and Arias in the St. Matthew Passion

Chorus 1 Chorus 2

Soprano 12/13 48/49 8

Alto 5/6 }27a 39 59/60 51/52Tenor 19/20 34/35

Bass 30a 56/57 64/65 22/23 42

aAlto in 1736 and after.



The status of the instruments in Chorus 2

The status of the voices of Chorus 2 as subordinate to those of Chorus 1 andtheir role as a ripieno group are matched by a comparable asymmetry in theduties of the instrumentalists in the two ensembles. Bachs 1736 score andparts call for essentially identical instrumental forces in each choir, but the twogroups are not used equally. As with the voices, the instruments of Chorus 2play a less central role.

To begin with, the nature of the dialogue movements puts Chorus 1 andits instruments in a more prominent position. No. 20 Ich will bei meinemJesu wachen is a good illustration: the aria in Chorus 1 features an elaborateobbligato line for Oboe 1, whereas the instruments of Chorus 2 simply playcolla parte with the four-part vocal ensemble in Chorus 2. In fact this is typicalof the dialogue movements, and one can observe the same relationship (obbli-gato instruments in Chorus 1 but colla parte playing in Chorus 2) in Nos. 19,27a, 30, 60, and 67.39 (See Table 3.) The instruments of Chorus 2 have less-prominent duties in dialogue pieces, in keeping with the roles of the voicesthey are paired with, but they also contribute less to the texture of their cho-russ material.

The larger number of arias given to the voices of Chorus 1 means that theinstruments of Chorus 2 do not have as much to play, but the demands madeon them in their five arias are also more modest. One piece (No. 35) is a con-tinuo aria, requiring no obbligato playing; two (Nos. 23 and 52) use unisonviolin obbligatos; another (No. 8) uses orchestral string ritornellos (the flutesare apparently a later addition). The most demanding piece is the aria No. 42,which has a four-part string texture including a concertante violin.40 Missingalmost entirely are obbligato demands on the woodwind instruments; the oneexception is the recitative No. 34, which calls only for regular punctuations byoboes on every beat. These instruments do not play in the paired aria No. 35;this is a surprise given Bachs tendency to match the instrumentation of pairedrecitatives and arias, but a woodwind obbligato does not appear to have beenan option.41

We can contrast the demands on Chorus 2 with those made of Chorus 1,whose arias include obbligatos for recorder (No. 19), oboe (No. 20), twooboes (No. 27a), two oboes damore (Nos. 12 and 13), two oboes da caccia(Nos. 19, 48, 59, and 60), flute (No. 49), two flutes (Nos. 5, 6, 27a, and 56),and viola da gamba (No. 57), in addition to two bassetto pieces (No. 27a and

39. As will be discussed below, the quasi-independent flute line in Chorus 2 in No. 67 was alater addition to the texture.

40. But see below on the scoring of this aria.41. This recitative was the subject of a later revision; see below. Bach was clearly challenged in

finding an appropriate match between the recitative No. 34 and its continuo aria No. 35; a poeticrecitative accompanied by continuo only would have been musically confusing in the St. MatthewPassion because in that work simple recitative is reserved for Gospel narrative.



the excruciatingly difficult No. 49). There are no unison string arias forChorus 1all the string pieces call for at least a three-part divisionand nocontinuo arias. Overall, the movements in which the instruments of Chorus 2play independently are designed to make modest and manageable demands:colla parte doubling of the voices in dialogue arias, and mostly colla parte play-ing with the voices in choruses either in straightforward antiphony withChorus 1 or in unison with it. The instruments of Chorus 2 play only twoshort Gospel narrative choruses on their own, again mostly colla parte withthe vocal lines.

