ABSTRACT
Over the course of 200 years of Bach research not only did the view of Bach and his music change, and change repeatedly, the nature of our knowledge became more complex and sophisticated. It has now become a very specialized discipline of historical musicological research. One reason for this is that, compared to lives of other composers, the information we have access to is limited. The paucity of biographical and other documents has compelled us to borrow methodologies and techniques from other disciplines. Such primary research includes the identification of the development of Bach’s handwriting, as well as the handwriting of his copyists, and the examination of the watermarks of the paper he used for his compositions. These were the methodologies employed by Alfred Dürr and Georg von Dadelsen in the 1950s to establish the “New Chronology” of Bach’s vocal compositions.1 On the other hand, many Bach scholars since Johann Nikolaus Forkel have attempted to unearth new documentary sources. For example, Forkel by corresponding with Bach’s son Carl Philipp Emanuel, and Philipp Spitta by his pioneering research in archival resources. Here in a way is exemplified the two-sided nature of Bach research: the exploration of new archival resources, and the utilization of modern technologies as they become available.
