The universality, the timelessness, and the prophetic character of the masterpieces of immortals like Bach often obscure the fact that they were representative of certain classes of composers and were children of their times. Hence the musician who seeks to become familiar with the styles, techniques, and even with the spirit of the periods of the masters must make a careful study also of the works of minor composers.

Such a lesser master, who deserves greater recognition than he has received, was Bach’s contemporary and personal friend Johann Gottfried Walther. It is interesting indeed to note that two eminent friends and co-workers of the two most famous men of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther and Johann Sebastian Bach, were namesakes. It is interesting, too, that these two Johann Walthers had much in common, as did Luther and Bach. Both were dutiful servants of their Church. The work of both, important as it is, has been misjudged and underestimated. Both deserve to be esteemed as highly as they were by their more illustrious contemporaries and friends Luther and Bach. A fairly exhaustive history of music which I consulted recently devotes not a few pages to Johann Sebastian Bach, but does not mention Walther. Yet Walther was one of the foremost contrapuntists and church musicians of his day; he contributed materially to the growth and development of his illustrious fellow citizen of Weimar, Johann Sebastian Bach. His works give us a clear and complete picture of the contrapuntal developments and practices of German organists during the 17th and 18th centuries. For Walther was no innovator; almost everything he did had been done before. But he summarized and synthesized the techniques and styles of his predecessors. Already for this reason his compositions are of special interest to us church musicians. What is more, they deserve to be played more frequently by American organists than they have been in the past.

Walther’s forbears were of Thuringian stock. According to H. W. Engel,^[1] the history of the Walther family may be traced back to the early years of the 16th century, the time of the Reformation in Germany. In 1523 and 1531 Claus Walther, a tanner, was mentioned as one member of the tetrarchy of Erfurt. A century later the name of Balthasar Walther was listed as a witness at a court proceeding in Erfurt. Johann Stephan Walther, a weaver, father of Johann Gottfried, was born December 18, 1650. His wife, as did the mother of J. S. Bach, belonged to the Lämmerhirt relationship. Bach’s mother, nee Elizabeth Lämmerhirt, was the stepsister of Valentin Lämmerhirt, the father of Johann Walther’s mother.

Johann Gottfried Walther was born September 18, 1684, in Erfurt, where he was baptized on the 21st in the Barfüsserkirche. He was the only boy in the family and had two sisters. According to available reports,^[2] the family was poor, and Walther’s mother was obliged to supplement the father’s meager income by sewing, mending, and doing housework for other women. Nevertheless the parents did their best to give their only son a good education. For three years before he entered the Kaufmannsschule (Latin school) of Erfurt at the age of seven, they had him instructed in reading and writing by a private tutor whom a druggist had engaged for his own family.^[3] Upon the insistence of Johann Aegidius Bach, Rath-Musicus of Erfurt,^[4] he took up the study of music—studying voice with Cantor Jacob Adlung^[5] and the clavichord with Johann Bernhard Bach, the oldest son of Johann Aegidius.^[6] After Johann Bernhard Bach moved to Magdeburg, Walther continued his studies with Johann Andreas Kretschmar,^[7] formerly a pupil of Johann Heinrich Buttstedt, who, in turn, had been a pupil of Johann Pachelbel.

According to a letter of October, 1729, Adlung had Walther appear as vocal soloist when he was but eight years old and continued to use him in this capacity even after Walther, in 1697, changed schools and entered the Gymnasium Senatorum. At the Gymnasium he served as organist. Here he was taught to read Italian tablatures by Johann Bernhard Bach, while Kretschmar acquainted him with the idioms of composition used by Pachelbel and Buttstedt. In 1702 he became organist at the St. Thomas Church in Erfurt and took up the study of composition. Later he continued his studies in composition with Buttstedt^[8] and attended lectures delivered in the Erfurter Hochschule, paying his tuition from fees received for lessons on the clavichord. Realizing that he had undertaken too much, he resolved henceforth to devote his full time to the study of music.

Buttstedt proved to be an unsatisfactory teacher, making no attempts to interest and inspire the ambitious young man. He confined Walther’s work chiefly to copying rules and harmonizing figured basses. As a result, Walther decided to study independently. When he did not understand what he read, he asked Buttstedt for information. Since Buttstedt at times barely answered his questions and refused to explain problems, Walther found himself obliged on at least one occasion to bribe Buttstedt’s son into smuggling a treatise on musical theory by Johann Theile out of the house. He copied what he wanted and then had the treatise returned.

As was his friend Sebastian Bach of later years, Walther was largely self-taught. As did Bach, so he, too, journeyed to various music centers to hear musical performances and to become personally acquainted with musicians of note. In 1704 he journeyed to Halberstadt to meet Andreas Werckmeister, whose writings on the mathematical and scientific aspects of music were much read at that time. Through Werckmeister he became better acquainted with the Klaviermusik of Dietrich Buxtehude. He also made it a point to meet Johann Graf, a pupil of Pachelbel, and Wilhelm Hieronymus Pachelbel, the son of Johann Pachelbel.

In 1707, before establishing himself in Weimar, Walther was encouraged to apply for the position of organist of St. Blasius Church in Mühlhausen where Johann Rud. Ahle had been organist up to his death in 1706. For some unknown reason,^[9] Walther withdrew his name from the list of candidates. As is well known, the vacancy was filled by Johann Sebastian Bach. On July 4 of the same year, Walther applied for and obtained the position of town organist of Weimar, which he held to the end of his life.

Shortly after arriving in Weimar, Walther became the teacher of the son and daughter of the Grand Duke; before long the children of other members of the nobility residing in Weimar received instruction from him. Thus he had a good income. In 1708 he married Anna Marie Dressler, who became the mother of his eight children. J. S. Bach served as sponsor for one of these, Johann Gottfried, born in 1712. Salomo Franck, the Weimar poet, became sponsor for another.