And just as the voices of Chorus 2 function essentially as ripienists in manymovements, doubling Chorus 1, so do the instrumentalists of that ensemble.This is clear in the many pieces that combine the two groups in unison butalso in the large divided movements like the opening chorus. In that number,for example, Bach uses the instruments of Chorus 2 as ripieno reinforcers ofthe opening ritornello (mm. 116, departing only in mm. 1415 for a hint ofthe division to come), the long intermediate ritornello (mm. 5257), the ri-tornello fragments at measures 66 and 70 (marked by the f dynamic), and theclosing vocal/instrumental ritornello (mm. 7390), a moment of particularforce and beauty. The only material played independently by the instrumentsof Chorus 2 are the passages of colla parte support of the voices and the rela-tively unproblematic punctuating accompaniment in measures 5768.42

The tasks assigned to the instruments of Chorus 2 are closely parallel tothose given to the voices of that choir: doubling Chorus 1 in many move-ments and in tutti passages in others; taking on a quasi-independent ripienorole in dialogue movements (colla parte with the voices); and participating in afew arias that make limited technical demands and essentially no use of wood-winds. The other job of the Chorus 2 instrumentsproviding a second en-semble in the few short antiphonal Gospel chorusesbegins to look lesscentral. Instrumentally as well as vocally, Chorus 2 is fundamentally a ripienogroup.43

Forces for the first performance

Even if we regard Chorus 2 as a ripieno ensemble, the St. Matthew Passion stillappears to require particularly large forces. Given that Bach performed succes-sive versions of his St. John Passion in 1724 and 1725 and the anonymousHamburg St. Mark Passion in 1726all single-chorus workswe might well

42. In this regard No. 27b Sind Blitze, sind Donner is an exception (as it is in so manyways), making arguably the greatest demands on Chorus 2 and treating the two ensemblesequally.

43. Leisinger (Forms and Functions, 7880) has pointed out that Friedrich WilhelmMarpurgs discussion of double-chorus techniques in his Anleitung zur Singcomposition (Berlin:G. A. Lange, 1758) distinguishes between the use of equal and unequal forces. Marpurgs illustra-tions of double-choir techniques include examples from the St. Matthew Passion.



ask how he suddenly found the resources to put on the St. Matthew Passion in1727.44 This question turns out to involve a host of others about the genesisand evolution of the work.

To evaluate the requirements of the Passions first performance, we have tobegin by acknowledging that the 1736 score and performing parts do notrepresent the work as it was heard in the 1720s. Indeed the existence of anearlier version is documented principally by a score from the so-calledAmalien-Bibliothek (AmB) long thought to be in the hand of JohannChristoph Altnickol, Bachs student and son-in-law.45 Altnickols membershipin Bachs closest family circle has suggested that his copy carried great author-ity, but this is no longer so clear because Peter Wollny has shown that thissource is not in Altnickols hand but rather in that of one Johann ChristophFarlau. Farlau spent time as a schoolboy in Naumburg, where Altnickol him-self may have been his music teacher, but also in Leipzig as a university studentin the 1760s. There are thus several ways he may have had access to Bachs St. Matthew Passion, including in the work he is presumed to have done forBachs second successor as Thomascantor, Johann Friedrich Doles.46

Although we do not yet understand all the implications of the new identifi-cation of this scores copyist, we can still say with confidence that this source,which differs in some important ways from Bachs 1736 materials, transmitsan earlier version of the Passion.47 How much earlier is unclear for the mo-ment, and we cannot be completely certain which differences from the 1736version represent Bachs revisions, which might be the result of casual copy-ing, and which might represent interventions by other musicians. Still, theAmB score can help us understand issues of scoring in the work.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the version in the AmB score is its useof only one basso continuo group serving both choruses: voices and instru-ments are divided into two choirs, but both sit atop a single continuo line.The revised scoring in the 1736 version, providing an independent continuoline for each chorus, emphasizes the independence of the two ensembles and was significant enough to earn the well-known notation by the sexton ofthe St. Thomas Church that the 1736 passion performance took place mitbeyden orgeln.48

This change in continuo scoring takes on new significance in view of an interpretation of the Passions vocal and instrumental forces as a principal

44. The date of the works first performance was argued by Rifkin in Chronology of BachsSaint Matthew Passion.

45. D-B Am. B. 6/7.46. All my information on Farlau is from Peter Wollny, Tennstedt, Leipzig, Naumburg,

HalleNeuerkenntnisse zur Bach-berlieferung in Mitteldeutschland, Bach-Jahrbuch 88(2002): 2960.

47. It is extremely unlikely on musical grounds that Bach or anyone else would have revisedthe piece in the other direction.

