A Study of Musical Rhetoric in J. S. Bach’s Organ Fugues
BWV 546, 552.2, 577, and 582
A document submitted to the
Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
in the Keyboard Division
of the College-Conservatory of Music
March 2015
by
Wei-Chun Liao
BFA, National Taiwan Normal University, 1999
MA, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2002
MEd, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2003
Committee Chair: Roberta Gary, DMA
Abstract
This study explores the musical-rhetorical tradition in German Baroque music and its
connection with Johann Sebastian Bach’s fugal writing. Fugal theory according to musica
poetica sources includes both contrapuntal devices and structural principles. Johann Mattheson’s
dispositio model for organizing instrumental music provides an approach to comprehending the
process of Baroque composition. His view on the construction of a subject also offers a way to
observe a subject’s transformation in the fugal process. While fugal writing was considered the
essential compositional technique for developing musical ideas in the Baroque era, a successful
musical-rhetorical dispositio can shape the fugue from a simple subject into a convincing and
coherent work. The analyses of the four selected fugues in this study, BWV 546, 552.2, 577, and
582, will provide a reading of the musical-rhetorical dispositio for an understanding of Bach’s
fugal writing.
ii Copyright © 2015 by Wei-Chun Liao
All rights reserved
iii Acknowledgements
The completion of this document would not have been possible without the help and
support of many people. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Roberta
Gary, for her continued guidance and invaluable teachings during the journey of my study. I
would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Stephanie P. Schlagel and Dr. bruce
mcclung, whose expertise and insightful comments were valued greatly.
Special thanks go to Valerie Scott and Edward Chiu for generously providing editing
suggestions and proofreading for this document. Lastly, I am deeply thankful to my family for
their love, understanding, and encouragement that has supported me to accomplish my goal.
iv Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Musical Examples ............................................................................................................. vii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1. Rhetoric and Musica Poetica ...................................................................................... 11
Classical Rhetoric ............................................................................................ 11
Rhetoric and Music ......................................................................................... 17
Musica Poetica ................................................................................................ 19
Rhetoric and J. S. Bach ................................................................................... 29
Principles of Musical Rhetoric ........................................................................ 31
Chapter 2. Rhetoric and Fugue ..................................................................................................... 34
Fugue and the Musical-Rhetorical Dispositio ................................................. 37
Chapter 3. Expansion of Contrast: Analysis of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546 ............................ 42
Chapter 4. A Musical Discussion: Analysis of Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2 .................... 49
Chapter 5. Modifications of the Subject Tail: Analysis of Fugue in G Major, BWV 577 ........... 56
Chapter 6. Variations of Theme Combinations: Analysis of Passacaglia in C Minor,
BWV 582 .................................................................................................................... 61
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 67
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 71
v List of Tables
Table 1. Seven Liberal Arts .......................................................................................................... 20 Table 2. Figurenlehren by Various Baroque Theorists ................................................................ 25 Table 3. Classical-Rhetorical Structure and Musical-Rhetorical Structure .................................. 32 Table 4. Fugal Structure of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546 ....................................... 42 Table 5. Fugal Structure of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2 .............................. 51 Table 6. Fugal Structure of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in G Major, BWV 577 ....................................... 57 Table 7. Fugal Structure of J. S. Bach’s Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 582 ............................... 63 Table 8. Symmetrical and Block Design of Subject Entries in J. S. Bach’s
Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 582 ................................................................................ 64
Table 9. Groupings of Variations in J. S. Bach’s Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 582 ................. 66
vi List of Musical Examples
Example 1. Thematic Elements of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546 ................................................ 43
Example 2. Countersubject (CS) of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546 .............................................. 45
Example 3. Eighth-Note Figure (B) of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546 ......................................... 46
Example 4. Subject A and Countersubject of Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2. ..................... 50
Example 5. Subject B of Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 522.2 ...................................................... 52
Example 6. Subject C of Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2 ...................................................... 53
Example 7. The Head-Neck-Tail Construction of the Subject of Fugue in G Major, BWV 577 . 56
Example 8. Three Variations of the Subject of Fugue in G Major, BWV 577: S1, S2, and S3 .. 58
Example 9. The Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 582, mm. 169–78 .............................................. 62
vii Introduction
Rhetoric and music share the same ultimate goal: to communicate with the listener
affectively and effectively. Rhetoric, also known as the art of persuasion, aims to deliver speech
in an effective and elegant manner. Rooted in treatises of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers
such as Aristotle and Cicero, rhetoric was considered the civic art of free speech. During
medieval times, rhetoric became a key subject in the seven liberal arts: the trivium of logic,
grammar, and rhetoric; and the quadrivium of arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and music. The
rediscovery of rhetorical treatises written by Quintilian, as well as an interest in setting text
properly to music, kept the study of rhetoric alive in musical circles during the Renaissance.
In the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther encouraged a synthesis of
the scientific and the artistic; the ability of music to communicate the Gospel to his followers
drove Lutheran composers to introduce elements of rhetoric into their works. From then on,
rhetorical elements in music took on greater importance. Music and rhetoric became key subjects
in the Lateinschule curriculum and were often taught by the same instructor. Many theorists in
Lutheran Germany, such as Joachim Burmeister, Johannes Lippius, and Christoph Bernhard,
began to borrow ideas from rhetoric to explain the decision-making of composers. This
employment of rhetorical principles transformed composition from a mathematical practice into
an art expressed in a new discipline called musica poetica. This newborn specialty focused
initially on vocal music, quickly expanding to include instrumental music. The introduction of
rhetorical ingredients into instrumental music formed one of the most significant aesthetic
developments of the German Baroque.1
1 Blake Wilson, George J. Buelow, and Peter A. Hoyt, “Rhetoric and Music,” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music
Online [http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com] (accessed April 20, 2009).
1 Writings on musica poetica serve as pedagogical instructions for musical composition
modeled on principles of rhetoric. In classical rhetoric, speeches generally have a five-part
structure of inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronunciatio. Inventio deals with the
discovery of ideas; dispositio determines the order of material; elocutio elaborates the material
with patterns or figures; memoria calls for mnemonics to recall arguments; and pronunciatio
concerns the delivery of speeches. In the seventeenth century, Athanasius Kircher first
introduced the musical-rhetorical structure, adapting inventio, dispositio, and elocutio into
musical compositional theory.2 Musical inventio involves the pre-composing status such as
choosing a subject, and determining key and meter. Next, in the dispositio, the composer
presents the pre-compositional material in order. Last, a composer utilizes figures to aid musical
expressions in the elocutio stage. Later Johann Mattheson further subdivided dispositio into six
parts: exordium, narratio, propositio, confirmatio, confutatio, and peroratio. According to
Mattheson, exordium is the introduction that gets listener’s attention, narratio is “a report in
which the meaning and nature of the delivery is suggested,” propositio “briefly contains the
meaning and purpose of the musical speech,” confutatio and confirmatio are objections and
reinforcements of the propositio, and peroratio is the conclusion of a musical composition.3
Besides being a pedagogical tool on how to construct a composition, musical-rhetorical model
also may serve as an analytical tool. Mattheson used an aria by Marcello as an example to
explain musical-rhetorical stages in his Der vollkommene Capellmeister.4 Modern scholars also
2
Dietrich Bartel, Musica Poetica: Musical-Rhetorical Figures in German Baroque Music (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 76.
3
Johann Mattheson and Hans Lenneberg, “Johann Mattheson on Affect and Rhetoric in Music II,” Journal
of Music Theory 2, (1958): 194–95.
4
Ibid., 196–201.
2 refer to the rhetorical model when analyzing Baroque compositions, including those of Johann
Sebastian Bach.
The question of whether or not Bach applied rhetorical principles in his work has long
stirred heated arguments, given his position as a principal German Baroque composer. Johannes
Birnbaum, one of Bach’s contemporaries and a professor of rhetoric at the Leipzig University,
defended him against Johannes Scheibe’s criticism of the composer’s musical style by writing
that “[Bach] has such perfect knowledge of the parts and merits which the working out of a
musical piece has in common with rhetoric.”5 Modern scholars also debate on the musicalrhetorical approach towards Baroque music interpretation. Peter Williams, Brian Vickers, and
Paul Walker hold skeptical attitudes on this subject; yet Gregory G. Butler, Warren and Ursula
Kirkendale, George J. Buelow, Leon W. Couch III, and Daniel Harrison support this approach.6
Modern musical-rhetorical analyses focus on discussions of either the dispositio or the
elocutio. Scholars who center on the elocutio idea identify musical-rhetorical figures and their
emotional implications in a composition. Such analyses are better suited for music with text.
Since musical-rhetorical figures did not have a unified system, as Baroque theorists often gave
different meanings to the same figure, it is difficult to determine a specific connotation without
the aid of a text. Besides, analyses based solely on figures do not differ much from modern
motivic analyses. On the contrary, dispositio offers a look into the structural layout of a
composition and can show how a composition begins as a simple subject, transforming through
stages into a coherent work.
5
Hans T. David, Arthur Mendel, and Christoph Wolff, eds., The New Bach Reader: A Life of Johann
Sebastian Bach in Letters and Documents (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998), no. 344, quoted in Ursula Kirkendale,
“The Source for Bach’s Musical Offering: The Institutio oratoria of Quintilian,” Journal of the American
Musicological Society 33 (1980): 133.
6
See the literature review section below for detailed information.
3 Fugue was considered the essential technique of developing musical ideas in the Baroque
era. Baroque theorists described fugues as conversations, debates, or arguments.7 From the
perspective of musica poetica, fugue is more compositional procedure than musical form. The
form varies depending on how a composer arranges and handles the subject. In this perspective,
a musical-rhetorical reading of the dispositio can help performers achieve an understanding of
Bach’s approach to fugal composition.
This document will investigate the German Baroque musica poetica tradition and the
musical-rhetorical connections in four selected fugues by Bach: BWV 546, 552.2, 577, and 582.
The first section will include a brief history of classical rhetoric and how it was adopted into
musical thinking, especially the German Baroque musica poetica tradition. It will also address
principles of musical rhetoric and examine its relationship to the fugue. The second section will
comprise analyses of four selected fugues, using the perspective of Mattheson’s model of
dispositio to illustrate specific aspects of musical rhetoric within the fugues. The analyses will
demonstrate how thematic ideas interact with the fugal structure, and how unity and
transformation is displayed in the fugal process.
Literature Review
Modern scholars’ examinations of German musica poetica treatises have confirmed the
prevalent influences of rhetoric on Baroque music. George J. Buelow has contended, “The union
of music with rhetorical principles is one of the most distinctive characteristics of Baroque
7
Gregory G. Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” Journal of Musical Theory 21 (1977): 64–65; and Otto L.
Bettmann, “Bach the Rhetorician,” The American Scholar 55 (1986): 115.
4 musical rationalism.” 8 Patrick McCreless has traced the development of rhetoric in music history
from antiquity to late eighteenth century, focusing specifically on the German musica poetica
tradition when discussing the musical-rhetorical relationship in the Baroque era.9 Karl
Braunschweig has briefly explained how conceptual metaphor entered musical thought. He has
further commented that the differences in each musica poetica treatise showed changes in
aesthetic and musical style through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.10 Dietrich Bartel
has also explored the musica poetica tradition, providing summaries of musica poetica treatises
written by various authors and definitions of numerous musical-rhetorical figures.11
Historical German musica poetica treatises display two aspects of rhetorical principles:
the dispositio focuses on the structure of compositions, and the elocutio centers on musical
figures. Gallus Dressler introduced the oratorical structure of exordium, medium, and finis to
musical compositions in his Praecepta musicae poëticae of 1563.12 Similarly, Johannes Lippius
applied the five canons of rhetoric to describe the formal process of compositions in his Synopsis
musicae novae of 1612.13 Conversely, Joachim Burmeister associated musical devices with
8
Wilson, Buelow, and Hoyt, “Rhetoric and Music.”
9
Patrick McCreless, “Music and Rhetoric,” in The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed.
Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 847–79.
10
Karl Braunschweig, “Genealogy and Musica Poetica in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Theory,”
Acta Musicologica 73 (2001): 45–75.
11
Dietrich Bartel, Musica Poetica: Musical-Rhetorical Figures in German Baroque Music (Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press, 1997); idem, “Rhetoric in German Baroque Music: Ethical Gestures,” The Musical
Times 144 (2003): 15–19.
12
Gallus Dressler, Praecepta Musicae Poëticae: The Precepts of Poetic Music, trans. Robert Forgács,
Studies in the History of Music Theory and Literature 3, ed. Thomas J. Mathiesen (Chicago: University of Illinois
Press, 2007), 172–87.
13
Benito V. Rivera, German Music Theory in the Early 17th Century: The Treatises of Johannes
Lippius (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1980), 167–70.
5 rhetorical terminologies, starting the Figurenlehre14 tradition with his three treatises:
Hypomnematum musicae poeticae of 1599, Musica autoschediastike of 1601, and Musica
poetica of 1606.15 Christoph Bernhard later extended Figurenlehre to instrumental music with
his categorization of musical figures based on treatments of dissonance in the Tractatus
compositionis augmentatus (ca. 1657), and the Ausführlicher Bericht vom Gebrauche der Conund Dissonantien (late 1660s).16 Figurenlehren remained the central focus of musica poetica
discourse until Mattheson shifted attention back to the concepts of inventio and dispositio in his
Der vollkommene Capellmeister of 1739.17
Despite the historical evidence of rhetorical concepts in Baroque musical treatises,
scholars have argued about the appropriateness of musical-rhetorical analyses. Peter Williams
and Brian Vickers have warned readers against overly stressing musical-rhetorical figures.18
Williams has questioned the exact extra-musical meaning associated with figures in many
modern figural analyses. Vickers has criticized the analogies between musical figures and
rhetorical figures in Burmeister’s system.19 In addition, he has opposed the application of
rhetorical structure in music.20 Paul Walker, although doubtful about the rhetorical application to
fugues, has agreed that fugal structure follows the rhetorical exordium, medium, and finis. He has
14
Figurenlehre, the theory of musical figures, associates rhetorical figures of speech with musical
figures/devices in the elocutio stage of composition.
15
Bartel, Musica Poetica, 94; McCreless, “Music and Rhetoric,” 855.
16
McCreless, 862.
17
Ibid., 869.
18
Peter Williams, “The Snares and Delusions of Musical Rhetoric: Some Examples from Recent Writings
on J. S. Bach,” Basler Jahrbuch für Historische Musikpraxis, Sonderband (Winterthur: Amadeus, 1983), 230–40;
Brian Vickers, “Figure of Rhetoric/Figures of Music?” Rhetorica 2 (1984): 1–44.
