Exactly three hundred years ago today, on Sept. 1, 1653, a new-born baby boy was baptized in the famous Sankt Lorenz Kirche of Nuremberg, Germany, who later became a musician of immortal renown. The boy was given the name Johann, a name which was so common in that day that it often leads us into confusion. His family name was by no means common; in fact, it was so unusual that many of our day wonder how one must pronounce it. They do not know where to place its accent, whether it belongs on its penult or antepenult. According to Hans Joachim Moser,^[1] the name was derived from "Albrecht am Bache"; via the process of elision and diminution this was reduced to "Pachélbel."

Johann's father was not a musician but a tinsmith, and it evidently seemed self-evident to him and his good wife that Johann should receive a good education steeped in the distinctive Lutheran traditions of Nuremberg. Johann Mattheson, whose Grundlage einer Ehrenpforte^[2] speaks of Johann Pachelbel as "ein weitberühmter Musikus und bestverdienter Organist," reports that already at an early age Johann manifested not only noteworthy musical aptitude and talent but likewise unusual abilities and interest in academic studies, notably in Latin and in the humanities. His love for these subjects remained with him into the later years of his life.

In his early youth Johann attended first the Laurentzer Hauptschule and later, according to Moser,^[3]the Aegidienschule, both of Nuremberg. In the meantime he acquired the ability to play various musical instruments; however, he specialized in the study of the Clavier under the expert guidance of Heinrich Schwemmer (1621-1696), who at the time was an assistant at St. Lorenz but who achieved fame after 1658, while serving at St. Sebaldus in Nuremberg.

While serving at St. Sebaldus, Schwemmer completed his musical training under the guidance of Johann Erasmus Kindermann of Nuremberg's St. Aegidienkirche. It was in no small measure due to Kindermann's noteworthy ability as a teacher that Schwemmer became an unusually skillful teacher of music. Among his noted pupils we find not only the name of Johann Pachelbel but also that of Johann Krieger (1651-1735), the younger brother of Johann Philipp Krieger. While neither Schwemmer nor Kindermann rank as great composers of the Lutheran church, they did play important parts as members of the Nürnberger Schule of Lutheran church music, which, let us not forget, included also such illustrious personalities as Hans Leo Hassler, Johann Staden, and Georg Kaspar Wecker. Wecker (1632-1695), like Schwemmer, was connected with the St. Sebaldus Kirche and was a most successful teacher; among his pupils we find not only men like Johann Krieger, Christian Friedrich Witt, and Nikolaus Vetter, but likewise the young man who ultimately became his successor at St. Sebaldus, Johann Pachelbel.

When we bear in mind that this Nürnberger Schule of Lutheran church music forms the connecting link between Samuel Scheidt and Johann Sebastian Bach, we begin to realize how important this entire Nürnberg background was for Johann Pachelbel who, as a member of the Nürnberger Schule, helped to bridge the gulf between Scheidt and Bach.

In 1668 Johann Pachelbel left his home in Nuremberg in order to continue his studies at the Gymnasium in Altdorf. Musical activities at this school began to flourish beginning with 1595, at which time Gotthard Erythräus (d. 1617) became its cantor. Erythräus later became rector of the school and served in this capacity until 1617, the year of his death. His four-part settings of the chorales of Martin Luther give evidence of the spirit and musicianship which flourished at this Gymnasium until the days in which Johann Pachelbel spent three fourths of a year there as a student. Young Pachelbel's musical talent was here recognized and, though only fifteen years old, he served as organist of the Gymnasium. This was his first position as organist.

In order to complete his humanistic and classical training, Johann Pachelbel now proceeded to Regensburg where, because of his extraordinary ability,^[4]he was accepted not merely as another student but as an Alumnus gymnasii poetici. A noted Lutheran composer of bygone days had brought fame to this school, just as Erythräus had brought it to the Gymnasium at Altdorf. I refer to Andreas Raselius (ca. 1563-1602), an expert contrapuntist, who had functioned as cantor in Regensburg until 1600. Here Johann Pachelbel studied music with Kaspar Prentz (Preniz), a former pupil of Johann Kaspar Kerll (1627-1693). It was here, too, that his training in music became wholesomely broader. Prentz acquainted him not only with the precious music of Kerll but likewise with Italian music of the early and middle Baroque era, as well as with the rich musical heritage of the Roman Catholic Church.

Having decided by this time to devote his life to music, Johann Pachelbel resolved to study in Vienna after completing his work in Regensburg. Vienna was already then a musical mecca of Europe. Johann Jakob Froberger, who died in 1667, had added to the fame of the city, and Allesandro Poglietti was organist of the Imperial Court in Vienna until 1683. What is more, Emperor Leopold I was an ardent devotee of music and a musician of no mean ability. A few months after Pachelbel's arrival in Vienna, none other than Johann Kaspar Kerll took up residence in this great city. This was indeed fortunate for Johann Pachelbel, who likely lost no time getting acquainted personally with Kerll. In Vienna the musical talents of the young Nuremberg musician found ready recognition, as may be seen from the fact that he there soon became not only a pupil but likewise the assistant of Kerll.