48. Neumann and Schulze, eds., Bach-Dokumente 2:141.



ensemble and an active ripieno group. A single continuo group sufficed pre-cisely because the voices and instruments of Chorus 2 serve most of the timeas part of a single ensemble that mostly doubles Chorus 1 and only occasion-ally functions on its own. Chorus 2 did not need its own continuo group forsimple recitatives, of which it had noneall the Gospel recitative was inChorus 1. (The only exception in the 1736 version, the use of two singersfrom Chorus 2 for the words of the false witnesses in No. 33, is moot in theAmB version because that score specifies that these voices were accompaniedby the same continuo group that played with all the other Gospel recitativethe only one available.) In dialogue movements, Chorus 2 was supported inits ripieno role by the single continuo group that served the entire ensemble.

Only in a few movements was Chorus 2 asked to match Chorus 1 an-tiphonally, and there a single continuo group sufficed, too, just as it did inmost double-choir music from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Thepresence of only one continuo line in the earlier version of the St. MatthewPassion, even in these antiphonal pieces, suggests that the two apparently dis-tinct vocal and instrumental groups may also be regarded as a single ensemblethat could be divided when necessary. The revision of the continuo scoring inthe 1736 version is a step in the direction of independence of the two cho-ruses and the crystallization of Chorus 2s identity as an independent group.

One practical consequence of the use of a single basso continuo line is thatthe earlier version of the St. Matthew Passion did not require any more con-tinuo players than did the St. John Passion. We have already seen that the vocalforces for the two works are identical, small roles aside: each calls for eightsingers disposed as four concertists and four ripienists, with some additionalduties (including arias) required of the ripieno singers in the St. MatthewPassion.

What about instrumental requirements? The absence of original perform-ing materials puts us in the realm of guesswork, but a detail in the AmB scoreis suggestive. Two arias, No. 39 Erbarme dich and No. 42 Gebt mirmeinem Jesum wieder, are each scored for a solo violin along with two or-chestral violin lines. In his 1736 performing parts, which include two copies ofViolin 1 and two of Violin 2 in each choir, Bach carefully worked out the cov-erage of the violin lines. (See Table 7.) In these arias he put one violinist on thesolo line (placing his music in the first copy of Violin 1), two players on the or-chestral Violin 1 line (entering this line in the Violin 1 doublet and the firstcopy of Violin 2), and one player on the orchestral Violin 2 line (placing it inthe Violin 2 doublet). The disposition was thus one soloist, two first violins,and one second violin, all within one chorus.49

49. This is indicated in the simplest way possible: by the presence of particular lines in eachpart. It has often been assumed in modern times that two players read from each part, but this is a practice for which these parts (and indeed essentially all of Bachs string parts) are poorly suitedin their design. For a discussion of the problem as it affects a Bach passion, see Joshua Rifkin,The Violins in Bachs St. John Passion, in Critica Musica: Essays in Honor of Paul Brainard, ed.John Knowles (Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach, 1996), 30732.



The AmB score disposes the violins in a different and interesting way, indicating that in No. 39, assigned to a singer and the instrumentalists ofChorus 1, the solo violin line was played by a violinist from Chorus 2.Similarly, in No. 42 the orchestra of Chorus 2 apparently played along with a soloist from Chorus 1. That is, each borrowed a soloist from the other orchestra.50 I have heard this interpreted symbolically (crosswise disposi-tion, apparently with a nod to Schtzs preface to his Psalmen Davids),51 but Ifind this explanation strained, and it leaves open the question of why Bacheliminated this feature in 1736, limiting each aria to a voice and instrumentswithin one choir.52

There is a practical explanation for the scoring, I think, and it is a key to un-derstanding Bachs staffing of the St. Matthew Passion in its early days. In theversion represented by the AmB score, we can hypothesize that Bach reck-oned with only two violinists in each choir, not the four suggested by the laterparts and apparently typical for his Leipzig church music. This meant that anyaria with three violin lines had to borrow from the other chorus. In perform-ing the earlier version, Bach would then have distributed his four violinists be-tween two instrumental ensembles as four principal parts rather than as twosets of doubling players, much as he distributed the eight available singers between two choirs.