In 1708, after serving for only one year at the place which Walther had learned to despise, J. S. Bach entered the service of the Duke of Weimar. An intimate friendship developed between Walther and Bach. The story of how Walther disproved Bach’s boast of being able to play at sight any piece of music^[10] is too well known to require repetition. The incident, however, proves Walther’s mastery of counterpoint. Walther and Bach, as is also well known, assigned problems and tasks to each other and thus aided each other in mastering the art of counterpoint. Spitta’s claim that the friendship was later disrupted^[11] does not rest on valid proof, based, as it is, merely on the fact that the sketch of Bach in Walther’s Lexikon is unduly brief. Brodde^[12] points out that Handel is not even mentioned in the Lexikon. But this omission does not prove that Walther and Handel were enemies. The very fact that Walther later copied much of Bach’s music, e.g., the first part of his Well-Tempered Clavichord, helps to disprove Spitta’s assertion. What is more, in 1729 Walther sent to his publisher, Bokemeyer, some of Bach’s compositions, and urged him to publish them. Even as late as 1738 Walther spoke highly of Bach in a letter to Bokemeyer. Unfortunately Spitta’s conclusion was adopted even by scholars, who should have been more cautious.^[13]

In 1712 Walther published his first organ compositions, variations on “Meinen Jesum lass’ ich nicht” and “Jesu, meine Freude.” A relative paid the expenses. Walther withheld his name from these compositions in order that they might be evaluated on their own merits. In 1720 Walther met with difficulties which prompted him to seek employment elsewhere, but the difficulties were ironed out, and Walther remained in Weimar.

From 1726 on Walther met with many adversities. His family had become so large (eight children) that his income did not enable him to live comfortably. When Cantor Reinecke died in 1726, Walther applied for his position, hoping to be able to serve as cantor and organist. However, the position was offered to Laurentius Reinhardt, a professor of oratory and Greek, who remained in Weimar till 1729. Again Walther applied for the position, only to be slighted and ignored. As a result he complained incessantly and grew bitter. Meanwhile he had also lost many of his pupils, some of whom, after establishing themselves in Weimar, competed with their former teacher and deprived him of additional income. In earlier years he had abused his eyes by copying large quantities of music and as a result was afflicted with poor eyesight in later years. He corresponded diligently with Bokemeyer, the publisher. Both belonged to a group which hoped to find the philosopher’s stone. Some of Walther’s letters devote many pages to propounding methods by which the precious stone might be found. Undoubtedly he felt that possession of this talisman might better his circumstances. From certain remarks of Walther it has been concluded that he and his cantor Labes did not get along very well.

In 1745 Walther was incapacitated by illness. His son Johann Christoph was called from Jena to relieve his father. By 1747 WaIther’s condition was so bad that he asked to have his son appointed as his successor. The wish was not granted. Disappointed, embittered, and grief-stricken, Walther departed this world March 23, 1748. His wife died nine years later.

Among Walther’s pupils we find the following: Johann Andreas Roth, Adolf Friedr. Labes (his cantor) Johann Ludwig Krebs (later a pupil of Bach), Jacob Adlung, J. Philipp Samuel Alt, and Walther’s son Johann Christoph. Walther was a deeply religious man, an able, painstaking, and thorough scholar, an excellent organist, a great contrapuntist, and a church composer of uncommon ability. He was held in high esteem by such men as Johann Kuhnau, J. S. Bach, Johann Mattheson, and others. Although we think of him largely as a composer of organ music, Walther wrote also choral and vocal music. Very little of this is in existence today. It is not unusually good. Walther was a great collector of music. Had it not been for him, much precious music by such men as Dietrich Buxtehude and Johann Nicolaus Hanff would no longer be in existence.

It is well known that Mattheson called Walther “a second Pachelbel, if not in art the first.”^[14] Many have accepted this statement as an absolute verity, e.g., the editors of Grove’s Dictionary,^[15] Lahee,^[16] and others. Frotscher, however, upon careful analysis of many of Walther’s organ compositions, arrives at the conclusion that Mattheson’s statement: “His compositions, written in Pachelbel’s style, have been prepared neatly and with good harmonious effect,”^[17] is not even a half-truth and that Walther was more deeply influenced by Buxtehude, Boehm, Johann Bernhard Bach, and even by Johann Sebastian Bach. Otto Brodde, though influenced by Frotscher, does not go so far, preferring to link up Walther with Samuel Scheidt rather than with Johann Pachelbel.^[18] Unfortunately, Dietrich,^[19] on whose judgment Brodde and others depend to a great extent, devoted very little space to Walther, who was, after all, a composer of the 18th century.

Very few of Walther’s compositions were published during his lifetime. In 1712 appeared his Musicalische Vorstellung Zwey Evangelischer Gesänge, nemlich: Meinen Jesum lass ich nicht und Jesu, Meine Freude, Auf dem Claviere zu spielen; in 1738 was published his Harmonisches Denck-und Danckmahl, bestehend aus VIII Vor-Spielen über das Lied: Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr, in 1741 his Monumentum Musicum CONCERTAM repraesentans & Praeludio con Fuga. After 1741 were published his Vorspiele über das Advents-Lied: Wie soil ich dich empfangen. When we consider that Bach was less fortunate and that contemporary compositions for church services were rarely published,^[20] we may say that Walther was unusually fortunate. Undoubtedly his personal connections with the publisher Bokemeyer proved helpful to him.

Although many of his compositions have been lost, there are extant today no fewer than 285 organ compositions based on the chorale, eight independent compositions for the organ, and thirteen transcriptions of orchestral works for the organ. Walther’s available organ works were collected by Max Seiffert and published in 1906 as vols. 26 and 27 of the Denkmäler Deutscher Tonkunst. Almost all recent outstanding collections of chorale preludes by the masters include some of Walther’s compositions. A sufficient amount of material is, therefore, available for a fair examination and evaluation of his works.*

*The author of this article has made available a collection of chorale preludes by Walther, as well as several compositions which have been published separately, by Concordia Publishing House of St. Louis. Nine of Walther’s compositions have been included by him also in his collection Chorale Preludes by Masters of the XVII and XVIII Centuries, published by Concordia Publishing House.—ED.

It is, however, important to avoid the mistakes made in the past. Griepenkerl and Roitzsch have included in volume VI of the Peters edition of Bach’s organ works two compositions which today are known to have been written by Walther, not by Bach: the preludes on “Gott der Vater wohn’ uns bei” and “Ich hab’ mein Sach’ Gott heimgestellt.” This was done a hundred years ago (1847). Mistakes have been made also more recently. Max Seiffert, for example, in Denkmäler Deutscher Tonkunst, erroneously credits Walther with three compositions: (1) A prelude on “Komm, Heiliger Geist,” ascribed in most of the recent collections (e.g., Ramin) to Pachelbel. (2) The chaconne on “O Jesu, du edle Gabe,” which Frotscher still ascribes to Walther.^[21] Brodde, however, reports ^[22] that Walther in a letter of February 6, 1730, stated that he found no satisfaction in chaconnes and that he had assigned the chorale chaconne in question to one of his pupils in order to have him understand the nature and method of composing a chaconne. (3) A partita for violin by Johann Jacob Walther, a reputable violinist of the 17th century and included in his collection Hortus Chellicus.