19
Vickers, “Figures,” 35–38.
20
Ibid., 19.
6 further concluded that “what separates the great fugue from the mediocre one, however, is
rhetoric.”21
Scholars who support the rhetorical approach focus on either the musical-rhetorical
figures or the rhetorical structure. Among the former, Richard A. Spurgeon Hall has approached
rhetorical figures as means to express religious affections.22 Reinhold Kubik and Magrit Legler
have considered rhetorical figures as gesture, which assists the musical depictions in Bach’s
vocal work.23 Gregory G. Butler has traced musical-rhetorical figures associated with fugue in
musica poetica sources in detail. He has maintained that these figures explain contrapuntal
procedures more accurately than modern terms.24 Conversely, other scholars have taken a
structural approach. Bettina Varwig has perceived rhetoric in the compositional process as a
guideline for formal planning. She has used Bach’s Concerto in G Major, BWV 1048 to
demonstrate that the rhetorical model of variation and amplification shapes the large-scale form
of this concerto.25 Similarly, Alan Street has declared that Bach composed the Goldberg
variations according to the rules from Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria. He has classified the
variations into small groups and correlated them with Quintilian’s rhetorical stages.26
21
Paul Walker, “Fugue in the Music-Rhetorical Analogy and Rhetoric in the Development of Fugue,” in
Bach Perspectives, vol. 4, The Music of J. S. Bach: Analysis and Interpretation, ed. David Schulenberg (Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 159–79.
22
Richard A. Spurgeon Hall, “Bach and Edwards on the Religious Affections,” and David Schulenburg,
“Musical Expression and Musical Rhetoric in the Keyboard Works of J. S. Bach,” in Johann Sebastian: A
Tercentenary Celebration, ed. Seymour L. Benstock (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 69–81, 95–109.
23
Reinhold Kubik and Margit Legler, “Rhetoric, Gesture and Scenic Imagination in Bach’s Music,”
Understanding Bach 4 (2009): 55–76.
24
Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” 49–109.
25
Bettina Varwig “One More Time: J. S. Bach and Seventeenth-Century Traditions of Rhetoric,”
Eighteenth-Century Music 5 (2008): 179–208.
26
Alan Street, “The Rhetorico-Musical Structure of the Goldberg Variations: Bach’s Clavier-Übung IV
and the Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian,” Music Analysis 6 (1987): 89–131.
7 Concerning fugues, theorists in the Baroque era regarded them as musical debates.27 In
the twentieth century, Daniel Harrison’s analysis of the fugue from Bach’s Toccata, BWV 915
agreed with this view.28 He regarded BWV 915 as a musical argument. The contrasts (he refers
to as statūs) presented in the subject itself not only provided all sources for debates, but also
shaped the architecture of this work. In a more recent article, Harrison has offered a way to
observe the statūs of subjects through examining the relationships between the head and tail.
Their transformations in the fugal process reveal the rhetorical plan of the fugue.29 His approach
has focused on the overall structural process of a fugue, rather than the musical figures. Harrison
has argued against Butler’s figural analysis of fugue and has maintained that musical rhetoric in
fugue should be more about its persuasive power.30 Harrison contends that the issues presented
in the subject shape the structure of the fugue. Although the process varies from one piece to
another, he has concurred that a general order exists.31
A similar view of the fugal subject had been presented in Mattheson’s Der vollkommene
Capellmeister. Mattheson regarded a subject as being composed of several parts.32 He stressed
the importance of a well-constructed subject that is “pleasant enough to bear continual repetition,
27
Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” 64–65; Bettmann, “Bach the Rhetorician,” 115.
28
Daniel Harrison, “Rhetoric and Fugue: An Analytical Application,” Music Theory Spectrum 12 (1990):
29
Daniel Harrison, “Head and Tails: Subject Play in Bach’s Fugues,” Music Theory Spectrum 30 (2008):
30
Harrison, “Rhetoric and Fugue,” 3.
31
Ibid., 8.
32
Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” 75.
9.
152–63.
8 flexible enough to allow various combinations, and of simple, singable character.”33 Harrison has
concurred with Mattheson that the subject is the prime element in a fugue, which generates
material for subsequent development. Mattheson’s simple musical-rhetorical structure of
instrumental music provides a basic model for observing the fugal process in the works of Bach.
Methodology
Each of the four fugues selected for this study contains a different number of thematic
ideas. In terms of conventional fugal analysis, Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546, appears to be a
double fugue with two subjects, but the validity of the second subject is arguable; Fugue in E-flat
Major, BWV 552.2, is also a double fugue but with three subjects; Fugue in G Major, BWV 577,
is a simple fugue with one subject; and Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 582, includes a
permutation fugue with one subject and two countersubjects. For fugues with one subject,
analysis of the construction and development of the subject may provide insight into the fugue’s
structural plan. However, for fugues with multiple themes, the development of individual theme
and the interactions between themes both work together in shaping the structure of the fugue.
The purpose of this study is to examine how Bach transformed subjects or thematic ideas
through the fugal process, and how his transformational plan shaped the overall dispositio of
these fugues.
My analyses will begin with an examination of the characteristics of the subject, the
countersubject, any distinctive motifs, and their head-and-tail relationships where applicable.
Next, sections of the dispositio will then be determined based on the transformational plan of
33
Johann Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister (1739; rep., Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1954), 387, quoted
in Paul Walker, “Fugue in German Theory from Dressler to Mattheson” (PhD diss., University of New York at
Buffalo, 1987), 566.
9 these elements and the interactions between thematic ideas. Conventional fugal analysis
techniques, such as identifying entries of subjects and countersubjects, cadences, harmony,
stretti, diminutions, and augmentations, will also be applied and incorporated into formal
diagrams. The musical-rhetorical reading of the dispositio will demonstrate how Bach’s
manipulation of thematic material together with his organizational plan result in a compelling
statement in each of these four fugues.
10 Chapter 1
Rhetoric and Musica Poetica
The New Harvard Dictionary of Music defines rhetoric in terms of speech and its
application to various art forms:
In public speaking, the means of effective advocacy; in prose and poetry, the codification
of verbal strategies that enhance the reception of a text; in music, the conscious,
consistent use of patterns and formal arrangements to engender in an audience a sense of
aesthetic satisfaction or psychological plausibility that clarifies or heightens the intended
effect of a composition or performance.1
Rhetoric was considered the metalanguage of language and of arts.2 Principles and rules of
rhetoric were widely borrowed by many art forms to explain the formation and the style of a
work. Music was no exception, and composers adopted many concepts and terminologies from
rhetoric. In the High Renaissance and Baroque eras, the connection between rhetoric and music
reached its peak. In particular, the German musica poetica tradition was formed during the first
half of the sixteenth century and flourished until the end of the Enlightenment. In order to
understand how the ideas of rhetoric shaped Baroque music, it is necessary to trace the
development of classic rhetoric and its relationship to music.
Classical Rhetoric
The study of rhetoric originated in the fifth century BCE in Sicily, then a colony of
Greece. The founder of this civil art of persuasion, Corax of Syracuse, introduced the five-part
rule of speech—proem, narrative, arguments, subsidiary remarks, and peroration, to help citizens
1
The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed., s.v. “rhetoric.”
2
Patrick McCreless, “Music and Rhetoric,” in The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed.
Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 847.
11 with litigations in court. Since political participation and public speaking played important roles
in the daily life of the democratic ancient Greek society, this formulaic manner of speech soon
made its way from Sicily to mainland Greece.3 The teaching of rhetoric in small schools began in
Athens, and Sophists taught students how to speak and debate successfully. Their curriculum
included analyzing poetry, learning and defining parts of speech, and studying styles of debate.
However, with a growing trend towards using flowery metaphors, poetic vocabulary, and clever
wordplay, the primary concern of rhetoric shifted from how to arrange and present arguments to
how to speak in an ornate and figurative style.4
Plato extensively criticized this artificial eloquence as deceptive in his two dialogues,
Gorgias and Phaedrus. He valued philosophy over rhetoric, for philosophy sought to pursue pure
truth, while rhetoric often aimed to win arguments through manipulative and even dishonest
means. Nevertheless, his student Aristotle held a different view of rhetoric. He perceived it as a
useful tool to assist in the understanding of truth.5
Aristotle’s The Art of Rhetoric (c. 335 BCE) established detailed discussions and rules
regarding the discipline. He wrote that rhetoric is “the faculty of observing in any given case the
available means of persuasion.”6 In other words, Aristotle defined rhetoric as the art of
persuasion. Additionally, he contributed to the doctrine of rhetoric, setting forth several
groundbreaking rhetorical concepts, namely: three means of persuasion, three types of topics,
and the five-part structure of speech. The three technical means of persuasion include ethos—the
3
McCreless, 849; Timothy Edward Albrecht, “Musical Rhetoric in Selected Organ Works of Johann
Sebastian Bach” (University of Rochester: DMA thesis, 1978), 7.
4
Albrecht, 8.
5
McCreless, 849.
6
Aristotle, “Rhetorica,” in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. and trans. W. Rhys Roberts (New York:
Ransom House, 1941), 1329.
12 character of the speaker, pathos—the emotions of the listeners, and logos—the presentation of
truth in arguments.7 Though Plato and Aristotle both objected to using emotion alone to win
arguments, Aristotle recognized the power of passion as often more effective than logic. He
believed that the use of persuasive language and techniques were necessary for the delivery of
truth, once it is determined that reasoning alone is not sufficient to convince an audience.
Aristotle also addressed in detail three types of public speech: deliberative, forensic, and
epideictic. The deliberative type, also known as political, deals with public affairs destined to
happen in the future. The speaker persuades his audience to either agree or disagree with an
argument. The forensic, or legal type, deals with the accusation or defense of events that
happened in the past. Finally, the epideictic, or ceremonial oratory, deals with honoring or
criticizing an individual.8 No matter the topic category, Aristotle divided the main body of a
speech into five parts. These include introduction, narration, arguments, interrogation and jests,
and epilogue.9 The divisions are similar to those of Corax of Syracuse. The Art of Rhetoric is
considered the most influential work on rhetoric and the most scientific study undertaken in this
time.
After the Roman Empire conquered Greece, rhetoric was introduced to Rome and began
to flourish. Cicero (106–43 BCE) and Quintilian (35–100 CE) were two of the most renowned
Roman rhetoricians. Cicero wrote several treatises on the subject. In De Inventione, he defined
the fundamental steps of rhetoric, from creating to delivering a speech, also known as the five
canons of rhetoric: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronunciatio.10 Inventio is the
7
Aristotle, 1330.
8
Ibid., 1335.
9
Ibid., 1437–51.
10
Albrecht, 13.
13 process of finding ways to persuade; dispositio is the process of organizing arguments and
arranging them in an effective manner; elocutio is the process of presenting arguments
eloquently to stir emotions; memoria is the process of memorizing and internalizing information
in order to speak extemporaneously; and pronunciatio is the process of delivering a speech with
effective use of voice and gestures. Cicero further divided the main body of a speech, the
dispositio, into six parts—exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, refutatio, and peroratio.11
Exordium serves as an introduction, to grab the attention of the audience and to establish
credibility. Narratio provides the background information, in order for the audience to
understand the context of subsequent arguments. Partitio summarizes the points the speaker is
going to make. Confirmatio presents supporting proof and evidence for the argument. Refutatio
rejects the opposing arguments. Peroratio sums up the arguments and concludes a speech. This
clear pattern provides the basic structure of a speech. In another treatise, De Oratore, Cicero
identified the goals of rhetoric as docere, movere, and delectare—to teach, to move, and to
delight.12 He also stressed the moral and philosophical principles of rhetoric. In his view, the
perfect orator should possess not only the techniques of rhetoric, but also broad knowledge and
ethical principles. With the contributions of Aristotle and Cicero, the framework of rhetoric was
firmly established.
About 150 years later (95 CE), Quintilian published his twelve-volume work, Institutio
Oratoria, which continued to explore the five canons of rhetoric in great detail. Besides being a
theoretical work of rhetoric, it also demonstrated his ideal educational curriculum and
philosophy. Similar to Cicero, Quintilian’s work not only covered the technical aspects of
11
Albrecht, 14.
12
Ibid.; McCreless, 850.
14 rhetoric but emphasized its ethical value as well. Quintilian believed that the perfect orator is the
perfect man. He stressed that education in rhetoric should begin at a young age.13 As a result, he
opened a public school of rhetoric in Rome and trained his students in a systematic process.
Institutio Oratoria influenced subsequent scholars, educators, theologians, and rhetoricians
greatly. Many of their writings and theories are directly derived from Quintilian’s ideas.
In the following centuries, political rhetoric gradually declined as the authority of Roman
emperors increased. Conversely, the Christian Church started to see the value of this pagan art.
Therefore, the application of rhetoric gradually shifted from political to religious during the
medieval period. Early Christian Church fathers, such as Origen, Jerome, and St. Augustine,
called for a re-evaluation of rhetoric.14 St. Augustine (354–430) received his education and
rhetorical training in the Roman school system. He started his early career as a grammar teacher
and then conducted a school of rhetoric, later becoming a professor of rhetoric for the imperial
court at Milan. After his conversion to Christianity, St. Augustine recognized the potential of
rhetoric as a precious tool to spread the Gospel. He also believed the techniques of rhetoric could
be used to preach and to defend against attacks on Christianity.15 His four-volume De Doctrina
Christiana contained guidelines on how to interpret and teach the Scripture, with volume four
specifically focused on rhetoric and Christian truth. St. Augustine stressed that the goal of
rhetoric is to teach Christian truth by the use of eloquence. He quoted Cicero frequently and
emphasized the importance of selecting the proper style (subdued, moderate, or grand) for
preaching.
13
Albrecht, 16.
14
Ibid., 20.
15
Ibid.
15 Rhetoric was also one of the key subjects of study in the medieval secular education
system. The curriculum of academic studies in universities included the trivium: grammar, logic,
and rhetoric, as well as the quadrivium of music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. Together
these comprised the seven liberal arts. In the case of rhetoric, since opportunities for civic
participation declined, the focus of rhetorical study was no longer public discourse but rather
poetry and writing.16
Humanism in the Renaissance brought a revival of rhetoric. The discovery of a complete
manuscript of Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria in 1416 swiftly reawakened an interest in ancient
texts. Treatises by Aristotle and Cicero were also rediscovered. As the advance of printing
technology made mass publication accessible, these classical texts, as well as treatises written by
Renaissance scholars, were widely distributed and used in rhetorical study throughout Europe.17
For example, in De Duplici Copia Verborum et Rerum (1512), Erasmus (c. 1466–1536) focused
on a discussion of elocutio, inventio, and the importance of variation. His work served as a guide
to “abundant style” in the fresh interpretation and rewriting of existing texts, bringing a new
perspective to classical scholarship.