Bachs sudden ability to mount the St. Matthew Passion now begins to lookmore plausible. Table 8 compares the forces needed for the 1725 St. JohnPassion with the hypothetical requirements of a St. Matthew Passion in theAmB version that disposed its violinists in this way, and the two line up surpris-ingly well. There are a few unknowns, including in the small vocal parts: we do

50. This is explicit only in No. 39 but seems to have been the intent in No. 42 as well.51. In disposition und Anordnung der Capellen so zwey Chricht / kan man in acht nemen

da die Chor creutzwei gestellet werden / und da Capella I. dem andern Coro Fauorito, undhingegen Capella 2. dem ersten / etc. am nechsten sey / so werden die Capellen den gewnd-schten effect erreichen. (In disposing and arranging the capellas that are for two choruses, onemay take care that the choirs are placed crosswise, and that Capella 1 is next to the second CoroFavorito, Capella 2 on the other hand next to the first. Thus the capellas will achieve the desiredeffect.)

52. If the 1736 performance physically separated the two ensembles, the original scoring mayhave become difficult to execute. And if the earlier performance situated all the forces in oneplace, that would support the suspicion that Bach considered them one ensemble that could beused in various ways.

Table 7 Violin Lines in No. 39 Erbarme dich (Aria S1)

Line 1736 parts AmB score

V solo Chorus 1 V1 copy 1 Chorus 2 V1

V1 Chorus 1 V1 copy 2 Chorus 1 V1Chorus 1 V2 copy 1

V2 Chorus 1 V2 copy 2 Chorus 1 V2



not know how the interlocutors roles were distributed in the earlier version ofthe St. Matthew Passion or whether the chorale melody in No. 1 was indeedsung by a Soprano in ripieno as it was in 1736.53 Leaving aside these vocalparts, which almost any musician could presumably have managed, the re-quirements of the two passions are strikingly comparable.

53. The AmB score labels the chorale line Organo but provides the complete chorale text;it is not certain whether this means organ only or organ doubling voice as in the later version.The 1736 autograph score includes the chorale melody in the two organ parts; its text and realiza-tion for voice are revealed only by a part for Soprano in ripieno.

Table 8 Bachs Performing Forces for Two Passions Compared

BWV 245 (1725; from parts) BWV 244 (AmB version; hypothetical)

Soprano Soprano 1Alto Alto 1Tenor Evangelist Tenor 1 EvangelistBass Jesus Bass 1 Jesus

Soprano ripieno Soprano 2Alto ripieno Alto 2Tenor ripieno Tenor 2Bass ripieno Bass 2

[Tenor (Servant)] Bass (Judas, Priest 1)[Bass (Pilate)] Bass (Peter, Priest 2, Caiphas, Pilate)

Soprano (Maid 1, Maid 2, Pilates wife)Soprano in Ripieno [if used]

Flute 1 Flute 1 1Flute 2 Flute 2 1

Flute 1 2Flute 2 2

Oboe 1 Oboe 1 1Oboe 2 Oboe 2 1

Oboe 1 2Oboe 2 2

Violin 1 Violin 1 1Violin 1 Violin 2 1Violin 2 Violin 1 2Violin 2 Violin 2 2Viola Viola 1

Viola 2

2 x Continuo [cello, violone] 2 x Continuo [cello, violone]Organ OrganViola da gamba Lute



The St. Matthew Passion required a lute (needed in the 1724 St. John butnot in 1725) but did not need a viola da gamba. In fact, the incremental num-ber of instruments needed for the St. Matthew Passion over the 1725 St. Johnis small: two additional flutes, two additional oboes, and one additional viola,nothing to sneeze at but apparently manageable. Bachs achievement in hisscoring of the St. Matthew Passion evidently lay less in an expansion of thenumber of performers involved than in his rethinking of the possible roles ofthe musicians available to him for a passion performance; that is, in designing awork with double-chorus features but using vocal and instrumental forces thatdid not go far beyond those needed for an ordinary piece.

But even the more limited AmB version requires a somewhat larger groupthan was ordinary for Bachs concerted church music. Bachs ability to musterthese forces and the particular demands he made of singers and instrumental-ists are both closely connected to the uneven relationship of the two ensem-bles. Presumably the bulk of the work (the material in Chorus 1) was designedfor Bachs first ensemble, the one responsible for performing his own con-certed pieces in alternating churches on regular Sundays and feasts. But GoodFriday Vespers, the occasion for concerted passion performances in Leipzig,were special in that Bach was expected to provide a passion in only one churcheach year. That meant that his second ensemble (the one usually responsiblefor performances at whichever church the principal group did not cover) wasavailable as well.