In a letter dated April 4, 1729, Walther stated that he wrote chiefly organ compositions based on the chorale because he was a church organist. He wanted to write music which would be suitable for the Lutheran church service. That good church music should be churchly and conservative no one knew better than Walther. His independent compositions, with which he took greater liberty, are decidedly in the minority. His arrangements of orchestral compositions for the organ were prepared, it is believed, to acquaint his students with this type of music, and were not to be used in the church service. It is quite possible, too, that he, like Bach, prepared these for court (social) functions. Though Walther took far more liberties with some of his Orgelchoräle and Choralvorspiele than in others, he never adopted a style or idiom which might clash strongly with the spirit of a soundly liturgical church service. Thus he showed more restraint than did Bach, who adopted the virtuoso concert style in some of his Choralvorspiele.

Walther’s music based on the chorale consists of two types: (1) the Choralvorspiele, in which the entire chorale is not always presented; (2) the Orgelchoräle, in which the entire chorale is presented. The two types served two different purposes. The Choralvorspiel was tonangebend, i.e., it was used to create and maintain atmosphere. The Orgelchoral was used to present the hymns according to the Alternatimspraxis, which was still in vogue at his time. According to this Alternatimspraxis, the congregation would sing one stanza, the choir another, the organist would play the third, the congregation sing the fourth, and so on. This same order was, of course, not always followed. When using the Orgelchoräle of Scheidt and others, the organist would play that part or variation of the composition which treated the stanza assigned to the organist. Hence the words per omnes versus occur in connection with variations of this type. Walther’s partitas or variations were not of the per omnes versus type; the variations were free and independent, written in the general spirit of the chorale which served as cantus firmus.

In forty of Walther’s compositions based on the chorale, the chorale appears as cantus firmus only once; in two hundred and forty-five it appears at least twice. This was due not only to the fact that Walther wished to stress the chorale and make it prominent, but also to Walther’s style of composition and to his fondness for certain contrapuntal devices.

Walther wrote two kinds of chorale fugues. The first type is rather free in character. It combines elements of the fugue with those of the canon, thus suggesting the chorale fantasies of Michael Praetorius and Samuel Scheidt—undoubtedly the greatest organ literature based on the chorale written in the first half of the 17th century. In his free chorale fugues Walther, at times, uses the opening phrase of the chorale not only as dux but also as a sort of Leitmotiv for the entire composition. The other phrases of the chorale serve as themes for their respective parts of these chorale fugues, their countertheme occasionally being the opening phrase of the chorale. The best example of this type of composition is Walther’s Choralvorspiel based on “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott,”^[23] one of his better-known chorale preludes.

The second type of chorale fugue written by Walther is perhaps best represented by the closing movement of his variations on “Jesu meine Freude,”^[24] where a rather free fugue is played on the manuals (keyboards), while the chorale is played as cantus firmus on the pedals. The prelude on “Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort”^[25] is a two-voice fugue, the cantus firmus being played on the pedals; however, the fugue proper is not free, its materials having been taken from the cantus firmus. Another fugue of this type is his prelude on “Gott des Himmels und der Erden.”^[26]

In not a few Choralvorspiele Walther follows the conventional pattern of fugue writing: the theme is announced in the bass in the tonic key, then moves to the tenor in the dominant key, returns to the tonic in the alto, and finally to the dominant in the soprano. In many of these fugued preludes the counterpoint is very free; cf. “Herr Jesu Christ, ich weiss gar wohl”^[27] and “Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist.”^[28]In his first prelude on “Ein’ feste Burg” Walther follows this conventional pattern (using I and V); however, as stated before, he consistently uses the opening phrase of the chorale as the counterpoint. Incidentally, he likewise frequently uses the opening phrase of the chorale in the interludes of his chorale fugues.

At times Walther uses the second phrase of the chorale as counterpoint to the first, e.g., in his preludes on the chorales “Das alte Jahr vergangen ist” (measure 16),^[29]“Herr Jesu Christ, ich weiss gar wohl,”^[30]>and “Ach Gott und Herr.”^[31]In a prelude on “Erschienen ist der herrlich’ Tag”^[32]the first and second phrases of the chorale make up the theme in the exposition, part company in the counter exposition, and appear again toward the close of the composition, the second theme serving as counterpoint to the first.—In his prelude on “Es woll’ uns Gott genädig sein”^[33] the second phrase of the chorale furnishes the thematic material for the interludes.

Those who are acquainted with the chorale fugues of Pachelbel will recognize the influence this composer exerted over Walther. Just how this came about is rather difficult to determine with absolute certainty. Undoubtedly Walther had copied much of Pachelbel’s music. Neither must one forger that Walther had been a pupil of Buttstedt, who, in turn, had been a pupil of Pachelbel. The fact that Buttstedt may have been a poor teacher does not preclude his directing pupils to what was intrinsically good. Nor should one forget that Walther had made it a point to make the acquaintance of Pachelbel’s son, Wilhelm Hieronymus, and that, after all, Pachelbel had been one of the foremost composers of organ music of Germany and hence naturally enjoyed a following. Among his followers was also J. S. Bach, who, in his youth, copied the music of Pachelbel in the moonlight in his brother’s attic. However, also Pachelbel had been influenced by others, notably by Samuel Scheidt, who had much in common with Jan P. Sweelinck and Michael Praetorius.