Rhetoric remained the central subject in the academic system throughout the subsequent
centuries, yet vernacular rhetoric began to gain importance. In England in particular, writers such
as Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Dryden (1631–1700), and
the Scottish noble Hugh Blair (1718–1800) all wrote influential books on the subject in English
rather than in the Classical languages. At the turn of the twentieth century, rhetoric experienced
another wave of revival with the rise of various mass media art forms. Critics applied principles
16
McCreless, 850.
17
Ibid.
16 of classical rhetoric to evaluate the persuasiveness of works of photography, film, radio, and
advertising.18
Contemporary classicist George A. Kennedy defined two types of rhetoric, depending
upon function: primary and secondary rhetoric. The purpose of primary rhetoric is to persuade,
while secondary rhetoric focuses more on techniques or literary device but has no agenda of
persuasion.19 Kennedy further noted that classical rhetoric constantly moves “from primary
rhetoric into secondary forms.”20 As the previous discussion on the history of rhetoric
demonstrates, such fluctuations can indeed be observed throughout its developmental phases.
In short, though classical rhetoric went through several stages in its development from
ancient Greece until the present day, the basic elements, like the five canons, had been well
established by the early Roman period. The focus of rhetoric fluctuated back and forth between
persuasiveness and extended elaboration, yet the principles still remained universal for both
spoken and written languages.
Rhetoric and Music
Music is the universal language of mankind.
—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent.
—Victor Hugo
As the two epigrams above demonstrate, analogies between music and language are often
drawn for their shared abilities to communicate and to express. Therefore, it is no surprise that
18
McCreless, 851.
19
George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern
Times, 2nd ed. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 2–4.
20
Ibid., 3.
17 close interrelationships exist between music and rhetoric throughout Western history. Although
evidence of this association already existed in the Middle Ages, scholars generally agree that the
closest connection between the two was made during the High Renaissance and the Baroque
eras.21
Music and rhetoric shared topics such as trope or figurae beginning in the Middle Ages,
and many of their terms like colores and clausula were also shared. The rediscovery of ancient
treatises by Plato, Aristotle, and Quintilian in the Renaissance revitalized interest in classical
rhetoric. Musically, composers broke free from the medieval forms fixes and cantus firmus
techniques. The freedom of through-composed music inspired musicians to express stylistic
elegance in poetic text; thus musicians applied rhetorical concepts to compositions as well.
Josquin’s Miserere mei, Deus, Lassus’s Timor et tremor, and Dowland’s Flow My Tears all
express textual meaning, grammar, and syntax to the fullest. The texture, repetition, meter, as
well as the placement of cadence and rhythm in their compositions were carefully considered.22
The influence of rhetoric can also be observed in musical theory treatises. For example, Zarlino’s
Le istitutioni harmoniche (1558) borrowed Ciceronian concepts to suggest a compositional style
that is both pleasing and useful.23 The title of this treatise also mirrored Quintilian’s masterwork,
Institutio Oratoria.
In sixteenth-century Germany, a new field of music theory called musica poetica started
to develop. Listenius’s new taxonomy of music, Martin Luther’s theological view of music, as
21
Blake Wilson, George J. Buelow, and Peter A. Hoyt, “Rhetoric and Music,” Grove Music Online. Oxford
Music Online [http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com] (accessed April 20, 2009); The New Harvard Dictionary of
Music, 2nd ed., s.v. “rhetoric;” McCreless, “Music and Rhetoric,” 847.
22
Wilson, Buelow, and Hoyt, “Rhetoric and Music;” Patrick Macey, “Josquin and Musical Rhetoric:
Miserere mei Deus and Other Motets,” in The Josquin Companion, ed. Richard Sherr (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000), 485–530.
23
McCreless, 852.
18 well as the Lateinschule educational system, all encouraged musica poetica to flourish in
Lutheran Germany. It continued to remain a prominent tradition in German Baroque music.
Numerous treatises by Dressler, Burmeister, Lippius, Kircher, Bernhard, Walther, and Mattheson
demonstrate the strong influence of rhetorical concepts on music theory. This rich musica
poetica tradition deserves detailed examination.
Musica Poetica
In classical antiquity and the medieval education system, music belonged to the
mathematical quadrivium of the seven liberal arts. The Roman philosopher and educator
Boethius (480–524) is credited for establishing the quadrivium curriculum. Boethius adopted the
Pythagorean conception of music as a subject closely related to mathematical ratios. In De
institutione musica, Boethius defined three categories of music. Musica mundana concerns the
relationship between music and the spheres; musica humana, music and the human body/spirit;
and musica instrumentalis, relationships between music and instruments (including the human
voice). The balance in each relationship is governed by the same mathematical proportions.24
However, the concept of music as a mathematical art faced challenges in the
Renaissance. In the early sixteenth century, the study of music was approached from two
different perspectives: musica theorica (Pythagorean theory) and musica practica (practical
applications of music). Those embracing Boethius’s concepts, musicians of the musica theorica
school, with their knowledge of the mathematical ratios underlying music, regarded themselves
superior to practical musicians. Musicians of the musica practica school were considered more
in line with the linguistic discipline. Since their responsibilities included directing choirs,
24
Dietrich Bartel, Musica Poetica: Musical-rhetorical Figures in German Baroque Music (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 11–17.
19 composing music, teaching applied music, and often teaching Latin and Rhetoric, they were
thought to be closely connected to the trivium.25
In 1537 Listenius published Musica, introducing three divisions of music: musica
theorica, musica practica, and musica poetica. He placed musica theorica under the
mathematical quadrivium, musica practica under the linguistic trivium, and added musica
poetica as a subdivision under musica practica. The new musica poetica discipline concerned the
teaching of musical compositions, particularly vocal music. In this new order, concepts of
rhetoric naturally became the source of teaching. Listenius’s new categorizations of music are
depicted below (see Table 1).
Table 1. Seven Liberal Arts26
25
Ibid., 19.
26
Adopted from Albrecht, “Musical Rhetoric in Selected Organ Works of J. S. Bach” (University of
Rochester: DMA thesis, 1978), 24.
20 Martin Luther’s theological view of music influenced the musical culture in sixteenthcentury Germany, especially sacred music. In numerous writings about music and theology,
Luther praised music as a divine gift of God, next only to the Word of God.27 He encouraged the
use of fine music in church, for “nothing be more intimately linked up with the Word of God
than music.”28 Luther also maintained that music holds the power to affect our thoughts and
spirits. This doctrine of ethos could be traced back to the ancient Greek concept of music as a
mathematical discipline, for it had held that human music and cosmic music were governed by
the same mathematical ratios. Therefore, hearing good and orderly music edifies the mind and
soul. In one of his Table Talks (Tischreden), Luther claimed, “Music is a semi-discipline and
taskmistress, which makes people milder and more gentle, more civil and more sensible.”29 He
also believed that music, especially vocal music with sacred texts, was the perfect tool to spread
the Gospel. Such musical compositions could prepare the listener to receive God’s Word and
effectively convey emotions of the texts. Luther’s belief in the power of music echoed Cicero’s
view of rhetoric’s aims: movere, docere, and delectare—to teach, to move, and to delight.
Luther valued the importance of music education in schools, especially for clergy. He
once wrote, “We should not ordain young men into the ministry unless they have become well
acquainted with music in the schools.”30 Luther’s education minister, Philipp Melanchthon,
stressed the importance of rhetoric, leading to his reform of the educational system in Germany.
Classical writings of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian had been studied in the original
27
Walter E. Buszin, “Luther on Music,” Musical Quarterly 32 (1946): 80–97; Bartel, Musica Poetica, 3–5.
28
Praefatio D. M. Lutheri in Harmonias de Passione Christi, Erlangen, Opera Latina, VII, 551–54; St.
Louis, XIV, 428–31, quoted in Buszin, 81.
29
Quoted in Buszin, 92.
30
Ibid., 85.
21 Lateinschule curriculum. However, the study of rhetorical principles assumed a new role with
Melanchthon’s curricular reform: to assist in the delivery and persuasiveness of sermons.
Luther’s theological view of music not only encouraged the use of rhetorical principles in music
but also inspired a synthesis between musica theorica and musica practica, thus giving rise to the
musica poetica tradition. Rhetoric, music, and theology became more closely connected in the
Lutheran Lateinschule and universities. Music, rhetoric, and Latin were often taught by the same
cantor or teacher.31 Educated in the Lateinschule system from a young age, Lutheran musicians
learned to be skillful musical preachers by applying principles and expressive devices studied in
rhetoric.
Musica poetica became a discipline that focused on the teaching of musical composition,
especially texted vocal music. As the musical aesthetic of the time was to heighten underlying
emotions expressed in the texts, oratorical-rhetorical concepts provided the backbone for this
communicative, expressive art of music. For example, Burmeister listed hypotyposis as a figure
to vividly express textual imagery in music.32 Though musica poetica originally focused on vocal
music, a growing emphasis on expressing affections paired with the rising independence of
instrumental music, eventually led to the application of musica poetica principles to instrumental
music as well.
A brief survey of musica poetica sources will provide evidence of how its focus changed
through different stages of the German Baroque era. Among numerous treatises concerning
musica poetica concepts, Gallus Dressler was the first to use this precise term as the title for his
unpublished treatise Praecepta musicae poeticae in 1563. In it he discussed the invention of
31
Robin A. Leaver, “Johann Sebastian Bach: Theological Musician and Musical Theologian,” BACH 31
(2000): 17–33.
32
Bartel, 23.
22 fugues and divided musical compositions into three parts: exordium, medium, and finis.33
Another theorist, Johannes Lippius, in his treatise Synopsis musicae novae (1612), linked the
compositional process with the five canons of rhetoric—inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria,
and pronunciatio.34 Though Lippius advised musicians to use rhetorical ornaments to elaborate a
basic composition, both Dressler and Lippius approached musical-rhetorical theory from a
structural viewpoint, with no specific mention of musical figures. It was Joachim Burmeister
who introduced theorists to Figurenlehre with his first mention of musical figures.35
Burmeister’s three treatises, Hypomnematum musicae poeticae of 1599, Musica
autoschediastike of 1601, and Musica poetica of 1606, introduced the concept of musicalrhetorical figures by associating musical devices with rhetorical terminologies. He divided
twenty-seven musical figures into three categories: harmonic (figurae harmoniae), melodic
(figurae melodiae), and harmonic-melodic figures (figurae tam harmoniae quam melodiae).
Burmeister supported his descriptions of figures with musical examples from well-known
composers such as Clemens non Papa and Orlando Lassus. He further included an analysis of
Lassus’s motet In me transierunt, which he divided into three major sections, the exordium,
ipsum corpus carminis, and finis; he also marked the musical figures in the work.36 Burmeister’s
system not only provided ways to decorate musical compositions, but also offered an analytical
33
Gallus Dressler, Praecepta Musicae Poëticae: The Precepts of Poetic Music, trans. Robert Forgács,
Studies in the History of Music Theory and Literature 3, ed. Thomas J. Mathiesen (Chicago: University of Illinois
Press, 2007), 172–87; McCreless, 853.
34
Benito V. Rivera, German Music Theory in the Early 17th Century: The Treatises of Johannes
Lippius (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1980), 167–70; McCreless, 854–55.
35
Arnold Schering coined the term Figurenlehre in 1908 to describe the theory of musical figures
presented in Baroque treatises concerning the teaching of musical composition. Musica poetica does not equal
Figurenlehre, but includes Figurenlehre as a part of the theory.
36
Joachim Burmeister, Musica Poetica from Musical Poetics, trans. with introduction and notes Benito V.
Rivera (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1993), 201–6; McCreless, 855–61; Bartel, 94, 97–98.
23 tool that students could use to better understand musical works. McCreless comments on rhetoric
and Baroque musica poetica, noting the significance of Burmeister’s work:
From the helter-skelter fashion in which rhetoric was invoked by German music
pedagogues in the sixteenth century, we find at the turn of the seventeenth century, with
the advent of Burmeister’s work, a whole taxonomy of musical figures suddenly
emerging full-blown out of virtually nothing, and then, over the next two centuries,
spawning more and more competing sets of rhetorical topoi and figures pressed into the
service of music theory.37
After Burmeister’s contribution to the theory of musical figures, many others followed
his steps and proposed their own systems of musical figures. Such theorists include Johannes
Nucius, Joachim Thuringus, Athanasius Kircher, Christoph Bernhard, Wolfgang Caspar Printz,
Tomáš Baltazar Janovka, Johann Mattheson, and Johann Adolf Scheibe, all of whom wrote
treatises on musical figures. However, each theorist had a different concept and methodology for
Figurenlehre. Although there was no unified system of musical figures, these Baroque theorists
and their various treatises still offer valuable examples of how rhetorical concepts apply to
musical compositions. Table 2 outlines Figurenlehre systems of different Baroque theorists, the
main focus of each, and his classification of figures. This table also shows how the musica
poetica theory progressed and transformed over the course of the German Baroque era.
One of the theorists who played a leading role in this development was Bernhard. He
studied in Italy and viewed figures as ways of using dissonance to embellish a composition.
Bernhard wrote three compositional treatises: Von der Singe-Kunst, oder Maniera; Tractatus
compositionis augumentatus; and Ausführlicher Bericht vom Gebrauche der Con- und
Dissonantien. His writings were significant in many ways. First, they were written in the local
vernacular, German instead of Latin. While Latin was the scholarly language in the education
37
McCreless, 855.
24 system since medieval times, this change reflected the gradual move of musica poetica away
from its ties to the tradition of humanism.38
Table 2. Figurenlehren by Various Baroque Theorists39
Theorist
Treatise/Categorization of Figures/Emphasis
Joachim Burmeister
(1564–1629)
Musica Poetica (1606)
1) figurae harmoniae: harmonic figures—affects all voices
2) figurae melodiae: melodic figures—affects one or more voices
3) figurae tam harmoniae quam melodiae:
harmonic-melodic figures—affect multiple voices
Johannes Nucius
(ca. 1556–1620)
Musices poeticae sive de compositione cantus praeceptiones (1613)
1) figurae principales: technical musical devices,
ex. fugal imitations and passing notes
2) figurae minus principales: text-expressive rhetorical figures
Joachim Thuringus
(late 16th century)
Opusculum bipartitum (1624)
1) figurae principales
2) figurae minus principales
Athanasius Kircher
(1601–1680)
Musurgia universalis, sive ars magna consoni et dissoni (1650)
1) figurae principales
2) figurae minus principales
Christoph Bernhard
(1628–1692)
Tractatus compositionis augmentatus (ca. 1657)
1) contrapunctus gravis: passing tones and suspensions
2) stylus luxurians communis: dissonances—church style
3) stylus luxurians theatralis: dissonances—theatrical style
Ausführlicher Bericht vom Gebrauche der Con- und Dissonantien
1) figurae fundamentals: suspensions and passing notes
2) figurae superficiales: expressive musical-rhetorical figures
Wolfgang Caspar Printz
(1641–1717)
Phrynis Mytilenaeus, oder Satyrischer Componist (1696)
focuses on musical embellishments—silent or played
38
McCreless, 867.
