The 1752 edition is puzzling. Regardless of how one might look at it, its reason and purpose seem senseless. The first edition was offered for sale on September 29, 1751. Six months later, on April 2, 1752, followed the second edition. This means that the second edition of The Art of Fugue was commissioned almost immediately after the publication of the first one. Six months may suffice for printing a given edition and having it ready for sale, but it is too short to prepare a whole new edition.1
What could be the purpose of such a hurried operation?
The financial argument has to be discarded. If a bigger run was required, it could have been done at the first printing. Were the first edition a bestseller, a desire to repeat it straightaway could be understandable. But it was not; the sales were slow, despite constant price reductions: from 10 Reichsthalers, announced by Emanuel at the beginning,2 it went down to five,3 and finally, to four.4 In one of the publications, a few years after issuing both editions of The Art of Fugue, Emanuel wrote with regret that only about 30 copies had been sold in total.5
Perhaps the ‘entrepreneurs’ intended to make some changes in the new edition in order to improve revenue? The comparison shows that the 1752 edition differs from the previous one only in its cover, preface and the paper type. Everything else, including misprints, remain absolutely identical. Was it for such a result that Emanuel initiated a new, expensive and, yet again, commercially unsuccessful undertaking? It would be naïve to presume that a change of cover or paper quality might improve the sale results, and Emanuel could not but realise that. If he had had such hopes, he would have taken the necessary steps to advertise these particular changes. However, Emanuel does not mention any of these in any of the publications concerning the subscription or sale of the second edition.6 Nevertheless, the second edition was issued, implying that there must have been another reason for its publication.
The motive for embarking on such an allegedly futile new edition may be connected to a meeting between Philipp Emanuel and Christoph Friedrich in Bückeburg (during the last days of June and the beginning of July 1751). This encounter took place when the first edition of The Art of Fugue was already in print. Given that the upcoming publication was a main family event, it is nearly impossible that Emanuel would not have told his brother about it, as well as how would it look once printed.7 During this probable conversation, Christoph Friedrich would surely have corrected his brother and updated him about the latest structure of the cycle.8 However, Emanuel’s reaction to this news could not have been the publication of a new edition in which the only changes were the cover, preface and quality of paper; he would have made changes more in accordance with the composer’s authentic plan. The new edition, however, carries no content changes. Why would that be?
The new information required substantial updating, a task that had to be done before sending the work to print. Such updating would consist of several steps:
• Finding the end of the last, ‘unfinished’ fugue, the overall size (rectus and inversus) of which had to cover about nine page spreads
• Removing Contrap: a 4. and the fugue for two claviers from the cycle
• If just a clavier-score of the last fugue is found, writing it in open score
• Preparing its engraver copy
While the two latter tasks were quite achievable, the first presented serious challenges. Emanuel, so it seems, did not realise, when ordering the second edition of The Art of Fugue practically right after issuing the first one, how difficult finding the fugue’s closure might prove to be. At least part of his efforts may be traced through a short note written on a small piece of paper. According to Siegfried Dehn, the Berlin Staatsbibliothek’s librarian who received the Autograph, this note was attached to the folder in which all three supplements to the Autograph of The Art of Fugue were kept. The writing on the paper stated that ‘Herr Hartmann hat das eigentliche’ [Mr. Hartmann has the real thing].9 It is unclear who this Hartmann was, and trying to find out will probably prove to be quite futile. The piece of paper was lost, but Dehn, writing in the journal Cäcilia, ascribes the inscription to C.P.E. Bach.10
This information may suggest that Philipp Emanuel undertook a search for the completed quadruple fugue. Clearly, he failed, or else he would have published it in its finalised form. Unfortunately, when he had to accept that his efforts were in vain, it was too late to cancel the commission, and the content of the second edition remained identical to the first. Nevertheless, based on the information he received from Johann Christoph Friedrich, Emanuel did succeed in informing his readers what kind of fugue should appear at the end of his father’s cycle. For this purpose he used Mizler’s Musikalische Bibliothek. There, in the obituary for Johann Sebastian, he described the main features of this fugue. He did not mention either the fugue for two claviers or the triple fugue, not even the ‘deathbed’ choral. Only the two last fugues, which are connected to each other in a special way, and the information about the quadruple fugue are mentioned.
1 This period is characteristic. For example, in November 1751, when Johann Matthesohn’s Philologisches Tresespiel was in print, he wrote that it would be issued only by the Easter Fair, in April of 1752. This in fact coincides with the issuing period of the second edition of The Art of Fugue. A similar time span was planned by J.S. Bach for the edition of the Clavierübung III (Butler, Bach’s Clavier-Übung III, p. 125, note 4). True, Bach’s constant revisions during the engraving process changed the deadline, but the very fact of its happening tells what was considered a reasonable period.
2 Thomas Wilhelmi, ‘Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs ‘Avertissement’ über den Druck der Kunst der Fuge,’ BJ 78 (1992): p. 102: ‘wird das Werck nicht unter 10 Reichstalern verkauft werden.’ [After that time the work will not be sold under 10 Reichsthaler.] C.P.E. Bach’s announcement is translated in NBR no. 281, p. 257.
3 See Johann Matthesohn, Philologisches Tresespiel: ‘Wie wäre es denn, wenn ein jeder Aus- und Einlander an diese Seltenheit seinen Louis d’or wagte?’ [How would it be, then, if every foreigner and every compatriot risked his louis d’or on this rarity?] (BD III/647, p. 12. Translated in NBR, no. 375, p. 377). In 1751, one Louis d’or was equal to five Reichsthalern.
4 See Emanuel’s announcement for the sale of the engraved copper plates of The Art of Fugue: ‘Dieses Werk wurde bisher 4 Rthlr. das Exemplar verkauft.’ (BD III/683, p. 113). [This work has been sold hitherto at 4 Reichsthaler the copy.] (NBR, no. 376, p. 378).
5 Ibid.
6 The only advertising claim of the publication’s high quality is in the announcement of the copper plates sale, which states that the engraving is ‘neat and accurate’ [‘saubre und accurat’—ibid.]. However, since both editions had to be printed from the same plates, this comment gave no advantage to the new edition over the first one.
7 As a reminder, Philipp Emanuel had an idea about compositional steps that his father took concerning The Art of Fugue for its Second Version, of which he became aware during Johann Sebastian’s visit to Sanssouci in May 1747. Christoph Friedrich, on the other hand, knew about later developments, possibly even about the Fourth Version (as it was by the end of December 1749).
8 The fact that such a conversation took place is substantiated in the obituary, written by the end of 1750 (NBR, no. 306, p. 297, note 28.) In paragraph 8 of the obituary Emanuel reports about The Art of Fugue, mentioning the plan for the quadruple fugue. His only possible resource for this information would be Christoph Friedrich (ibid. p. 304).
9 NBR, no. 377, p. 378.
10 Siegfried Wilhelm Dehn, ‘Ueber einige Theils noch ungedruckte, Theils durch den Druck bereits veröffentliche musikalische Manuskripte von Johann Sebastian Bach, welche sich in der musikalischen Abteilung der König. Bibliothek zu Berlin befinden’, Cäcilia, 24 (1845): p. 22. Wilhelm Rust, while preparing the first edition of Bach’s works, stated that Philipp Emanuel failed to find this sheet. See: Wilhelm Rust, Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe, Band 25/1 Die Kunst der Fuge (Leipzig, 1878), pp. xix–xx.