It is therefore not surprising that many of Walther’s preludes treat the entire chorale in the style of the chorale fantasies of Scheidt and Praetorius. They are, however, much shorter than the fantasies of these men, and the individual sections likewise are much shorter than the sections of a chorale fantasy. Many of these preludes, are, therefore, fantasies in miniature form. A comparison of Walther’s prelude on “Ein’ feste Burg,” which is only two pages long, with Michael Praerorius’ long fantasy on this same chorale^[34] will bear out this point. However, the practice of writing short fantasies of this type was adopted also by the composers of the North, e.g., by Dietrich Buxtehude in his prelude on “Herzlich tut mich verlangen.”^[35]

In the “Foreword” to the third part of his Tabulatura Nova, Scheidt said that he had written this part “in gratiam potissimum eorum, qui pure et absque ullo colore Organo ludere gaudent.” The cantus firmi of this part are all associated with Latin texts.^[36] Now Dietrich^[37] points out that Scheidt used the expression pure et absque ullo colore to indicate the proper treatment of liturgical texts. In treating secular texts (Liedvariationen), ornamentation was considered important. Such, however, was not the case in the variations on liturgical texts. In the third part of his Tabulatura Nova, Scheidt did not ornament any of the cantus firmi, since they were all liturgical. Furthermore, his counterpoint, being delineated from the cantus firmus, is never free or florid. This practice of Scheidt’s was in keeping with the dicta of numerous Kirchenordnungen. The foreword of the Kirchenordnung published in the Hamburg Melodeyn Gesangbuch of 1604 prescribes that the cantus firmi of figurate music should not be “made difficult and lengthened by coloratura passages or flourishes of virtuosity, but should remain beautifully simple as they have come to us.”^[38] According to Dietrich, the expression pure meant that the cantus firmus must not be ornamented, but kept plain, while the expression absque ullo colore^[39]meant that the counterpoint should not be free, independent, and ornamental, but conform closely to the simple nature and spirit of the chorale or cantus firmus itself.^[40] Such was the approved practice for treating a liturgical cantus firmus. The only change permitted was to lengthen or shorten the time signature—from 4/4 to 2/2, or from 4/1 to 4/4. But the ornamentation considered desirable in the Liedvariationen was frowned upon in the liturgical Choralvariationen.

In composing variations on ordinary chorales as distinct from the liturgical chorales, however, Scheidt, Steigleder, and others followed a middle course, which was in effect a synthesis of the two practices. The cantus firmus became, at times, moderately florid. It was also played as a solo on a separate manual, something not done in the time of Praetorius. Scheidt justified this practice on the ground that thus the cantus firmus could be heard more distinctly.^[41] Pachelbel, in general, followed the principles of Scheidt and Steigleder, except for not hewing as strictly to the line as did Scheidt. In Pachelbel’s music the cantus firmus is almost invariably plain. Only in the prelude on “Wir glauben all’ an einen Gott”^[42] did he add coloratura passagework. His counterpoint, on the other hand, is more independent and freer than Scheidt’s, who, as stated before, held that the counterpoint be derived from, and be closely related to, the cantus firmus.

What, now, did Walther do? He was influenced by Scheidt as well as by Pachelbel. He followed Scheidt, for example, in his preludes (which really constitute a partita) on “Ach Gott und Herr,” a non-liturgical chorale. They, like the music of Scheidt, are very thematic in character, and in them also the contrapuntal material is derived from the chorale.^[43] In his preludes (partita) on the liturgical chorale “Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr’” (Gloria in Excelsis) the counterpoint, being delineated from the cantus firmus, is moderately florid, since the character of the chorale compelled him, for the sake of contrast and variety, to introduce greater flow into his composition. But he did this with the reserve of a scrupulous church musician. One senses not only the influence of Scheidt and Pachelbel, but also of the Central German School. Frotscher says concerning the composers of Central Germany: “The organ composer of Central Germany does not use the phrases of a hymn to fantasize indiscriminately, but observes carefully the character of the tune from which they have been taken.”^[44] Taking into consideration the pronounced thematic character of Walther’s compositions based on the chorale, one is forced already at this point to suspect that designating Walther as a second Pachelbel is rather misleading.

The stronger influence of Samuel Scheidt becomes even more apparent when one considers Walther’s love for canonic effects. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and histories of music, if they mention Walther’s name at all, invariably record the fact that Walther made much use of the canon. In fact, very little of his music fails to reveal his great fondness for canon and imitation. In this respect he differs from Pachelbel, who, though he used imitation and canonic effects, displays a pronounced preference for the fugue. Frotscher, Brodde, and others trace the influence back to Samuel Scheidt, who made much use of canon and imitation in his variations on liturgical hymns.^[45] I believe, however, that this practice stems at least in part from that of Michael Praetorius, whose organ compositions based on the chorale likewise contain much canonical treatment and are closely related also in spirit to the chorale preludes of Johann Walther. The canon was clearly used by Walther to intensify, to add emphasis, and to condense. In this respect his use of the canon closely resembles that of Matthias Weckmann, who was fond of presenting the cantus firmus through the medium of a canon. The fact, however, must not be overlooked that in all probability Weckmann had been influenced by Samuel Scheidt. Some scholars, therefore, believe that Weckmann was merely the medium through whom Scheidt influenced Walther.

Although Walther had a strong conservative bent, we must not conclude that he was influenced only by Scheidt, Michael Praetorius, Weckmann, Pachelbel, and by the Central German School. Likewise the influence of the North is very evident.

While the use of florid and ornamental counterpoint in Walther’s music may betray the influence of the North, it would not be wise to place too much stress on this argument. The florid counterpoint used occasionally by Walther, e.g., in his “Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele,”^[46] bears just as much resemblance, I believe, to the florid counterpoint used occasionally by Pachelbel and even by Scheidt in their compositions based on nonliturgical hymns. More convincing arguments may be advanced to show that Walther was influenced strongly by the composers of the North.

It is generally known that Pachelbel and Scheidt refused to change the character of the cantus firmus by depriving it of its pristine simplicity and rendering it more ornate. We have stated previously that Pachelbel injected ornamental elements into the cantus firmus of only one Choralvorspiel. In this point, however, Walther differed radically from Scheidt and Pachelbel. In fact, an examination of Walther’s use of the cantus firmus makes one wonder how Mattheson, and others after him, could refer to Walther as a mere imitator of Pachelbel.

At times, Walther indeed employs a cantus firmus without ornamentation or figuration, as in his treatment of “Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr.’” However, even in this composition, which is based on a liturgical chorale, the cantus firmus, after appearing in plain fashion, is later repeated with interesting figuration and ornamentation.^[47] Walther follows the same principle in his prelude on “Gott des Himmels und der Erden.”^[48] Here the opening phrase of the chorale is at first presented in simple fashion except for one turn and a few mordents, but is later taken up as cantus firmus with figuration and ornamentation. In fact, ornamentation abounds in Walther’s work. This characteristic may be attributed to the influence of Couperin and the French, or of Corelli and the Italians, and of Georg Böhm and the North German School. His prelude on “Herzlich tut mich verlangen”^[49] reveals both ornament and florid counterpoint, such as one could only with difficulty imagine Pachelbel using to elaborate this particular chorale. This practice of Walther recalls strongly the cantus firmi of Buxtehude. Fritz Dietrich remarks: “The works of the young composers of Hamburg and Lübeck inevitably compel one to acknowledge the fact that their interest, unlike that of Scheidt, lay primarily, not in developing motifs after the manner of Scheidt, but in tone color.”^[50] One must conclude, too, that much of this music was written for the Klavier, not for the organ.