39
Based on Bartel’s Musica Poetica, 93–164.
25 Table 2 continued
Theorist
Treatise/Categorization of Figures/Emphasis
Johann Georg Ahle
(1651–1706)
Sommer-Gespräche
centers on text-oriented rhetorical figures
Tomáš Baltazar Janovka Clavis ad thesaurum magnae artis musicae (1701)
(1669–1741)
1) figurae principales
2) figurae minus principales
Mauritius Johann Vogt
(1669–1730)
Conclave thesauri magnae artis musicae (1719)
1) figurae simplices: vocal and instrumental embellishments
2) figurae ideales: text-expressive and affection-expressive figures
Johann Gottfried Walther Praecepta der musicalischen Composition (1708)
(1684–1748)
1) figurae fundamentales: imitations, suspensions, and passing notes
2) figurae superficiales: text-expressive figures
Musicalisches Lexicon, oder Musicalische Bibliothec (1732)
a comprehensive collection of figures
Johann Mattheson
(1681–1764)
Der vollkommene Capellmeister (1739)
focuses on musical-rhetorical processes and musical-rhetorical figures
Meinrad Spiess
(1683–1761)
Tractatus musicus (1745)
emphasizes text-expressive musical-rhetorical figures
Johann Adolf Scheibe
(1708–1776)
Der critische Musikus (1745)
transfers vocal-oriented expressive figures to instrumental music
Johann Nikolaus Forkel
(1749–1818)
Allgemeine Geschichte der Music (1788)
focuses on two groups of affection-expressive figures:
1) for the intellect
2) for the imagination
introduces new structuring methods for music:
1) musical periodology
2) musical styles
3) musical genres
4) musical organization
5) musical performance
6) music criticism
26 Second, Bernhard’s writing showed the influences of the Italian music style. In Tractatus
Bernhard presented figures in three categories based on different contrapuntal styles: stylus
gravis (dignified style), stylus luxurians communis (church style), and stylus luxurians theatralis
(theatrical style). These closely resembled the divisions of the Italian theorist Marco Scacchi.40
Figures of stylus gravis include passing notes and suspensions in slow moving counterpoint, in
which harmony is prioritized over the text. Figures of the other two styles are more concerned
with text expression and contain more varieties of fast moving and recitative-like music.
Although the figures Bernhard mentioned are primarily musical treatments of dissonance, he also
stressed the importance of text-music relationship in Tractatus, writing that music “should
represent speech in the most natural way possible.”41 In his last treatise, Ausführlicher Bericht,
Bernhard refined his three categorizations to two divisions: figurae fundamentales and figurae
superficiales. The former group is best suited to music in the old style, and the latter for affective
and expressive music. This reclassification reflects the integration of Italian style in German
Baroque music.
Third, Bernhard extended Figurenlehre to instrumental music by viewing musical
treatments of dissonance rather than the text as expressive devices. Therefore, composers were
encouraged to apply purely contrapuntal figures to instrumental music not governed by text.42
Bernhard’s theory was the epitome of the changing musical culture in seventeenth-century
Germany—a continuation of musical-rhetorical tradition, a synthesis of Italian and German
styles, and the growing independence of instrumental music.
40
Bartel, 116.
41
Quoted in Bartel, 116.
42
Bartel, 114.
27 With increasing emphasis on the expressive quality of figures, theorists also recognized
the potential for expressing affections through melody. Embellishments initially associated with
vocal music were also transferred to instrumental music. Johann Mattheson, in his treatise Der
vollkommene Capellmeister (1739), presented new ideas on musical composition that stressed
the affections, the Affektenlehre. Although his discussions centered on melodic compositions
rather than contrapuntal ones, Mattheson brought attention on musical-rhetorical concepts back
to focusing on the inventio and dispositio stages rather than excessively on the elocutio. He
viewed music as a natural art, not a mathematical practice; a rhetorical framework served as a
better model than did mathematical ratios. His analysis of an unnamed aria by a composer he
referred to only as Marcello employed subdivisions of the dispositio: exordium, narratio,
propositio, confirmatio, confutatio, and peroratio.43 Compared to Dressler’s dispositio model of
exordium, medium, and finis, Mattheson offered a more detailed framework for musical
composition and analysis. His theory is representative of the transition in musical aesthetic
toward the end of Baroque era: a musical-rhetorical tradition rooted in a Lutheran theological
view of music gradually gave way to the new expressive, melody-centered galant and
empfindsam style.
Musica poetica, a discipline devoted to the teaching of musical composition in the
Lateinshule system, was a fusion between the mathematical practice of music and the oratorical
art of rhetoric. Concepts of classical rhetoric had provided inspiration and guidelines for
composition since medieval times; nonetheless, musica poetica was a unique phenomenon in
Lutheran Germany. As Bartel has pointed out, “While rhetorical principles influenced musical
composition in Italian, French, and English circles, only in Germany did this develop into an
43
Johann Mattheson and Hans Lenneberg, “Johann Mattheson on Affect and Rhetoric in Music II,” Journal
of Music Theory 2 (1958): 194–95; McCreless, 869–70.
28 enthusiastic adoption and adaptation of rhetorical terminology, methods, and structures.”44
Rhetoric thus became an indispensable tool to the understanding of musical works by Lutheran
composers in the Baroque era.
Rhetoric and J. S. Bach
Johann Sebastian Bach, a devoted Lutheran and prolific composer of the late Baroque
period, had a deep connection with rhetoric since his youth. The education Bach received at both
the Ohrdruf Lyceum and the Michaelisschule in Lüneburg involved the study of rhetoric and
Latin as part of the standard curriculum, and works by Aristotle and Cicero would have been
among his primary textbooks. Later, when Bach served as Cantor at the Thomaskirche in
Leipzig, his duties included teaching Latin and rhetoric as well. 45
Bach’s acquaintances with Johann Gottfried Walther, Johann Matthias Gesner, and
Johann Abraham Birnbaum also attest to his knowledge of rhetoric. In fact, Walther, an organist,
theorist, and lexicographer, was Bach’s cousin. He wrote Praecepta der musicalischen
Composition and Musicalisches Lexicon, both of which cover musica poetica theory. Walther’s
classification of musical figures was very similar to that of Bernhard’s. In addition, Walther’s
Lexicon covered figures known in his day described by various Renaissance and Baroque
theorists.46 The close relationship between Walther and Bach suggests that Bach might have been
exposed to musica poetica theory to some degree. Gesner was the rector of Thomasschule from
44
Bartel, ix.
45
For accounts of J. S. Bach’s education, see Vincent P. Benitez, “Musical-Rhetorical Figures in the
Orgelbüchlein of J. S. Bach,” BACH 18 (1987): 4–5; Otto L. Bettmann, “Bach the Rhetorician,” The American
Scholar 55 (1986): 113–14; Christoph Wolff, Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician (New York: W. W.
Norton (2000), 57.
46
For musica poetica treatises, refer to Table 2.
29 1730 to 1734, while Bach served as music director in the same church. Later Gesner became a
professor of rhetoric at the University of Göttingen. In his annotated edition of Quintilian,
published in 1737, Gesner praised Bach enthusiastically for his skillful keyboard playing and
conducting.47 Moreover, Birnbaum, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Leipzig,
countered Johann Scheibe’s criticism of Bach (cited above) by complimenting Bach as a master
rhetorician. Birnbaum praised Bach not only for his great knowledge of both rhetoric and music,
but also for skillfully reflecting oratorical art in his musical compositions.48
Although Bach did not write any treatises on rhetoric or musica poetica, some of his
works revealed close connections with rhetoric and musica poetica. Bach entitled the fair copy of
his short two-part pieces inventiones, the term used by Cicero in his rhetorical treatise to refer to
the first of five steps in creating a speech, the process of discovering possible ways to persuade.
On the title page of his Inventiones, Bach wrote that his pedagogical purpose was “not alone to
have good inventions, but to develop the same well and … acquire a strong foretaste of
composition.”49 Even though Bach only pointed out the inventio stage directly, his strong
dispositio and elocutio stages “spoke” almost as clearly. Modern scholars also discover strong
links between rhetoric and works of Bach. Ursula Kirkendale and Alan Street both note a
resemblance between the rhetorical structures mentioned in Quintilian’s De Institutio Oratoria
and large-scale structures of Bach’s Musical Offering and so-called Goldberg Variations.50 The
47
Hans T. David, Arthur Mendel, and Christoph Wolff, The New Bach Reader: A Life of Johann Sebastian
Bach in Letters and Documents (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998), 328–29.
48
Johann Adolph Scheibe, Critischer Musikus (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1745; repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms
Verlag, 1970), 997.
49
David, Mendel, and Wolff, 98.
50
Ursula Kirkendale, “The Source for Bach’s Musical Offering: The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian,”
Journal of the American Musicological Society 33 (1980): 88–141; Alan Street, “The Rhetorico-Musical Structure
30 arrangements of movements and variations are deliberate decisions that reflect rules of the
oratorical art.
The German Baroque musica poetica thus not only serves as a pedagogical method for
composing music, it also further provides the listener with a guide to understanding how a
distinguished composer such as J. S. Bach created his specific works.
Principles of Musical Rhetoric
From previous discussions of the history of classical rhetoric and the musica poetica
tradition, musical-rhetorical concepts were very much modeled on the rules and principles of
classical rhetoric. The systematic and rational plans for oratorical art also served as pedagogical
instructions for composing music. Among musica poetica sources, Lippius was the first to
suggest a compositional process according to the five canons of rhetoric defined by Cicero. Later
Mattheson refined the structure and modified its last three stages, elaboratio, decoratio, and
executio, to better suit musical compositions. Table 3 below presents a side-by-side comparison
of Cicero’s classical-rhetorical structure and Mattheson’s musical-rhetorical structure.
The function and purpose of each musical-rhetorical stage closely resembles its
oratorical-rhetorical counterpart. The rhetorical inventio deals with the process of finding ways
to persuade. Similarly, the musical-rhetorical inventio involves pre-composing decisions, such as
choosing a subject, and determining key and meter.51 With the emancipation of instrumental
music and the transference of text-oriented affections into instrumental genres, composers in the
of the Goldberg Variations: Bach’s Clavierübung IV and the Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian,” Musical Analysis 6
(1987): 89–131.
51
Richard Troeger, Playing Bach on the Keyboard: A Practical Guide (Pompton Plains, NJ: Amadeus
Press, 2003), 231.
31 Baroque era were encouraged to incorporate the phantasia technique and the loci topici:
selecting a specific affection or exploring possible motifs for inclusion in musical inventions.52
Table 3. Classical-Rhetorical Structure and Musical-Rhetorical Structure
Classical-Rhetorical Structure
by Cicero
Musical-Rhetorical Structure
by Mattheson
1. Inventio
2. Dispositio
1) exordium
2) narratio
3) partitio
4) confirmatio
5) confutatio
6) peroratio
3. Elocutio
4. Memoria
5. Pronunciatio
1. Inventio
2. Dispositio
1) exordium
2) narratio
3) propositio
4) confirmatio
5) confutatio
6) peroratio
3. Elaboratio
4. Decoratio
5. Executio
The rhetorical dispositio is the process of organizing arguments and arranging them in an
effective manner. The composer presents the pre-compositional material in a cohesive order.
According to Cicero, there are six subdivisions in the dispositio: exordium, narratio, partitio,
confirmatio, refutatio, and peroratio. Mattheson adopted a similar scheme for musical
compositions: exordium, narratio, propositio, confirmatio, confutatio, and peroratio. The
function of each section is parallel to that in Cicero’s dispositio, only with slightly different
terminology.
The third stage in the rhetorical process is elocutio, which concerns the presentation of
arguments employing figures of speech or other rhetorical techniques. In the musical-rhetorical
52
Troeger, 232–35.
32 elocutio or elaboratio, the composer utilizes musical figures to bring out intended affections. The
German Baroque concept of Figurenlehren is integral to this process. Next, the rhetorical
memoria is the stage of memorizing and internalizing information to enable extemporaneous
speech. Mattheson’s modification of its musical-rhetorical counterpart is decoratio, in which
performers are encouraged to add ornaments to further amplify passions already embedded in the
score. The final stage of rhetorical process, pronunciatio, concerns the delivery of a speech,
through the effective use of voice and gestures. Musical-rhetorical executio deals with the actual
performance. For modern performers, this involves an understanding of performance practice
regarding articulation, contrasts, phrasing, ornamentation, and/or registration.
In summary, the musical-rhetorical stages offer us a valuable tool to acquire a deep
understanding of Baroque musical compositions. An awareness of the affections, figures, and
structure will assist performers in achieving a historically informed performance of Baroque
music.
33 Chapter 2
Rhetoric and Fugue
J. S. Bach, often referred to as “Master of the Fugue,” was a remarkable fugal composer
in the history of Western music. His Well-tempered Clavier, The Art of Fugue, The Musical
Offering, and organ fugues display a wide range of styles and contrapuntal techniques
representative of fugal composition. The fugue is a compositional procedure of using imitative
elements within a contrapuntal texture. Fugal writing became an essential skill for composers in
the Baroque era. The Latin term fuga means flight; however, the term developed three distinct
musical meanings over the course of different historical periods. In the Middle Ages, fugue
generally meant canon; in the Renaissance, it referred to imitation; and in the Baroque, it started
to represent an imitative composition based on a single subject.1
Scholars who focus on German Baroque fugal theory and its connection with rhetoric
often study the same sources that cover musica poetica theory. Butler has written on the fugue
and rhetoric, tracing figures related to fuga in various musical-rhetorical treatises.2 Walker, who
has also written on fugal theory in his dissertation, “Fugue in German Theory from Dressler to
Mattheson,” has surveyed musical theory treatises from late Renaissance to the end of Baroque
era. He concluded that German fugal theory developed from “pervading imitation” to the
“mature Baroque fugue,” which incorporates concepts of tonal answers, invertible counterpoint,
dux-comes relationships, and episodes.3 The primary sources for his research also included many
1
The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed., s.v. “fugue.”