This has long been understood to explain the larger-than-usual forces hecould muster (including ripieno singers) for passion performances, but the na-ture of this second ensemble is also important to our analysis of the St.Matthew Passion and the music making it asks of its various participants. Weknow from Bach that the second choir did perform concerted music but thatthe first choirs repertorymostly Bachs own pieceswas (in his words) in-comparably harder and more intricate.54 That is, the second choir had to beable to perform cantatas but not at the level of the first ensemble; presumablythe demands on its instrumentalists were also less than in Bachs pieces.Unfortunately we know essentially nothing about this easier repertory, butBachs description of the second ensemble sounds exactly like the secondchoir in the St. Matthew Passion: a group capable of singing concerted ensem-ble pieces and in a position to sing and play less demanding arias (and ofcourse able to serve as ripienists).55

54. Neumann and Schulze, eds., Bach-Dokumente 1:88 (ohngleich schwerer und intri-cater); English translation in Hans T. David, Arthur Mendel, and Christoph Wolff, eds., TheNew Bach Reader: A Life of Johann Sebastian Bach in Letters and Documents (New York: W. W.Norton, 1998), 176.

55. Charles Sanford Terry suggested this but restricted himself to the relative simplicity of thechoruses and ignored the arias sung by Chorus 2 (J. S. Bach: A Biography, 2d ed. [London:Oxford University Press, 1933], 196).


The St. Matthew Passion appears to have been designed with this kind ofasymmetrical distribution of forces in mind, keeping the work within the reachof the forces available, not just in the number of musicians but in their abilitiesas well. The principal burden of the Passion fell on Bachs first chorus and bestinstrumentalists, whereas the competent but somewhat less accomplished sec-ond choir was likely given a smaller role as Chorus 2.56

Instrumental scoring before 1736

Even the account presented above may exaggerate the instrumental require-ments of the early St. Matthew Passion. The evidence is ambiguous, largely be-cause we do not know what stage is represented by the AmB score, ourprincipal document of the work before 1736. But several musical features ofthis earlier version and the one from 1736 suggest that behind the AmB ver-sion lay, in turn, a conception of the work using fewer instruments, possiblydeployed differently than in the two documented versions.

We can get a taste of the problem and some of the possible implications bymeans of the flute lines. The 1736 score and performing parts call unambigu-ously for four flute players, two in each chorus, but almost no music requiresfour independent parts. In most of the double-chorus movements, the twoflutes in each chorus play in unison on a single notated line (marked for twoplayers in the score and duplicated in the parts).57 In fact, only two move-ments in the 1736 version, Nos. 1 and 27a, have four distinct flute lines no-tated on four staves, and each raises some questions.

In No. 27a So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen, according to the AmB scoreand to the 1736 materials, Bach called for a total of four flutes, assigning oneflute and one oboe to each line of the duet obbligato in Chorus 1 and alsoproviding two (nondoubling) flute parts that participate in the interruptionsby Chorus 2. But the two sources differ in at least one respect: the AmB scorelacks the recurring tacet instructions for the oboes in the obbligato found inthe 1736 version by which Bach withdrew the oboes whenever the voices arepresent, making them effectively ripieno instruments added to the flute lines.If this difference is real (and is not simply an omission by the copyist), it maysuggest that the movements scoring underwent some revision. Given thatthis affects the flute lines in Chorus 1 (which are in unison with the oboes ofthat chorus in any event), we need to be careful in assuming that this move-ment was necessarily conceived with four flute lines.

56. Bach may not have segregated the members of his first and second ensembles strictly, ofcourse. The arias No. 39 and No. 42 show that each chorus needed at least one good violinist.Perhaps Bach assigned his two best players to lead the two ensembles.

57. Curiously enough, some movements (particularly in the AmB score) notate these partsunnecessarily on four staves rather than on two.




The other movement that calls for four flutes is the opening chorus. The1736 version uses these instruments there in various ways. In three-partwoodwind passages (for example, mm. 1725) Bach puts two flutes in unisonon one line and an oboe on each of the other two (Fl1 Fl2, Ob1, Ob2, allwithin one chorus). In two-part woodwind passages, though, he often assignsone flute and one oboe to each line (Fl1 Ob1, Fl2 Ob2), giving theflutes distinct music. This represents a rescoring of the version in the AmBsource. First, that score presents four flute lines, each