Another Northern influence on Walther appears in his use of echo effects. Though they were employed sparingly and used but incidentally and casually in his Orgelchoräle and Choralvorspiele, the fact remains that Walther did introduce echo effects into his preludes on “Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend”;^[51] “Wenn dich Unglück tut greifen an”;^[52] “Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele”;^[53] and in the partita on “Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan.”^[54]

Another device used by the North German School to be found in Walther was the ritornel, commonly used in operas and oratorios. Brodde believes^[55] that Walther got the idea of using the ritornel not from the North Germans, but from the concertos of Vivaldi, Torelli, and Albioni, some of which he transcribed for the organ. Ritornels were not used by Pachelbel and by the composers of Central Germany. We find an interesting use of the ritornel in Walther’s prelude on “Herr Gott, nun schleuss den Himmel auf”^[56] where the cantus firmus occurs in the tenor and the ritornel in the soprano and alto, while the pedal carries strong reminiscences of a basso ostinato.

The presence of scales and passage work, as in Walther’s prelude on “O Herre Gott, dein göttlich Wort,”^[57] on the other hand, cannot be attributed to specifically North German influence, for these were employed also by Michael Praetorius, Pachelbel, Scheidt, and by not a few composers of Central Germany. Preludes of this type remind us, in fact, of the toccatas of Frescobaldi, the father of the Roman Catholic South German School. At times the compositions of the North German composers seem to have more in common with the music of Frescobaldi than do the compositions of the South Germans. One misses Frescobaldi’s freshness and spontaneity notably in the works of some South Germans. If it is true that Frescobaldi had been the teacher of Franz Tunder, it is not difficult to understand how Frescobaldi may have influenced the North German composers, and also a man like Johann Gottfried Walther, who was certainly influenced by Tunder’s illustrious successor and son-in-law, Dietrich Buxtehude, perhaps the most typical representative of the North German School.

What of Walther’s use of chromatics? His compositions show that he was very fond of using them to express sorrow and grief, as may be seen from his preludes on “Herr Jesu Christ, ich weiss gar wohl, dasz ich einmal muss sterben,”^[58] “Ach Gott, tu dich erbarmen” (a setting of the Kyrie),^[59] and “Warum betrubst du dich, mein Herz.”^[60] In his prelude on “Ach schönster Jesu, mein Verlangen”^[61] he uses chromatics exactly as did the North Germans. Thus, though occurring rarely and at times only incidentally, Walther’s use of chromatics is additional evidence of the influence of the North. We are aware, of course, that chromatics were not used exclusively by the North Germans. Frescobaldi and the organists of South Germany employed them, likewise Pachelbel and Scheidt. In the music of Frescobaldi they are more or less incidental, whereas in the music of the North they almost invariably express profound emotions, grief, sorrow, repentance.

Walther again followed the North Germans by incorporating in his works certain devices of secular music which the composers of Central and South Germany did not adopt so readily for their church music. The counterpoint of “Christus, der uns selig macht”^[62] suggests, at times, English and Dutch music written for the virginal. The same can be said of his prelude on “Von Gott will ich nicht lassen.”^[63] Idioms of music written for the Klavier occur in “Liebster Jesu, wir sind hier”^[64]and “Warum sollt’ ich mich denn grämen.”^[65] Since the tendency to use idioms of Klavier- and virginal music is very pronounced in the Choralvorspiele and Orgelchoräle of Buxtehude, Böhm, and others of the North, their appearance in Walther may well be considered a manifestation of North German influence. Again Walther likely wrote much of this music primarily for the Klavier, perhaps that it might be played also in the homes.

The final evidence of the influence of the North may disturb those who would deny the presence of all secular influences in Walther’s Orgelchoräle and Vorspiele. Yet a careful examination of Walther’s two fine Choralpartitas, “Meinen Jesum lass’ ich nicht”^[66] and “Jesu, meine Freude,”^[67]reveals the fact that both sets of variations have present in them elements of the dance. Of the former, Variation 2 reveals kinship to the bourrée; Var. 3 to the allemande; Var. 5 to the courante. In the latter, traces of the allemande appear in the second variation; of the bourrée, in the fourth and fifth; of the pavane, in the sixth; and of the courante, in the seventh. Furthermore, elements of the gigue may be found in Walther’s variations on “Liebster Jesu, wir sind hier.”^[68] Using dance forms in chorale variations was, of course, not an invention of Walther. It had been done by Buxtehude,^[69] Boehm, Pachelbel, and by J. S. Bach. The practice may be traced back to the early years of the 17th century, when the Kunst- or Stadtpfeifer of Germany would put together several dance tunes and call the entire combination a Partie (German) or partita (Italian). Later such compositions were called suites.—Incidentally, Frotscher^[70] found elements of the gigue even in Walther’s serious prelude based on the Lenten chorale “Jesu Leiden, Pein, und Tod.” Unlike Buxtehude and Böhm, Walther concluded his sets of variations on “Jesu meine Freude” and “Meinen Jesum lass’ ich nicht” with movements that are clearly adaptable to the organ and not in the least related to the dance.

In view of these facts, Martheson’s statement, calling Walther a second Pachelbel, is, to say the least, misleading. Of course, Walther was influenced by Pachelbel. But he was equally susceptible to the influence of Samuel Scheidt, Michael Praetorious, and of the composers of North Germany. What distinguished Walther from Pachelbel^[71]and from the Central German School is the fact that he did not hesitate to use color, figuration, and ornamentation in his cantus firmi. What distinguished him from the North German School is the fact that he is what the Germans call a Motivtechniker. His compositions, therefore, represent a synthesis of the practices of the Central Germans, of Samuel Scheidt, Johann Pachelbel, Michael Praetorius, and of the North Germans.