2
Gregory G. Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” Journal of Musical Theory 2 (1977): 49–109.
3
Paul Walker, “Fugue in German Theory from Dressler to Mattheson” (PhD diss., University of New
York, 1987), 581–93.
34 musica poetica discourses; musica poetica as a discipline comprises not only rhetoric but also
music, and its theoretical texts naturally cover both musical-rhetorical concepts and musical
theories of the time. Fugue as a compositional technique is based on imitation, and devices of
imitation are considered fundamental to contrapuntal music in the Renaissance and the Baroque
eras. Therefore, imitative devices also appear among other musical figures in the musica poetica
sources. Later, when Walker wrote of the relationship between rhetoric and fugue, he pointed out
that “the creation and establishment of fugue” was concurrent with “the Age of Rhetoric” in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.4
Fugal theory in musica poetica sources generally involves two aspects: one focuses on
the imitative, fugue-related musical-rhetorical figures, and the other on the overall structure of
the fugue. Butler strongly maintains that the rhetorical influence on fugue was evident in both the
elocutio and dispositio. He lists three reasons why fuga became the fundamental element in the
musical-rhetorical discipline. First, both musica poetica and fuga require serious study to master
the technique. Second, fuga contains great expressive power. As musica poetica stresses the
affective quality of figures, it naturally became a highly valued device of expression. Third,
musica poetica concerned bringing out the textual imagery in poetry, and fuga, as a “highly
artificial musical image,” therefore became essential in musica poetica theory.5 Butler’s view of
rhetoric and fugue centers more on the details of fugal figures, and he has suggested the use of
musical-rhetorical terms in the analysis to provide more insight into fugal works.
4
Paul Walker, “Fugue in the Music-Rhetorical Analogy and Rhetoric in the Development of Fugue,” in
The Music of J. S. Bach: Analysis and Interpretation, ed. David Schulenberg (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1999), 159.
5
Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” 50.
35 In his subsequent research, Walker reexamined the relationship between fugue and
rhetoric, and questioned the extensiveness of rhetorical influence on the fugue proposed by
Butler. He has suggested that analogies between rhetoric and fugue should be viewed on a broad
level. Though the fugue first appeared in musical-rhetorical sources as an imitative figure, it
developed mostly outside the influence of rhetoric. Techniques such as tonal answers,
countersubjects, and invertible counterpoint are purely musical terms with no reference to
rhetoric. The strongest link between rhetoric and fugue as a genre remains their structural
resemblance, the dispositio borrowed from classical rhetoric.6
Composers in the German Baroque often drew analogies between fugue and oration. For
instance, Mattheson referred to fugue as free oration, as opposed to canon, which he termed strict
oration; Marpurg referred to fugue as a dispute, while Bach referred to it as a polite
conversation.7 Bach was recognized as a fugue master in his time. His son C. P. E. once
commented that his father knew every possible contrapuntal device he could use upon hearing a
fugal subject.8 In his ingenious composition The Art of Fugue, Bach demonstrated his son’s point
by exploring the contrapuntal possibilities of one subject, simple through complex, in fourteen
fugues and four canons. This work showed that composers are free to choose whatever devices
they find fitting to develop the fugal subject. However, identifying every fugal device a
composer uses does not fully explain why a fugue is effective, and as Walker has stressed, “The
mere presence of contrapuntal devices does not guarantee an artistically successful fugue.”9
6
Walker, “Fugue in the Music-Rhetorical Analogy,” 171.
7
Butler, “Rhetoric and Fugue,” 64–65; Otto L. Bettmann, “Bach the Rhetorician,” The American Scholar
55 (1986): 115.
8
Walker, “Fugue in the Music-Rhetorical Analogy,” 172.
9
Ibid., 172–73.
36 Therefore, by viewing the fugue as a statement, its degree of success lies in the persuasiveness of
that statement, not merely on what devices or figures a composer employed. Harrison took a
primary rhetoric approach in his analysis of the fugue from Bach’s Toccata in G Minor, BWV
915. He maintained that “a study of musical argument, …starting from a lowly state, gradually
becomes an eloquent, persuasive, and powerful musical utterance.”10 Couch has applied musicalrhetorical analysis to Dietrich Buxtehude’s Praeludia and Toccatas. He proposed that the
rhetorical dispositio model provides unity and purpose to this repertoire.11 A successful musicalrhetorical dispositio appears to be the key to molding a simple fugal subject into a convincing
and coherent work.
Fugue and the Musical-Rhetorical Dispositio
The earliest account of the application of rhetorical dispositio to a musical composition in
musica poetica sources was Dressler’s tripartite structure: the exordium, medium, and finis. He
offered very general suggestions for fugal writing with reference to modal theory: the exordium
should start on the final or repercussion tone; the medium could have freer contrapuntal
treatment, with entrances on other than the final and repercussion tones; and the finis should
restate the opening mode with clear cadence.12
10
Daniel Harrison, “Rhetoric and Fugue: An Analytical Application,” Music Theory Spectrum 12 (1990):
9.
11
Leon W. Couch III, “The Organ Works of Dietrich Buxtehude (1637–1707) and Musical-rhetorical
Analysis and Theory” (DMA thesis, University of Cincinnati, 2002); idem, “Musical-rhetorical Analysis and the
North German Toccata” (PhD diss., University of Cincinnati, 2003).
12
Gallus Dressler, Praecepta Musicae Poëticae: The Precepts of Poetic Music, trans. Robert Forgács,
Studies in the History of Music Theory and Literature 3, ed. Thomas J. Mathiesen (Chicago: University of Illinois
Press, 2007), 172–87; Walker, “Fugue in the Music-Rhetorical Analogy,” 163.
37 For a period of 150 years or so after Dressler, with the Figurenlehre tradition begun by
Burmeister, musical-rhetorical thinking focused entirely on the descriptions of musical-rhetorical
figures. Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680) viewed fugue as a work consisting of a series of
figures, or points of imitation. Though he did not mention the rhetorical structure in particular,
Kircher’s recognition of fugue as an extended structure was the first such observation among
musica poetica theorists.13
Johann Christoph Schmidt (1664–1728) offered a structural framework for fugue based
on the chria14 in a letter to Mattheson in 1718:
For in treating a fugue, I must take my craft from the oratory just as [is done] in the
modern style, even though harmony dominates [a fugue] more than words do. For the dux
is the propositio; the comes the aetiologia; oppositum is the varied inversion of the fugue;
similia give the altered figures of the propositio according to their value; exempla can
refer to the fugal theme [stated] on other notes, with augmentation and diminution of the
subject; confirmatio would be when I “canonize” on the subject; and conclusio, when I
allow the subject to be heard near the [final] cadence in imitation above a pedal point; not
to mention other artifices which can be introduced and observed in statements of the
subject.15
Comparing the fugue to a short essay, Schmidt also pointed out fugal techniques associated with
different parts of the dispositio.
In the Der vollkommene Capellmeister, Mattheson proposed a similar scheme for musical
compositions according to a six-part structure of oration: exordium, narratio, propositio,
confirmatio, confutatio, and peroratio. According to Mattheson, exordium is the “introduction
and beginning of a melody in which its purpose and intention are shown in order to prepare the
13
Butler, “Rhetoric and Fugue,” 63.
14
Chria is a brief seven-step structure for short essays: propositio, aetiologia, contrarium, exemplum,
simile, testimonium, and conclusio.
15
Schmidt wrote this analogy in a letter to Mattheson on 28 July 1718, in Mattheson’s Critica Musica 2
(1725): 267–68, trans. and quoted by Walker, “Fugue in the Music-Rhetorical Analogy and Rhetoric in the
Development of Fugue,” 169.
38 listener and to arouse his attention,” narratio is “a report, a tale in which the meaning and nature
of the delivery is suggested,” propositio “briefly contains the meaning and purpose of the
musical speech,” confutatio is the “resolution of objections,” confirmatio is the “clever
reinforcement of the proposition,” and peroratio is the “end or conclusion of our musical
oration.”16 This musical-rhetorical dispositio is not confined to fugal writing alone, but can be
applied to various styles of composition.
For a fugal dispositio, both Schmidt and Mattheson start with the presentation of the
subject as the propositio, eliminating the exordium and the narratio stages.17 Mattheson
suggested that the composer carefully constructs the thematic material for the subject. In other
words, he viewed the subject as a “general thesis” consisting of several “special elements.”18 He
saw the subject-answer, the dux-comes, as a contrasting relationship, with the dux stressing the
tonic key and the comes the dominant key. The confutatio and confirmatio are contrasting
elements yet serve the same goal: to support and reinforce the propositio. Fugal techniques
involved in the confutatios include suspensions, syncopations, contrasting passages,
fragmentations of the subject, inversions of the subject, augmentation, inclusion of new
elements, or accumulation.19 These need to be properly resolved to reinforce the propositio. The
confirmatio includes repetitions of the subject, as well as augmentation, diminution, and stretto.20
The concluding section, the peroratio, brings the fugue to close with emphatic restatement of the
16
Johann Mattheson and Hans Lenneberg, “Johann Mattheson on Affect and Rhetoric in Music II,” Journal
of Music Theory 2 (1958): 194–95.
17
Butler, “Rhetoric and Fugue,” 72–79.
18
Ibid., 75.
19
Ibid., 79–94; and Dietrich Bartel, Musica Poetica: Musical-rhetorical Figures in German Baroque Music
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 81.
20
Butler, 94–97.
39 subject. Repetitions of the subject, pedal point, and stretto are employed in this concluding
section.21
When examining the musical-rhetorical dispositio of fugal compositions, we find a basic
similarity between them, their tripartite structure. Dressler’s three-part dispositio was based on
the modal theory, and even though Schmidt and Mattheson later proposed a more complex sixor seven-part dispositio, their subsections can be grouped into three large sections. Their
subsections resemble the exordium, medium, and finis, with a freer section in the middle, framed
by more strictly constructed outer sections.
Mattheson’s structural framework may not appear different from modern interpretations
of the fugal form; nevertheless, his view of how a subject is constructed offers another way to
observe the subject and its transformations and variations throughout the dispositio process. Just
as Harrison has pointed out, the modifications of the head or the tail of a subject help to shape
the structure of a fugue, and assist the persuasiveness of its rhetorical plan.22
Bach lived through the transitions from text-centered to melody-centered musical style,
and from the age of rhetoric to the age of Enlightenment. It is evident that German Baroque
musica poetica was very much a part of Bach’s approach to his composition. Yet regarding his
fugal writings in particular, the evidence of the musical-rhetorical dispositio is not strong enough
to ensure that the theory was unequivocally adopted by Bach. Nonetheless, Mattheson’s
rhetorical plan still provides us a valuable tool to appreciate Bach’s inventive fugal writing. In
addition, Mattheson’s theory reflects the stylistic changes that happened during the late Baroque.
His theory considered the new tonal harmony and the new musical style that stresses the
21
Butler, 97–99.
22
Daniel Harrison, “Head and Tails: Subject Play in Bach’s Fugues,” Music Theory Spectrum 30 (2008):
152–63.
40 importance of melody. The following chapters include analyses of selected fugues of Bach,
examined in the context of Mattheson’s dispositio model. These analyses will enhance our
understanding of how the subject interacts with the fugal structure, and how its unity and
transformation is displayed in the fugal process.
41 Chapter 3
Expansion of Contrast: Analysis of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546
Bach’s Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546, is an example of a musical-rhetorical structure
shaped by the contrast between a subject (S) and two other thematic elements: a countersubject
(CS), and an eighth-note figure (B). The opposition increases through stages of this fugal
development, transforming the countersubject and the eighth-note figure into a hybrid between
the two. Changes in their register span, rhythmic activity, and length all reflect the expansion of
the opposition. The overall structure of Fugue BWV 546 is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Fugal Structure of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546
Williams
Measure
S
A
T
B
B
Key
Williams
Measure
S
A
T
B
B
Key
Propositio
A
1
6
11
17
22
S
S
(CS)
S
S
CS
c
g
→
CS
CS
(CS)
c
g
→
Confutatio/Confirmatio
A2
87
93
98
104
B
B
B
S
S
B
B
4-voice texture
S
(CS)
c
g
→
E-flat
40
45
52
(B)
S
g
(CS)
→
S
c
(B)
109
B
B
→
42 28
116
B
(CS)
S
f
Confutatio
C
121–139
(CS)
3 voices only
no pedal
g
Confutatio
B
59–86
B
B
B
3 voices only
no pedal
Peroratio
A3
140
CS + B
S
c
The subject (S) contains leaps in thirds and sixths, and moves in steady rhythm. Its
register spans over a ninth (see Example 1). The countersubject (CS) features three successive
two note phrases consisting of an upbeat followed by a downward leap of a fifth, separated by
rests in the head. This is followed by another upbeat which leaps up a fourth and is followed by
stepwise quarter-note movement in the tail. Its register spans over a ninth. The eighth-note figure
(B) features a short motif, moving in a stepwise and circular fashion within a fourth.
Example 1. Thematic Elements of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546.
Subject (S)
Countersubject (CS)
Eighth-note figure (B)
The dispositio of this fugue exhibits a gradual expansion of the opposition, thus building
the fugue toward greater contrast. In the propositio, mm. 1–58, the conflict occurs between the
subject and the countersubject. In a fugal composition, the function of the countersubject is to
43 form contrast with the subject.1 However, Bach constructed the subject and the countersubject of
this fugue with several similarities. They both contain three big leaps, have the same register
span, and approximate length (see Example 1). These likenesses reduce the level of contrast
between them. Nevertheless, various treatments of the countersubject provide basic elements for
intensifying the opposition in subsequent stages of the fugue.
The countersubject appears in its initial head-and-tail form in mm. 6–11. In mm. 11–17
the tail immediately repeats and extends in the same part. Meanwhile, the filler in the tenor part
also bears some resemblance to the countersubject. They share similar upbeat leaps and the headand-tail construction, but the filler contains suspensions and elongations in the head (see
Example 2). Within eleven measures from the first appearance of the countersubject, Bach
presents it in the initial form, truncated form, and varied form with suspensions and
syncopations. The countersubject appears again in mm. 17–23, with a more prolonged tail.
Another variation of the countersubject with a shortened head immediately follows in
mm. 23–28. The presentation of these treatments in the propositio resembles the oratorical
approach to outline all points in the beginning of a speech.
In the next confutatio section, mm. 59–86, the fugue focuses on the development of the
eighth-note figure B. The absence of the main subject, together with the intensive imitation of
figure B creates an illusion of another fugal exposition. However, because points of imitation in
this section do not function like the subject-answer pair, they neither establish nor confirm the
tonal center. As such, BWV 546 does not qualify as a double fugue as defined by Stauffer and
Arnold.2 Mattheson pointed out that the introduction of a new theme is a strong opposition in the
1
Gregory G. Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” Journal of Musical Theory 21 (1977): 89.
2
George Stauffer, “Fugue Types in Bach’s Free Organ Works,” in J. S. Bach as Organist: His Instruments,
Music, and Performance Practices, ed. George Stauffer and Ernest May (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
44 confutatio.3 The development of figure B thus serves the musical-rhetorical purpose to contrast
with the subject, rather than being a propositio or another fugal exposition. Rhetorically, this
loosely constructed imitative, non-fugal confutatio acts like a bad argument.
Example 2. Countersubject (CS) of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546.
mm. 6–17
mm. 17–28
1986), 144; Corliss Richard Arnold, Organ Literature: A Comprehensive Survey, 3rd ed. (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow
Press, 2003), 104.
3
Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” 85.
45 mm. 121–39
mm. 151–55
Example 3. Eighth-Note Figure (B) of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546.
mm. 59–60
mm. 86–92
46 mm. 140–45
When Bach combines figure B with the subject in the confutatio/confirmatio,
mm. 86–121, figure B begins to incorporate expansive elements from various modifications of
the countersubject (see Example 3). Figure B appears in mm. 59–60 as a short two-measure
motif. In mm. 86–92, the head portion repeats and expands with syncopations and suspensions,
forming a lengthened version of figure B. Its register span also expands from a fourth to a ninth.
In terms of opposition in this section, the combination of two themes is in itself a contrast. Bach
further intensifies the opposition with the expansion of figure B. By expanding the confutatio
(figure B), Bach not only enhances its contrast to the subject, but also strengthens the effect of
the later confirmatio (restatement of the subject).
In the following confutatio, mm. 121–39, Bach employs repetitions of the countersubject
tail (see Example 2). The opposition in this section occurs in the fragmentations of the
countersubject material. According to Mattheson, successive thematic fragmentations present a
series of opposing statements.4 The sequential amplification and thematic fragmentation both
intensify the contrast presented in this section.
In the concluding peroratio, mm. 140–59, the countersubject and figure B no longer keep
their original forms. Figure B appears in the elaborated and extended form. In mm. 140–45, a
characteristic upward leap of a fourth, which resembles the opening of the varied countersubject,
4
Butler, 85.
47 precedes the expanded figure B (see Example 3). This hybrid version of the countersubject and
the figure B creates an even greater contrast with the subject. The countersubject, on the
contrary, appears only in the truncated form; the remaining portion is the rhythmic pattern from
the head (see Example 2, mm. 151–55). Yet Bach sets the fragmented countersubject against the
truncated subject in mm. 151–55. This truncated subject serves to amplify and extend the
concluding statement of the subject. In addition, the combination of two fragmentations further
sharpens the opposition, thus creating the greatest contrast in the concluding section of this
fugue.
The fugal process of Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546, demonstrates a gradual expansion of
contrast. Although the examination of the subject alone reveals little about the musical-rhetorical
plan of this fugue, a thorough examination of all thematic elements reveals their functions in
creating contrast. Techniques first presented in modifying the countersubject, such as
fragmentations, syncopations/suspensions, and repetitions/elongations, are basic elements used
to increase opposition in this fugal development. The application of these techniques on figure B
enlarges its contrast to the subject, thereby providing stronger reaffirmations of the subject.
48 Chapter 4
A Musical Discussion: Analysis of Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2
Bach’s Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2, is a double fugue which contains three
subjects and three major sections. Compared with Fugue in C Minor, BWV 546, whose second
theme functions like a figure, Bach develops the second and third subjects of BWV 552.2 more
strictly. While the two themes of BWV 546 serve as opposing elements in its fugal process, the
three subjects of BWV 552.2 each assume different musical-rhetorical roles. The interactions
between the three subjects and the transformations of each subject will clarify their functions in
the dispositio of BWV 552.2.
The three sections of BWV 552.2 present diverse styles. When commenting on the style
of Bach’s free organ fugues, Stauffer categorizes them into four types and points out that BWV
552.2 exhibits three, with three subjects: the first in stile antico; the second in manualiter
Spielfuge; and the last in dance style.1 Subject A is in 4/2 meter, and its melodic contour features
two leaps of fourths. Subject B is in 6/4 meter, with running eighth notes in a circular motion.
Subject C is in 12/8 meter, with lively giga-like rhythms outlining tones of two neighboring
triads. Although Bach develops each of the three subjects individually, only two subjects are
combined at a time. Because of this, the BWV 552.2 is termed a double fugue rather than a triple
fugue. Williams views the relationship between the three subjects as “complementary” based on
their melodic constructions and time signatures.2 However, the development of this fugue
1
The four types are Spielfugen, dance, allabreve, and art fugues. The allabreve works are related to the sitle
antico. George Stauffer, “Fugue Types in Bach’s Free Organ Works,” in J. S. Bach as Organist: His Instruments,
Music, and Performance Practices, ed. George Stauffer and Ernest May (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1986), 151.
2
Peter Williams, The Organ Music of J. S. Bach, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003),
138.
49 suggests a rhetorical process of discussion. Although these three subjects seem to contrast with
each other, the second and third subjects also complement and strengthen the first. The largescale structure of this fugue is presented in Table 5.
The rhetorical process of this fugue can be observed in the transformations of the three
subjects as well as in the combinations of subjects presented. In the first major section, mm. 1–
36, subject A and its countersubject provide the basic thematic material for the developmental
process. They display contrary characteristics: the subject moves in long notes with an upward
trajectory, while the countersubject moves in steady quarter note pace, with a downward motion
(see Example 4). Bach first presents subject A in turn in each part/voice (mm. 1–16), and later
sets it in stretti beginning in m. 21. The countersubject appears both in full and in truncated form
(mm.15–20), and the latter often serves as the sequential motif for episodic passages.
Example 4. Subject A and Countersubject of Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2.
mm. 1–5
mm. 15–20, truncated countersubject material
50 Table 5. Fugal Structure of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2
Propositio
Subject
Measure 1
S
A
T
A
B
B
Key E-flat
Confirmatio
A
A in stretti
3
5
7
9 11 14 16 21 22 24 26 27 31
A
A
A
A
A
A
CS
A
A CS
CS
A
A
A
E-flat
B-flat
Propositio
Confutatio
Confutatio/Confirmatio
B
A+B
Subject
Measure 37 39 43 45 47 49 51 53 54 56 59 62 64 67 69 71 73 77
S
B
(A) B
B
A
B
Bi
B
A
A Bi
T
B
Bi
B
A B
A Bi
B
B
Bi
B
Bi A
A
no pedal
B
f
B-flat
f
g
Key E-flat
Propositio
Confirmatio
C
C+A
Subject
Measure 82 83 85 86 87 88 91 92 93 94 97 101 102
S
C A C —
C
C
A
C
T
C
A — C
B
C
C
C C
no pedal
B
C A —
A —
c
g E-flat B-flat
f
c
Key
Peroratio
Subject
C+A
Measure 103 104 105 107 108 111 112 113 114
S
(A) C A
A
A — —
C
T
C
B
C
C C
B
C —
A
A
E-flat
Key
i = inversion/recto
( ) = truncated subject
51 103
—
A
—
g
In the next major section, mm. 37–81, Bach develops subject B and then combines it with
subject A. Subject B appears first in the recto form (mm. 37–46), then the riverso form followed
(mm. 47–52, see Example 5). When Bach combines subjects A and B, subject A still retains its
melodic contour while subject B begins to transform. Its rhythmic pattern remains the same, yet
the intervallic structure changes, as it must, in order to harmonize with subject A with
appropriate voice leading. The modified subject B also appears first in the recto form in
mm. 59–63 and later in riverso, starting in m. 64.
Example 5. Subject B of Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 522.2.
mm. 37–39, the recto
mm. 47–49, the riverso
mm. 59–61, subject A and subject B combined
In the last major section, mm. 82–117, Bach develops subject C and then combines it
with subject A. In the combination of subjects A and C, subject A also keeps its melodic contour,
52 while subject C occasionally extends or shortens (see Example 6). Compared with subject B,
Bach keeps subject C more intact throughout the piece. In other words, subject A retains its
original contour throughout the entire fugue, with the exception of occasional opening pitch
alterations in order to stay within the tonal plan. Subject C occasionally varies in length. On the
contrary, Bach often modifies subject B in its intervallic structure in order to accommodate
subject A.
Example 6. Subject C of Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2.
mm. 82–83, subject C
mm. 91–96, subject A and subject C combined
The rhetorical process of this fugue functions much like a discussion. Although each
subject has its distinct character, their dissimilar transformations reveal that each subject plays a
53 different role in the rhetorical process. The main point, subject A, is proposed (propositio) and
then immediately reaffirmed (confirmatio) with intensity in the first major section. In the second
major section, an opposing idea, subject B, is presented in the recto form (mm. 37–47) then
rejected in the riverso form (mm. 47–52). According to Mattheson, the introduction and
refutation of the opposing idea establishes the confutatio.3 In the dispositio process of this fugue,
the presentation (propositio) and rejection (confutatio) of subject B altogether (mm. 37–58)
function as a large-scale confutatio. Its purpose is to further prove the main point (subject A) by
refuting the contradicted point (subject B). A debate is engaged between the two, but the main
point remains strong, while the opposing idea transforms with alterations in the intervallic
structure. In the third major section, another point, subject C, is presented, and followed by
another discussion between subjects A and C. Nevertheless, subject C functions differently from
subject B. First, subject C is presented in only the recto form. Second, subject C remains in its
original form throughout most of the developmental process. Third, subjects A and C display
similar characteristics. They both contain leaps and two types of note values, yet subject B
consists of uniform rhythm in stepwise and circular motion. Fourth, in the combination of
subjects A and C, subject A maintains its metric accent. Conversely, the metric accent of
subject A shifts when combining with subject B. Therefore, subject C functions as a support,
reinforcing the key point, subject A, throughout.
The concluding section of Fugue BWV 552.2 is more complex and extended as compared
with other fugues in this study. Tonally, the concluding section of a fugue returns to and stays in
the tonic key, and it is very often accompanied with a pedal point on the dominant.4 Rhetorically,
3
Gregory G. Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” Journal of Musical Theory 2 (1977): 84.
4
Ibid., 98.
54 the peroratio restates the main points of the speech. In most fugues, this section happens with the
final statement of the subject in the tonic key. In Fugue BWV 552.2, however, the peroratio
contains restatements of both subjects A and C. The presence of two subjects in this concluding
section resonates well with the rhetorical roles of subjects A and C, the former as the main point
and the latter as a supporting point. The first return of subject A in E-flat major, after combining
with subject B and subject C, appears in m. 103. Although subject A is buried in the alto voice,
two statements of subject C in the tonic immediately follow. The intense restatements of the
main and supporting points begin the peroratio with great enthusiasm. Harmonically, the fugue
returns to the tonic key on beat 3 of m. 105, followed by a prolonged passage on the dominant.
Subjects A and C also appear in the dominant key in this passage, not for modulatory purposes,
but rather to build anticipation for the final statement in the tonic key. Bach further amplifies the
intensity by setting two statements of subject A in stretto in mm. 108–11. The repetitions of
subjects A and C, along with the stretto setting and prolonged progression on the dominant all
create a powerful conclusion for Fugue BWV 552.2.
Fugue in E-flat Major, BWV 552.2, displays a musical-rhetorical process shaped by the
interactions between subjects. Although each subject and its development could be viewed as a
small fugue on its own, when a large-scale, structural view of the work is taken, the rhetorical
purpose of each subject and section becomes clear.
55 Chapter 5
Modifications of the Subject Tail: Analysis of Fugue in G Major, BWV 577
Bach composed Fugue in G Major, BWV 577, in a lively giga rhythm in 12/8 meter. Its
six-measure subject demonstrates a clear head-neck-tail construction. Bach’s modifications of
the neck and tail segments shape the overall structure of this fugue. While the neck section
supplies material for episodes, different forms of the tail generate interest to keep the listener’s
attention on this long fugal subject.
The subject of this fugue can be divided into three parts: 1) the head, with a trochaic
rhythm outlining tonic chord tones; 2) the neck, during which sequential eighth-notes leap first in
downward, then upward trajectory; 3) the tail concludes with a turn, after a series of downward
scales (see Example 7). Harmonically, the first part of the subject stresses the tonic; the second
part continues with modulatory sequences but prolongs the dominant; and the last part features
repeated cadential progressions that lead the modulation to the dominant key. Proportionally, the
neck is the longest with three-and-a-half measures; next is the tail with one-and-a-half measures;
and the head is the shortest, containing only one measure.
Example 7. The Head-Neck-Tail Construction of the Subject of Fugue in G Major, BWV 577.
56 The complexity of the subject itself provides all source material for the fugal process of
BWV 577. The sequential and modulatory pattern from the subject neck becomes the main
element for episodes. It not only provides momentum for this fugue, but even replaces the tail in
some of the subject entries. Stauffer pointed out that sequential motifs are common in the
subjects and episodes of Bach’s dance fugues.1 The repetitive motifs have the potential to cause
dullness, but the rhetorical process alleviates this. In this fugue the varied length of episodes
builds anticipation for restatements of the subject. Moreover, variations of the subject, which are
labeled as S1, S2, and S3 in Table 6, add variety to this long subject, thereby avoiding the
monotony of the repetitive motifs.
Table 6. Fugal Structure of J. S. Bach’s Fugue in G Major, BWV 577
Propositio
Measure 1
7 12
S
A
S1
T
S
B
Key
G D →
19
S2
Confutatio/Confirmatio
25 29 35 40 47 52 57
63
S1
68
70
Peroratio
76 77
S3
S1
G
S3
D
→
b
S1
→
e
→
S2
G
D
→
b
→
S3
G
The three variations of the subject, all of which involve modifications of the tail, are
shown in Example 8. In S1, the tail is shortened to avoid modulation to the dominant. As in
subject entries in mm. 7–12, 35–40, 63–68, and 70–75, the tail is cut off near the end. This opens
more possibilities for modulation. In S2, the tail is retained; the subject remains in its original
harmonic progression with only minor changes. In mm. 19–24, the subject ends with a change of
1
George Stauffer, “Fugue Types in Bach’s Free Organ Works,” in J. S. Bach as Organist: His Instruments,
Music, and Performance Practices, ed. George Stauffer and Ernest May (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1986), 140–41.