Why did Walther, in his organ works based on the chorale, follow in the footsteps not only of the conservative, but also of the more liberal composers? Why did he even put the two styles beside each other? Why, for example, does he, as in “Ach schönster Jesu, mein Verlangen,”^[72] present the chorale as the cantus firmus, first as plainly as possible, then as ornately as possible, apparently using a stretto, as if he were eager to get away from the plain chorale to introduce a colorful version of the cantus firmus?Though some will undoubtedly consider it far-fetched and idealistic, the following interpretation has been offered: Scheidt and Pachelbel felt that the plain cantus firmus symbolized a simple, childlike Christian faith and humble obedience to the Word of God; Böhm, Buxtehude, and others of the North felt that an ornamented and colorful cantus firmus symbolized a living and active Christian faith, free from legalism and devoid of undue restraint. Since Walther was a profoundly religious man, one may conclude that his church music is symbolic of the fusion of these two attitudes of Christian faith.

Above we referred to the fact that in forty of Walther’s 285 extant organ works based on the chorale it appears as cantus firmus only once. In all the others the chorale was used at least twice, each time as the cantus firmus of a separate movement. A careful study of these various presentations of the chorales as cantus firmi reveals that there is no inner (textual, liturgical) reason for the number of presentations of the chorale. In these 285 compositions Walther offers two or more movements based on the cantus firmus, from which the organist may make his choice or selections. They are, therefore, unlike the chorale partitas or the chorale variations, of the per omnes versus type. Walther did not use the designation alio modo employed by other composers in compositions of this type. Frequently Walther simply connected several preludes based on the same chorale, producing a partita or a set of Choralvariationen.^[73]According to Max Seiffert,^[74] Adlung had reported that Walther re-used several of his preludes on “Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr” in his partita on this chorale, “wiewohl einige Variationes schon sehr alt waren.”^[75] According to Brodde,^[76] eight partitas are said to have been patched together in this way.^[77]

A few words on some of these partitas will afford a clear view of the idioms and practices of Walther. The partita “Ach Gott und Herr”^[78] consists of seven parts or variations. The hymn itself originally consisted of six stanzas, written in 1604 by M. Martin Rutilius; four stanzas were added later by D. Johann Major. Throughout his partita, Walther delineated the counterpoint from the chorale. In each section of the partita the various phrases of the chorale are segmented and separated from one another by rests. In each case, too, the cantus firmus is introduced by anticipatory imitation, that is, the fugal treatment found at the beginning in half- or quarter-note values prepares for the final appearance of the chorale in its full-note values. Each of the seven partitas is a prelude by itself, quite independent of the preceding and following part; in other words, the partita is a collection of seven independent chorale preludes, none of which is dependent for its interpretation upon any particular stanza of the hymn. Walther here departs from the practice of Scheidt and reflects in the preludes, of which the partita consists, the general spirit of the hymn as a whole. In the first, second, third, fifth, and seventh preludes the cantus firmus is plain, though its rhythm is partly changed in the fifth. In preludes four and six the counterpoint is ornate. The fifth prelude, or partita, may be classified as a chorale fantasy; the others must be regarded simply as preludes.

Walther’s preludes on “Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr”^[79] differ from those based on “Ach Gott und Herr” in more ways than one. Again we find, however, that the partita consists of more parts than the hymn has stanzas: there are eight preludes, whereas the hymn has only four stanzas. While the counterpoint of preludes one, two, three, five, and six is thoroughly independent, that of preludes four, seven, and eight is delineated from the chorale. The seventh prelude is a chorale fugue. Walther’s treatment of the chorale is significant, since “Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr’” is a liturgical chorale, the German Gloria in Excelsis Deo. He here departs from the practice of Samuel Scheidt and writes liturgical music in which the counterpoint is not derived from the cantus firmus.

The variations on “Jesu, meine Freude”^[80] and “Meinen Jesum lass’ ich nicht”^[81] are of special interest, since they are probably the most popular of Walther’s chorale variations. Their popularity is, perhaps, due largely to the fact that Straube included them in two of his famous collections of music. Here are variations in the real sense of the word, for the counterpoint is never derived from the basic chorale. The counterpoint enables the composer to present his cantus firmus uninterruptedly in several variations of “Meinen Jesum lass’ ich nicht” and in all variations of “Jesu, meine Freude,” except for the closing fugue, where the cantus firmus, found in the bass, is segmented.

A fusion of the more conservative traits of Scheidt and others and of the freer traits of the North German composers appears in Walther’s eight variations on the Christmas chorale “Lobt Gott, ihr Christen, allzugleich.”^[82] In some of the variations the counterpoint is delineated from the chorale; in others it is independent. The cantus firmus is plain in certain of the variations; in others it is colored and ornamental. Variations three and seven are related to the allemande; variations four, five and eight are related to the bourrée. In two of the variations Walther put special stress on the opening phrase of the chorale. He repeats it again and again, as in the first prelude on “Ein’ feste Burg.” These variations are not easily adaptable to the organ since they were written originally for the clavichord.

Walther’s independent preludes and fugues in C Major, D minor, and A Major reveal a Central German influence as well as Pachelbel’s. The fugues are of larger proportions than those of the Central Germans, many of which are hardly more than fughettas. In the preludes, Walther shows his fondness for imitation; they are usually related to the fugues with which they are united.

The independent preludes and fugues of Walther could be discussed at length; however, I shall restrict myself to a brief discussion of the compositions edited by Max Seiffert and published by Kismet and Siegel.^[83]

The Toccata and Fugue in C Major^[84] begins with a florid recitative in the manner of the freer independent compositions of Dietrich Buxtehude and Franz Tunder. In measure seven the florid recitative is replaced by music which is more contrapuntal and also more severe in character. In the sixteenth measure three massive tonic and submediant chords lead to the dominant of the dominant. They are followed by a section in G major, in which Walther makes much use of imitation. The Toccata closes with a recitative-like passage. The fugue is rather unusual. Measures 1–25 are based on the main theme of the fugue. In measure 9 the counterpoint appears. The theme and its counterpoint furnish the material for the interludes. In measure 50 appears the theme, which has clearly been taken from the principal theme. This theme is developed in measures 50–63, the original theme being ignored entirely. In measures 64–73, however, we again have the original theme, coupled this time with the theme which has been delineated from it. The fugue thus consists of three parts. Brodde^[85] concludes that this practice reveals the influence of either Buxtehude or Bruhns. The influence of the North is indicated, I believe, also by the double-pedal part.

The Prelude and Fugue in A Major^[86] begins with a pedal passage, as do some compositions by the North Germans, but presently changes to the development of small motifs and to a frequent use of sequences. The strength of this composition lies in its purely objective character. The theme of its fugue reminds one of the tune “St. Anne.”

Max Seiffert holds that Walther’s Concerto in G Major^[87] is unique in organ literature and is as important in its field as is Bach’s Italian Concerto in Clavier literature. The concerto was written in 1741. Its title does not suggest whether it was originally written for the organ or for the cembalo. The style does not suggest that it was written for the organ. Brodde^[88] correctly points out that the composition was written at a time when the distinction between Clavier and organ compositions had not been definitely fixed. It may be well to recall at this point that Bach’s six trio sonatas as well as his Passacaglia in C minor were not written originally for the organ, even though today we think of them only as organ compositions. The concerto has five movements: Prelude (Adagio-Allegro), Largo, Vivace (with aria and ritornel), Aria, Vivace. Brodde^[89] finds in this concerto traits of the canzon da sonar, of the sonata de chiesa, and of the concerto grosso. He likewise claims importance for this work, since it put at the disposal of the organist the form and use of the Italian concerto and thus helped to pave the way for Bach’s organ transcriptions of concertos by Vivaldi and other Italian masters.

The Alcuni Variations of Walther,^[90]which were built on a bass by Corelli, are not variations in the usual sense of the word. They form, in reality, a passacaglia, presenting contrapuntal motifs over a basso continuo. The third variation is in the form of a gigue, of which Corelli had written the upper part and the figured bass, while Walther supplied only the middle voice. Walther, at times, wrote out the ornaments found in these compositions since, though familiar to violinists, they were not so to organists. French influence is very apparent, particularly in the use and choice of ornaments.

Unfortunately, much of Walther’s absolute organ music has been lost. It is known that he wrote many compositions of this type. However, we might point to the fact that, while Walther’s great contemporary, Dietrich Buxtehude, appears at his best in absolute organ music, the opposite is true of Johann Gottfried Walther, who was at his best in organ compositions based on the chorale. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear Terry say: “Walther was second only to Bach himself as a composer in the organ-Choralvorspiel form.”^[91]

We have referred to the influence certain other masters exerted on Johann Gottfried Walther. That he was influenced by others we by no means deny. The same may be said of Bach and many other masters. However, we are reluctant to particularize such influences; only too often the supposed proof for such statements turns out to be specious. In Walther’s case in particular we prefer to say that Walther, a dutiful servant of the Church, made it a point to master all the techniques needed by a good composer of his day in order better to equip himself for the work he was called upon to do as a musician of the Church.