57 register. In mm. 57–63, the rhythmic pattern from the head is incorporated into the tail. In S3, the
tail disappears. It is replaced and expanded with material from the neck in subject entries in
mm. 25–29, 47–51, and 77–81. Bach introduces all three variations in the propositio stage. This
arrangement conforms to the rhetorical principle of summarizing all possible issues in the
propositio before going into detailed arguments in the next part.
Example 8. Three Variations of the Subject of Fugue in G Major, BWV 577: S1, S2, and S3.
S1, the tail is shortened
S2, the tail is retained
S3, the tail is cut off
58 The sequential and modulatory property of the neck makes it the ideal material for
episodes. The most extensive confutatio appears after the propositio in mm. 40–47.
Proportionally, this episode also balances on the middle point of the fugue. Its length intensifies
the anticipation for the reappearance of the subject. This middle point also marks a turning point
in the persuasion process. The episodes become weaker, but the subject entries grow stronger
with the series of unusual techniques employed by Bach. First, he amplifies the expectancy for
this longest episode by shifting the metric accent by half-measures until he reintroduces the
subject in m. 47. Then in the following confutatio (mm. 52– 56), the neck motifs begin to move
in a trend contrary to the original, starting as ascending and then moving in a descending
direction. From the point of rhetorical discourse, this may be interpreted as the rejection of the
opposing argument. In the subsequent confirmatio (mm. 57–68), Bach presents the subject and
its answer in the original tonic and dominant keys, as in the propositio, thereby providing a very
strong rhetorical reinforcement of the thesis statement. The dissolution of arguments is further
strengthened with a much shorter episode followed by another offbeat subject entry. As the
opposing idea grows weaker and weaker, the statement becomes even stronger with its offbeat
setting.
The peroratio opens with the offbeat subject again to sum up the thesis statement.
Although Bach presents this statement in the S3 form, the interpolated neck material following
the subject moves in the reverse direction, therefore extending and reinforcing the thesis
statement in an elaborate conclusion.
Bach’s Fugue in G Major, BWV 577, provides an ideal example of how the construction
of the subject interacts with the fugal process through modifications of the subject and the
episodic material. Variations of the subject tail create diversity and generate possibilities for
59 modulation. The subject neck provides material for episodes and serves as the unifying element
for the entire fugue. The structural analysis reveals Bach’s well-planned arrangement of material
in each section of the rhetorical discourse.
60 Chapter 6
Variations of Theme Combinations: Analysis of Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 582
Bach’s Passacaglia in C minor, BWV 582, is a work based on variations. While the
Passacaglia in whole is a large variation set containing an eight-measure ostinato theme and
twenty-one variations, Bach set the twenty-first variation, the fugue, in complex four-part
permutation. The static statements of all themes in this fugue post challenges for the musicalrhetorical analysis. The transformation and order of theme combinations, however, will provide
evidence for the understanding of this fugue’s structure.
In order to analyze this fugue from the musical-rhetorical dispositio perspective, it is
important to examine the choice of the subject first. Bach employed only the first half of the
passacaglia ostinato. He combined it with a countersubject in the very beginning of the fugue and
soon combined the pair with another countersubject (see Example 9). This unusual approach
reveals two inventio concerns. First, as Mattheson pointed out in the Der vollkommene
Capellmeister, it is best to avoid true cadences in a fugal theme.1 Most passacaglia ostinatos end
on the dominant, yet Bach’s passacaglia theme does not. It contains two halves, the first ending
on the dominant, and the second ending with a dominant that then leads back to the tonic. By
using only half of the theme, the strong tendency of a V-I cadence is thus avoided, and the sense
of continuation is strengthened. Second, the appearance of two countersubjects at the fugue
opening suggests that Bach intended to use invertible counterpoint later in the composition.
Therefore, Bach must have carefully planned and worked out all possible combinations of the
subject and two countersubjects.
1
Johann Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister, rev. tans. and critical commentary by Ernest C.
Harriss, Studies in Musicology (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1981), (foreword) 55.
61 Example 9. The Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 582, mm. 169–78.
Of the three themes of the fugue, each displays a distinct rhythmic pattern: subject a
alternates between half and quarter notes; countersubject b consists of eighth notes; and
countersubject c is comprised of sixteenth notes. When subject a and countersubject b finish
their initial statements, both are followed by sixteenth-note figures. This rhythmic pattern then
becomes the building block for countersubject c. Throughout the entire fugal process, Bach
keeps the subject and two countersubjects literal, without employing inversions, augmentations,
or diminutions when they reappear. Therefore, the transformation of the theme is not to be
observed in each individual theme, but rather in the various combinations, transfiguring the
whole. Table 7 illustrates the fugal structure of BWV 582 and its musical-rhetorical dispositio
sections.
62 Table 7. Fugal Structure of J. S. Bach’s Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 5822
Propositio
Measure 169 174
S
a
A
a
b
T
b
c
B
Key
c
g
Cadence
181
b
c
—
a
c
186
c
—
a
b
g
Confirmatio/Confutatio
192 198 209 221 234
—
c
b
c
a
b
a
b
c
b
a
c
—
a
c
a
b
c
E-flat B-flat g
c
PAC
PAC
HC
246
a
—
b
c
g
Peroratio
256 272
—
a
b
b
c
—
a
c
f
c
HC
The combinations of themes are key to determining the subsections in the dispositio.
According to Marpurg, the first section of a fugue concludes when each of the voices has stated
the theme once.3 BWV 582 differs from this. The subject, a, completes its statement in all voices
within four entries, and the first perfect authentic cadence occurs on m. 191. However, as shown
in Table 7 (grey blocks), it is not until the fifth entry that each voice has finished stating all three
themes once. This entry also concludes with a perfect authentic cadence on m. 197. Besides the
linear presentation of the abc combination in individual parts, the combination also completes a
full cycle of vertical inversions of abc-bca-cab-abc by the fifth entry block. The texture then
immediately thins out with the drop of the bass line. Harmonically, the cadence on m. 197 on
E-flat also moves away from the tonic and the dominant. Judging from these elements, the
propositio ends on m. 197.
2
Table partially based on Peter Williams, The Organ Music of J. S. Bach, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003), 187.
3
Gerald Antone Krumbholz, “Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg’s Abhandlung von der Fuge (1753–4)” (PhD
diss., University of Rochester, 1995), 168.
63 In the next section, Bach consistently alternates between restatements of the subjects and
episodic passages, or between confirmatio and confutatio. He starts this section with the subject
combination in the inverse order (cba). This new order is explored further with its cycle of
vertical inversions. However, Bach leaves out the combination acb, and it is the only one not
employed among all possible combinations. Bach must have done this intentionally in order to
present all the combinations in this fugue in a symmetrical design (see Table 8).
Table 8. Symmetrical and Block Design of Subject Entries in J. S. Bach’s Passacaglia in
C Minor, BWV 582
axis
1st
a
b
2nd
a
b
c
3rd
b
c
a
4th
c
a
b
5th
a
b
c
6th
c
b
a
7th
b
a
c
8th
c
b
a
9th
c
a
b
10th
a
b
c
11th
b
c
a
12th
a
b
c
|________|
|__________________|
|________|
|____________________________________________|
|________________________________________________________________________|
|__________________________________________________________________________________________|
The peroratio section begins with the last statement of the theme combination in its
original form, abc. The anticipation of this restatement is intensified with the longest episodic
passage in the fugue. When the abc combination finally returns, it is also the only one with
subject a in the upper-most voice and the tonic key, making it the strongest restatement. The
constantly moving sixteenth-note pattern from c in the pedal builds up the peroratio, climaxed
by an unusual Neapolitan sixth chord in m. 285, which prepares the fugue’s conclusion.
For contrasting elements in the episodic passages, the three themes provide basic source
material. The most prevalent component is the sixteenth-note figure from countersubject c. Its
64 development in the bass line reflects Bach’s meticulous planning in the dispositio as well. In the
propositio, countersubject c appears only once (mm. 192–95); in the confutatio/confirmatio,
figures from countersubject c appear after the ninth entry block (m. 239) and are used with more
frequency; in the peroratio, c material is further intensified and prolonged in the pedal, becoming
the driving force toward a climax before the final cadence. Bach’s progressive use of c material
not only provides contrast to the literal statements of three themes, but also creates momentum
for the fugue.
In short, Bach establishes order and rules for the permutation in the propositio. The
subject and two countersubjects connect with each other in both linear and vertical motions.
Each voice completes its cycle of stating three themes in turn. Simultaneously, the three themes
as a block complete a full cycle of inversions in the propositio. In the following confutatio, Bach
expands the material from countersubject c. The development of c material forms a contrast with
the block statement of themes. Then in the confirmatio, the theme combination continues to
permutate. Each confirmatio statement serves to reinforce the order established in the propositio.
In the concluding peroratio, the final statement of the theme combination returns to its initial
form. Bach emphasizes this further by putting the main subject a in its highest register and the
tonic key, making it a powerful conclusion for the fugue.
The purpose of this musical-rhetorical dispositio is to convince the listener that the
combinations of a, b, and c work out logically throughout the fugal process. Bach presents the
transformation through various combinations of the themes in an orderly and symmetrical
design, and also with a gradual development of c material. Unity is preserved with literal
statements of all three themes throughout the fugue, as well as with constant employment of
subject material in the episodic passages.
65 The symmetrical design of this fugue also displays structural correlation with the
groupings of the preceding twenty variations of the Passacaglia. This fugue contains twelve
entries in total, in which, the bac combination only appears once and serves as the axis of this
symmetrical structure (see Table 8). The Passacaglia contains twenty-one sections, including a
theme and twenty variations. Scholars such as Karl Geiringer, Christoph Wolff, Siegfried
Vogelsänger, Hans Klotz, and Michael Radulescu all tried to approach the organization principle
of this Passacaglia by categorizing the variations into small groups.4 Among them, both Wolff
and Vogelsänger divide the variations into seven symmetrical parts, despite their different
opinions on the grouping. The seven-part grouping also forms a symmetrical structure as
illustrated in Table 9.
Table 9. Groupings of Variations in J. S. Bach’s Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 5825
Vogelsänger
theme 1-2 3-4-5 6-7-8 9-10-11-12 13-14-15 16-17-18 19-20
Wolff
theme 1-2 3-4-5 6-7-8-9 10-11 12-13-14-15 16-17-18 19-20
Bach’s choice of treating this fugue in permutation is consistent with the variation form
of the Passacaglia. While the Passacaglia is a variation set based on the ostinato theme, the fugue
is another based on theme combinations. The symmetrical frameworks of both create balance
and unity for the entire work. The fugue provides a well-arranged dispositio in itself, possibly
serving as the ultimate rhetorical proof for the Passacaglia as a whole.
4
For a list of their groupings, see Peter Williams, 186; Yoshitake Kobayashi, “The Variation Principle in J.
S. Bach’s Passacaglia in C Minor BWV 582,” in Bach Studies 2, ed. Daniel R. Melamed (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), 62–69.
5
Table based on Williams, 186.
66 Conclusion
The German Baroque musica poetica was a marriage between the mathematical practice
of music and the oratorical art of rhetoric, a discipline centered on the teaching of musical
composition to pursue a perfect union between music and text. This phenomenon was formed as
several factors coalesced in sixteen-century Germany. Martin Luther’s theological view of music
encouraged composers to convey the affections of sacred texts and considered music a superior
medium to spread the Gospel. During this period, study of rhetorical principles also served to
assist in the delivery and persuasiveness of sermons. Moreover, educational reform by
Melanchthon firmly established rhetoric as an essential subject in the Lateinshule system.
Finally, with the changing view of music as either a theoretical or practical discipline, the hybrid
discipline of musica poetica began to flourish. Classical rhetorical concepts such as the five
canons (inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronunciatio) were adopted into the
compositional processes of music composition. The rules of rhetoric also became pedagogical
instructions for composers: make pre-composition decisions (choosing a subject, or determining
key and meter); arrange musical material in cohesive order; employ musical figures to heighten
the affections; familiarize oneself with the composition; and internalize all rhetorical processes in
the actual performance of the musical piece.
Educated in this tradition from a young age, Lutheran musicians were familiar with the
principles of rhetoric, and J. S. Bach was no exception. The systematic and rational plan for
oratorical art not only served as a pedagogical method for composing music, it further provided
theorists with an ideal model for the analysis of musical works. For example, Mattheson’s
67 musical-rhetorical analysis of an aria by Marcello employed the six-part dispositio structure to
examine its construction: exordium, narratio, propositio, confirmatio, confutatio, and peroratio.
With the rising independence of instrumental music in the Baroque era, musica poetica
concepts were extended to music without text. Nonetheless, for fugal compositions in particular,
both Schmidt and Mattheson eliminated the exordium and narratio stages, identifying the
presentation of the fugal subject as the propositio. Even though certain fugal techniques were
associated with particular sections of the propositio, the definitions were not entirely transparent.
For example, augmentation and diminution are common fugal techniques for modifying a
subject, yet Mattheson and Forkel disputed whether to treat them as opposing or supporting
elements.1 Stretto, another fugal technique, which involves intensive repetitions of the subject,
can appear in both the confirmatio and peroratio stages.2 Therefore, the musical-rhetorical
analysis of a fugue can result in differing interpretations of the dispositio.
Mattheson’s view of a subject’s construction offers a way to observe the musicalrhetorical procedure in the fugue. He regarded a subject as the combination of several small
motifs. Harrison has also approached fugal rhetoric through examining variations of the head or
the tail of a subject.3 This contemporary theorist has noted that transformations of the subject
provide clues to a broad view of a fugue’s rhetorical plan. The function of each dispositio stage
is thus determined by the transformational plan for the subject, or the interactions between
subjects, countersubjects, or distinct motifs, but not solely by the composer’s fugal devices.
1
Gregory G. Butler, “Fugue and Rhetoric,” Journal of Musical Theory 21 (1977): 95–96.
2
Ibid., 96–98.
3
Daniel Harrison, “Head and Tails: Subject Play in Bach’s Fugues,” Music Theory Spectrum 30 (2008):
152–63.
68 The four fugues selected for this study all display different rhetorical plans. Fugue in C
Minor, BWV 546, works toward a gradual expansion of contrast created by modifications of the
countersubject and the eighth-note figure B. While the countersubject material grows shorter in
length, the eighth-note figure B expands. Bach incorporates techniques for modifying the
countersubject, such as fragmentations, suspensions/syncopations, and repetitions/elongations,
into figure B, eventually resulting in a mixture of the two. Fugue in E-Flat Major, BWV 552.2, is
a fugue with three subjects. The interactions between subjects can be viewed as a conversational
process, and each subject plays a different role in the fugal development. Subject A functions as
the main point; subject B acts as the opposing argument; and subject C plays the role of
supporting idea. The different developments of subjects B and C define their contrasting or
supporting roles in the rhetorical process. For both fugues BWV 546 and BWV 552.2, the
contrast provided by opposing elements exists not only in the episodic passages, but also in the
introduction of new themes. However, the role of a new subject as either an opposing or
supporting element becomes clear as its transformation progresses, and the rhetorical functions
of different sections are only then revealed.