References and Footnotes

1. H. W. Engel, Walthers Leben und Werke (diss., Leipzig, 1904)
2. Otto Brodde, Johann Gottfried Walther—Leben und Werk (Kassel, 1937), p. 4.
3. Cf. Walther’s autobiographical report in Mattheson’s Ehrenpforte, ed. Max Schneider (1910), p. 387; and Walther’s letter of October 3, 1729, in Brodde, pp. 4 and 63, which gives a more detailed account than the one in the Ehrenpforte.
4. Brodde, p. 4.
5. Mattheson, p. 387; Brodde, p. 4. In his letter of October 3, 1729, Walther refers to him as David Adlung; in the autobiographical sketch in the Ehrenpforte, as Jacob Adlung. This teacher of Walther’s must not be confused with the musician, scholar and theologian Jacob Adlung, born 1699, who was a pupil of Walther and who succeeded Buttstedt as organist of the Hauptkirche of Erfurt upon Buttstedt’s death in 1727.
6. Mattheson, p. 388.
7. Brodde, p. 4.
8. Strange to say, Gotthold Frotscher, Geschichte des Orgelspiels und der Orgelkomposition (Max Hesse’s Verlag, Berlin-Schöneberg, 1935),Vol. I, does not mention the fact that Walther studied with Buttstedt; nor do others.
9. In his letter of October 3, 1729, he explained his action with the words, weil aber der Ort mir verhasst gemacht wurde (since, however, I had been brought to abhor the place).
10. Johann Nikolaus Forkel, Über Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerke (Bärenreiter Verlag, Augsburg, 1925 [reprint]), p 34; also Charles Sanford Terry, Bach, A Biography (Oxford University Press, 1928), p. 90.
11. Philipp Spitta, Johann Sebastian Bach. Vierte Auflage (Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig, 1930), p. 388.
12. Brodde, p. 9.
13. E.g., Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1926), V, 430.
14. Johann Mattheson, Vollkommener Kapellmeister (1739), p. 476: “mit Recht der zweite, wo nicht an Kunst des erste Pachelbel.”
15. Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, V, 430.
16. Henry C. Lahee, The Organ and Its Masters. Seventh impression (The Page Co., Boston, 1917), p. 103.
17. Frotscher, p. 640: “Die Gesänge sind, auf die Pachelbelsche Art,sehr nett und harmoniös ausgearbeitet.” Quoted by Frotscher from Mattheson’s Critica Musica, II, 175.
18. Brodde, pp. 24 ff.
19. Fritz Dietrich, Geschichte des deutschen Orgelchorals im XVII Jahrhundert (Bärenreiter Verlag, Kassel), 1932.
20. Contemporary church music was rarely published in the days of Walther and Bach, largely because of its provincial character or use. Much of the music was based on Lutheran chorales, and many chorales, even the gems of the 16th century, were used only in certain towns, cities, and communities, remaining quite unknown in other localities. It was not unusual to find certain chorales very popular in one town and altogether unknown in the neighboring town—a deplorable situation, due in part to the Pietistic Movement of Germany, which discarded not a few of the fine objective and rugged chorales of the 16th century. Hence it did not pay to publish much music, since it sold only in certain communities and in smaller quantities. Much music, too, was written for special occasions (Gelegenheitsmusik) in certain churches and for that reason could hardly enjoy a wide sale and use. Cf. Hermann Kretzschmar, Bach Kolleg (Breitkopf und Härtel, 1922), p. 32.
21. Op. cit., I, 638.
22. Op. cit., p. 20.
23. See selections from Chorale Preludes by Masters of the XVII and XVIII Centuries in Anthology of Sacred Music Series, compiled and edited by Walter E. Buszin (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis 18, Mo., 1948), Vol. I (BA 1), 75 ff. Cp. also Denkmäler deutscher Tonkunst (D. d. T.), ed. Max Seiffert, vols. 26 and 27 (Breitkopf Härtel, Leipzig), No. 23.
24. See selections from Memorial Collection of Chorale Preludes by Johann Gottfried Walther in Anthology of Sacred Music Series, selected and edited by Walter E. Buszin (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis 18, Mo.), Vol. II (BA 2), 45 ff. Also D. d. T., No. 54.
25. D. d. T., No. 26.
26. BA 2, pp. 30–32; D. d. T., No. 36.
27. D. d. T., No. 45, v. 4.
28. Ibid., No. 71.
29. Ibid., No. 19.
30. Ibid., No. 45, v. 4.
31. Ibid., No. 3.
32. Ibid., No. 27.
33. lbid., No. 32; BA 2, pp. 68 ff.
34. Edited by Heinrich Fleischer (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1954).
35. Dietrich Buxtehudes Werke für Orgel, ed. Phil. Spitta (Breitkopf & Härtel, 1876); II, 78 and 79.
    Six Chorale Preludes by Dietrich Buxtehude, edited, collected, and arranged by Seth Bingham (J. Fischer & Bros., New York), No. 8090, pp. 5–7: “O Lord, to Me, Poor Sinner.”
36. The prelude on “Jesus Christus, unser Heiland” is no exception, since it is a translation of the Latin hymn, Jesus Christus, Nostra Salus. The chorale variations of the first part of the Tabulatura Nova, except for one hymn with a Latin text found in the second part, are all based on German chorales.
37. Op. cit., p. 24.
38. “nicht mit Koloraturen und mit umherfahrenden Kunstgesängen schwer gemacht und verlängert, sondern fein schlicht, wie sie auf uns kommen sind.” Dietrich, p. 23.
39. In the quotation “in gratiam potissimum eorum, qui pure et absque ullo colore organo ludere gaudent.”
40. Ibid., p. 24.
41. Tabulatura Nova, III, Instructions to the organist. Cf. Dietrich, pp. 26 ff.
42. Musica Sacra, Sammlung der besten Meisterwerke des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts für die Orgel (Franz Commer, Bote und Bock, Berlin), I, 258–259.
43. D. d. T., No. 3.
44. Op. cit., p. 625: “Der mitteldeutsche Orgelkomponist fantasiert nicht wahllos über die Zeilenthemen und über sie hinweg, sondern beachtet sorgfältig den Charakter der Melodien.”
45. Tabulatura Nova, part III; cf. his Magnificats, likewise his variations on the hymns Christe, qui lux es et dies and O lux beata Trinitas.
46. Johann G. Walther, Chorale Partita on Soul, Adorn Thyself with Gladness, edited by Walter E. Buszin (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis 18, Mo.).
47. D. d. T., No. 8.
48. Ibid., No. 36; BA 2, pp. 30–32.
49. Johann Gottfried Walther, Orgelchoräle, ed. Hermann Poppen (Bärenreiter Verlag, Kassel, 1930), p. 55.
50. Op. cit., p. 46: “Es ist eine unmittelbar sich aufdrängende Wahrnehmung, die man in den Werken der jüngeren Hamburger und Lübecker Meister macht, dass diese Komponisten nicht, wie etwa Scheidt, Motivtechniker, sondern in erster Linie Koloratisten sind.”
51. D. d .T., Vols. 26 and 27, No. 44.
52. Ibid., No. 94.
53. Ibid., No. 71; BA 2, pp. 96 ff.
54. D. d. T., No. 91.
55. Brodde, p. 36.
56. D. d. T., Vols. 26 and 27, No. 43.
57. Ibid., No. 78.
58. Ibid., No. 45.
59. Ibid., No. 2.
60. Ibid., No. 89.
61. Ibid., No. 6, v. 2; BA 2, pp. 81 ff.
62. D. d. T., No. 17; BA 2, p. 9.
63. D. d. T., No. 86.
64. Ibid., No. 60; BA 1, pp. 82 ff.
65. D. d. T., No. 90; BA 2, pp. 108 ff.
66. Ibid., No. 68.
67. Ibid., No. 54; BA 2, pp. 45 ff.
68. D. d. T., No. 60; BA 1, p. 86.
69. Cf., e.g., Buxtehudes dance variations on the chorale “Auf meinen lieben Gott.” Spitta, II, 132 ff.
70. Op. cit., p. 639.
71. Some scholars identify Pachelbel with the Central German School; others regard him as being in a class by himself.
72. D. d. T.,No. 6, v. 2; BA 2, pp. 81 ff.
73. Brodde, p. 48.
74. D. d. T., Introduction, p. XX.
75. “. . . although several variations were already very old.”
76. Op. cit., p. 48.
77. I.e.: “Ach Gott und Herr”; “Ach was soll ich Sunder machen”; “Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr”; “Aus der Tiefe rufe ich”; “Erschienen ist der herrlich Tag”; “Lob sei dem allmächtigen Gott”; “Wie soll ich dich empfangen”; “Wir Christenleut.’” Among those written originally as partitas or chorale variations are the following: “Herr Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend”; “Jesu, meine Freude” “Lobt Gott, ihr Christen allzugleich”; “Mach’s mit mir, Gott, nach deiner Güt’”; “Meinen Jesus lass’ ich nicht.”
78. D. d. T., Nos. 3–9.
79. Ibid., No. 8.
80. Ibid., No. 54; BA 2, pp. 45 ff. Choralvorspiele alter Meister, ed. Karl Straube (Peters ed., Leipzig, 1907), pp. 142 ff.
81. D. d. T., No. 68. Alte Meister des Orgelspiels, ed. Karl Straube (Peters ed., Leipzig, 1904), I, 100 ff.
82. D. d. T., No. 64; Johann Gottfried Walther, Chorale Partita “Praise God, the Lord, Ye Sons of Men,” ed. Walter E. Buszin (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis 18, Mo., 1948).
83. Organum, ed. Max Seiffert (Kistner & Siegel, Leipzig, 1930), Vierte Reihe, No 15.
84. Ibid., p. 3 ff. D. d. T. Vols. 26 and 27, pp. 257ff.
85. Op. cit. p. 52.
86. Organum Series, p. 8 ff. D. d. T. Vols. 26 and 27, p. 268 ff. Johann Gottfried Walther, “Prelude and Fugue in A Major,” ed. Walter E. Buszin (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis 18, Mo., 1948).
87. Organum Series, Introduction and p. 13 ff. D. d. T., Vols. 26 and 27, p. 275 ff.
88. Op. cit., p. 53.
89. Ibid., p. 59.
90. Organum Series, p. 21 ff. D. d. T., Vols. 26 and 27, p. 301 ff.
91. Op. cit., p. 89.

From The Musical Heritage of the Church, Volume IV (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1954). Copyright Concordia Publishing House. Printed by permission. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Concordia Publishing House.