Fugue in G Major, BWV 577, displays a fugal process in which variations of the tail in a
long subject generate interest and variety. Passacaglia in C Minor, BWV 582, presents the
combinations of the subject and two countersubjects in a logical and symmetrical order. The
permutation plan of this fugue also correlates with the variation form of the preceding twenty
variations, together forming one balanced and unified Passacaglia. For fugues BWV 577 and
BWV 582, their rhetorical plans proceed in a more straightforward way. In both fugues, after the
subject/subject block is presented in all voices in the propositio; the constant dialogue between
confutatio and confirmatio persists until an agreement is reached in the concluding peroratio.
69 Fugue, a composition based on a subject within a contrapuntal texture, can develop into
endless possibilities. David A. Sheldon pointed out, “The fugal process is cumulative, the result
of the most continuous exploration of the thematic material’s manipulative potential.”4 The four
selected fugues by Bach all exhibit different strategies in the arrangement and transformation of
the subject material. Approaching Bach’s fugal writing from the musical-rhetorical perspective
of the dispositio opens another window through which to appreciate and understand the
ingenuity of the “Master of the Fugue.”
4
David A. Sheldon, “The Stretto Principle: Some Thoughts on Fugue as Form,” The Journal of Musicology
8 (1990): 566.
70 Bibliography
Primary Sources
Bernhard, Christoph. Tractatus compositionis augmentatus [ca. 1650–1660]. Edited by Joseph
Müller-Blattau. In Die Kompositionslehre Heinrich Schützens in der Fassung seines
Schülers Christoph Bernhard. 2nd ed. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1963. Translated by Walter
Hilse in The Music Forum 3 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1973): 1–196.
Burmeister, Joachim. Musica Poetica from Musical Poetics. Translated, with introduction and
Notes by Benito V. Rivera. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Dressler, Gallus. Praecepta Musicae Poëticae: The Precepts of Poetic Music. Translated by
Robert Forgács. Studies in the History of Music Theory and Literature, edited by Thomas
J. Mathiesen, vol. 3. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007.
Kircher, Athanasius. Musurgia universalis. Rome: eredi di Francesco Corbetti, 1650 (vol. 1).
Rome: Ludovico Grigani, 1650 (vol. 2). Abridged German translation by Andreas Hirsch
as Philosophischer Extract und Auszug aus . . . musurgia universali. . . Schwäbisch Hall:
Hans Reinhard Laidigen u. Johann Christoph Gräter, 1662.
Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. Abhandlung von der Fuge: nach den Grundsätzen und Exempeln
der besten deutschen und ausländischen Meister entworfen. Hildesheim: Georg Olms,
1970.
Mattheson, Johann. Der vollkommene Capellmeister: A Revised Translation with Critical
Commentary. Translated by Ernest C. Harriss. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press,
1981.
Scheibe, Johann Adolph. Critischer Musikus. Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1745. Reprint, Hildesheim:
Georg Olms Verlag, 1970.
Secondary Sources
Albrecht, Timothy Edward. “Musical Rhetoric in Selected Organ Works of Johann Sebastian
Bach.” DMA thesis, University of Rochester, 1978.
Andrews, George Whitfield. “Music as an Expression of Religious Feeling.” The Musical
Quarterly 2, no. 3 (July 1916): 331–38.
Arnold, Corliss Richard. Organ Literature: A Comprehensive Survey. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press, 2003.
71 Bartel, Dietrich. Musica Poetica: Musica-Rhetorical Figures in German Baroque Music.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.
———. “Rhetoric in German Baroque Music: Ethical Gestures.” The Musical Times 144
(Winter 2003): 15–19.
Benitez, Vincent P. “Musical-Rhetorical Figures in the Orgelbüchlein of J. S. Bach.” DMA
thesis, Arizona State University, 1985.
———. “Musical-Rhetorical Figures in the Orgelbüchlein of J. S. Bach.” Bach: Quarterly
Journal of the Riemenschneider Bach Institute 18 (January 1987): 3–21.
Benstock, Seymour L., ed. Johann Sebastian: A Tercentenary Celebration. Westport, CT:
Hofstra University, 1992.
Bettmann, Otto L. “Bach the Rhetorician.” The American Scholar 55 (1986): 113–18.
Bonds, Mark Evan. Absolute Music: The History of an Idea. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2014.
———. Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration. Studies in the
History of Music, vol. 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
Braunschweig, Karl. “Genealogy and Musica Poetica in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century
Theory.” Acta Musicologica 73, no. 1 (2001): 45–75.
Breig, Werner. “Form Problems in Bach’s Early Organ Fugues.” In A Bach Tribute: Essays in
Honor of William H. Scheide, edited by Paul Brainard and Ray Robinson, 45–56. Chapel
Hill, NC: Hinshaw Music, 1993.
Buelow, George J. “In Defence of J. A. Scheibe against J. S. Bach.” Proceedings of the Royal
Musical Association 101 (1974–1975), 85–100.
———. “Johann Mattheson and the Invention of the Affektenlehre.” In New Mattheson Studies,
ed. 393–407. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
———. “The Loci Topici and Affect in Late Baroque Music: Heinichen’s Practical
Demonstration.” Music Review 27 (1966): 161–76.
Buszin, Walter E. “Luther on Music.” The Musical Quarterly 32, no. 1 (January 1946): 80–97.
Butler, Gregory G. “Der vollkommene Capellmeister as a Stimulus to J. S. Bach’s Late Fugal
Writing.” In New Mattheson Studies, edited by G. Buelow and H. J. Marx, 293–306.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
———. “Fugue and Rhetoric.” Journal of Music Theory 21, no. 1 (Spring 1977): 49–109.
72 ———. “Music and Rhetoric in Early Seventeenth-century English Source.” Musical Quarterly
66 (1980): 53–64.
Christensen, Thomas Street, ed. The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory. The
Cambridge History of Music. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Clark, Robert, and John David Peterson. “The Orgelbüchlein: Music Figures and Musical
Expression.” The American Organist 19 (March 1985): 79–81.
Collins, Paul. The Stylus Phantasticus and Free Keyboard Music of the North German Baroque.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005.
Couch III, Leon W. “The Organ Works of Dietrich Buxtehude (1637–1707) and Musicalrhetorical Analysis and Theory.” DMA thesis, University of Cincinnati, 2002.
———. “Musical-rhetorical Analysis and the North German Toccata.” PhD diss., University of
Cincinnati, 2003.
David, Hans T., Arthur Mendel, and Christoph Wolff, eds. The New Bach Reader: A Life of
Johann Sebastian Bach in Letters and Documents. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.
Franklin, Don O., ed. Bach Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Gorman, Sharon L. “Rhetoric and Affect in the Organ Praeludia of Dieterich Buxtehude (1637–
1707).” PhD diss., Stanford University, 1990.
Grew, Eva Mary. “Martin Luther and Music.” Music & Letters 19, no. 1 (January 1938): 67–78.
Harrison, Daniel. “Heads and Tails: Subject Play in Bach’s Fugues.” Music Theory Spectrum 30,
no. 1 (Spring 2008): 152–63.
———. “Rhetoric and Fugue: An Analytical Application.” Music Theory Spectrum 12, no. 1
(Spring 1990): 1–42.
Herz, Gerhard. Essay on J. S. Bach. Studies in Musicology, ed. George Buelow, vol. 73. Ann
Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1985.
Horsley, Imogene. Fugue: History and Practice. New York: The Free Press, 1966.
Kee, Piet. “The Secrets of Bach’s Passacaglia.” The Diapason 74 (September 1983): 10–12.
Keller, Hermann. The Organ Works of Bach. Translated by Helen Hewitt. New York: C. F.
Peters Corporation, 1967.
———. Phrasing and Articulation: A Contribution to a Rhetoric of Music, with 152 Musical
Examples. London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1966.
73 Kennedy, George A., Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to
Modern Times. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.
Kirkendale, Ursula. “The Source for Bach’s Musical Offering: The Institutio Oratoria of
Quintilian.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 33 (1980): 88–141.
Kirkendale, Warren. “On the Rhetorical Interpretation of the Ricercar and J. S. Bach’s Musical
Offering.” Studi musicali 26 (1997): 331–76.
Kobayashi, Yoshitake. “The Variation Principle in J. S. Bach’s Passacaglia in C Minor BWV
582.” In Bach Studies 2, edited by Daniel R. Melamed, 62–69. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995.
Krumbholz, Gerald Antone. “Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg’s Abhandlung von der Fuge (1753–
4).” PhD diss., University of Rochester, 1995.
Kubik, Reinhold, and Margit Legler. “Rhetoric, Gesture and Scenic Imagination in Bach’s
Music.” Understanding Bach 4 (2009): 55–76.
Kutschke, Beate. “Johann Mattheson’s Writings on Music and Ethical Shift around 1700.”
International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 38, no. 1 (June 2007): 23–
38.
Leaver, Robin A. “Johann Sebastian Bach: Theological Musician and Musical Theologian.”
BACH 31 (2000): 17–33.
Lenneberg, Hans. “Johann Mattheson on Affect and Rhetoric in Music.” Journal of Music
Theory 2 (1958): 47–84, 193–236.
Lippman, Edward A. A History of Western Musical Aesthetics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1992.
Macey, Patrick. “Josquin and Musical Rhetoric: Miserere mei, Deus and Other Motets.” In The
Josquin Companion, ed. Richard Sherr, 485–530. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
McAfee, Kay Roberts. “Rhetorical Analysis of the Sonatas for Organ in E Minor, BWV 528, and
G Major, BWV 530, by Johann Sebastian Bach, A Lecture Recital, Together with Three
Recitals of Selected Works of J. Alain, D. Buxtehude, C. Franck, and Others.” DMA
thesis, North Texas State University, 1986.
McCreless, Patrick. “Music and Rhetoric.” In The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory,
edited by Thomas Christensen, 847–79. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
McGlathery, James M., ed. Music and German Literature: Their Relationship since the Middle
Ages. Vol. 66, Studies in German Literature, Linguistics, and Culture. Columbia, SC:
Camden House, 1992.
74 Mckeon, Richard, ed. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 1941.
Newman, Anthony. “Symbolism in General.” In Bach and the Baroque: A Performing Guide to
Baroque Music with Special Emphasis on the Music of J. S. Bach, 164–76. New York:
Pendragon Press, 1985.
Palisca, Claude V. “Music and Rhetoric.” In Music and Ideas in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries, 203–31. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
Power, Tushaar. “J. S. Bach and the Divine Proportion.” PhD diss., Duke University, 2001.
Rivera, Benito V. German Music Theory in the Early 17th Century: The Treatises of Johannes
Lippius. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1980.
Roberts, Scott. “Toward a Methodology for the Analysis of Fugue: An Examination of Selected
Bach Organ Works.” PhD diss., The Florida State University, 2004.
Schulenberg, David. “Composition and Improvisation in the School of J. S. Bach.” In Bach
Perspectives Vol. 1, edited by Russell Stinson, 1–42. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1995.
———. The Music of J. S. Bach: Analysis and Interpretation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1999.
Sheldon, David A. “The Fugue as an Expression of Rationalist Values.” International Review of
the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 17, no. 1 (June 1986): 29–51.
———. “The Stretto Principle: Some Thoughts on Fugue as Form.” The Journal of Musicology
8, no. 4 (Autumn 1990): 553–68.
So, Jeong-Hwa. “Rhetorical Perspectives on the Large Settings of Catechism Chorales in J. S.
Bach’s Clavierübung III.” DMA thesis, University of Cincinnati, 2008.
Speerstra, Joel. Bach and the Pedal Clavichord: An Organist’s Guide. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press, 2004.
Spelman, Leslie P. “Luther and the Arts.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 10, no. 2
(December 1951): 166–75.
Stauffer, George. “Fugue Types in Bach’s Free Organ Works.” In J. S. Bach as Organist: His
Instruments, Music, and Performance Practices, edited by George Stauffer and Ernest
May, 133–56. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Street, Alan. “The Rhetorico-Musical Structure of the Goldberg Variations: Bach’s ClavierÜbung IV and the Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian.” Music Analysis 6, nos. 1–2 (March–
July 1987): 89–131.
75 Tarling, Judy. The Weapons of Rhetoric: A Guide for Musicians and Audiences. Hertfordshire,
UK: Corda Music Publications, 2004.
Toumpoulidis, Themistoklis D. “Aspects of Musical Rhetoric in Baroque Organ Music.” PhD
diss., University of Sheffield, 2005.
Troeger, Richard. Playing Bach on the Keyboard: A Practical Guide. Pompton Plains, NJ:
Amadeus Press, 2003.
Varwig, Bettina. “One More Time: J. S. Bach and Seventeenth-Century Traditions of Rhetoric.”
Eighteenth-Century Music 5, no. 2 (September 2008): 179–208.
Vickers, Brian. “Figure of Rhetoric/Figure of Music?” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of
Rhetoric 2, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 1–44.
Walker, Paul Mark. “Fugue in German Theory from Dressler to Mattheson.” PhD diss., State
University of New York at Buffalo, 1987.
———. “Fugue in the Music-Rhetorical Analogy and Rhetoric in the Development of Fugue.”
In The Music of J. S. Bach: Analysis and Interpretation, edited by David Schulenberg,
159–179. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999.
———. “Rhetoric, the Ricercar, and J. S. Bach’s Musical Offering.” In Bach Studies 2, edited by
Daniel R. Melamed, 175–91. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
———. Theories of Fugue from the Age of Josquin to the Age of Bach. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press, 2004.
Williams, Peter. The Organ Music of J. S. Bach. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
———. “The Snares and Delusions of Musical Rhetoric: Some Examples from Recent Writings
on J. S. Bach.” In Alte Musik: Praxis und Reflexion, 230–240. Switzerland: Amadeus
Verlag, 1983.
Wilson, Blake, George J. Buelow, and Peter A. Hoyt. “Rhetoric and Music.” In Grove Music
Online. Oxford Music Online. Accessed April 20, 2009.
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.
Wolff, Christoph. Bach: Essays on His Life and Music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1991.
———. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Learned Musician. New York: W. W. Norton, 2000.
76