Indeed, in Vienna, Johann Pachelbel, who had been brought up in the strict Lutheran traditions of Nuremberg, now became organist at the world-famous Roman Catholic St. Stephen's Cathedral. He held this post for several years. We think in this connection of Hans Leo Hassler and Heinrich Schütz, who received their most advanced musical training from the Gabrielis of St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice. We think even of Johann Rosenmüller, who fled from wicked tongues of Germany and found a haven of refuge in Venice, there enjoying the company of Rovetta, Legrenzi, and Ziani, and who there, too, served as teacher of the talented Lutheran composer Johann Philipp Krieger, a native of Nuremberg, whom we referred to before.

While neither Hassler nor Schütz nor Rosenmüller became organists of a Roman Catholic church or cathedral, the fact remains that, like Pachelbel, they did expose themselves to extra-Lutheran philosophies and practices and evidently benefited from them. They did not go to Rome, where Roman Catholic purism was fostered; on the contrary, they went to cities like Venice and Vienna where the worship practices of the Roman Catholic Church were climactic and dynamic, even magnificent and pompous.

As you know, St. Stephen's of Vienna later exerted a tremendous and lasting influence on young Joseph Haydn. Georg Reutter, a pupil of Kerll and later the choir director of St. Stephen's, did much to shape the musical thinking of young Joseph Haydn through his sumptuous performances of church music; these had clearly come under the spell of Italian opera and revealed operatic influence rather than the influence of Johann Kaspar Kerll. We are forced to think of this very fact whenever we hear the masses and oratorios of Joseph Haydn.

Johann Pachelbel was influenced similarly at St. Stephen's in Vienna. That he did not depart as far from ecclesiastical practices and traditions as did Joseph Haydn was due not only to his own natural predisposition but likewise to the fact that he belonged to an earlier generation, that he was associated with a man who, after all, was a greater master than Georg Reutter; it was due also to the fact, as we shall hear again later, that Johann Kaspar Kerll was both a great teacher and a great composer. In addition, Kerll was an instrumentalist rather than an opera composer or a choral director; he likely possessed a better sense of liturgical propriety than did Georg Reutter.

The influence which Johann Kaspar Kerll exerted upon Johann Pachelbel at St. Stephen's was as wholesome as it was necessary; it helped to round out young Pachelbel as a musician and as a composer. It taught him the value of freedom but impressed upon him also the desirable first fruits of good discipline. Here he was exposed to Venetian, to Italian, and to French music. These varied types not only relaxed him and eradicated some of his enslaving inhibitions, but they likewise impressed upon him the need for clarity and form. The colorful splendor of St. Stephen's evidently did not take him captive; when exposed to the definiteness of form advocated by the French and Italian masters whose music he heard in Vienna, he undoubtedly became aware of the importance of writing clearly and lucidly. After all, the chief purpose of musical form is to compel the composer to practice self-restraint, to organize his materials logically and intelligibly, and to bring to a head what he desires to present and say. However, in addition to learning this, Johann Pachelbel learned, too, to couple with such healthy discipline the freedom which composer, performer, and artist need.

Johann Pachelbel acquired stylistic traits in Vienna which may not be found readily in much of the music of his North German contemporaries. On the other hand, that Pachelbel was acquainted with the music of Northern Germany may be seen from the fact that he dedicated his Hexachordum Apollinis not only to his personal Viennese friend, Ferdinand Tobias Richter, but also to Dietrich Buxtehude of Lübeck. Some claim to find the influence of the North German School in the music of Pachelbel when at times he indulges in the use of dark mystical harmonies in rather low registers of the keyboard. However, unlike his North German contemporaries, he does keep his fantasy in subjection, he does not care for much contrapuntal lacework, and he makes little use of contrast and echo effects. We thus find his South German sobriety and conservatism asserting itself; indeed, we likely find here, too, the results of the ecclesiastical and liturgical discipline to which he was subjected not only in Nuremberg, but even in Vienna.

When we take the background and style of Pachelbel's foremost Viennese teacher into consideration, we recall that the German and Austrian composers of the Roman Catholic Church did not really develop a style of their own but were under the influence of both the Roman and the Venetian schools of Italy.^[5]Thus indirectly the Roman school did exert an influence over Johann Pachelbel. Italian masters occupied key positions in Munich, Salzburg, and Vienna. This explains in part why Johann Kaspar Kerll studied with Giovanni Valentini, who at the time lived in Vienna as organist to Emperor Ferdinand II. But he studied also with Giacomo Carissimi in Rome. In addition, it is well to bear in mind that Kerll was organist not only in Vienna but also in Munich, Prague, and Augsburg.

In Kerll, Pachelbel found another teacher who possessed unusual pedagogical ability; among his pupils we find, besides Johann Pachelbel and Kaspar Prentz, such men as Agostino Steffani, Franz Xaver Murschhauser, Georg Reutter the Elder, and Johann Joseph Fux. Even in the results of Kerll's work as a teacher we can see that high regard for controlled liberty and healthy discipline which he manifests to a great extent in his own compositions. He clearly impressed upon his pupils that same high regard for form, clarity, and order which was held and carried into practice by the Italians as well as by himself; this becomes evident from his own compositions. His toccatas, for example, are not wild and aimless capriccios; on the contrary, they present within their framework a closely knit chain of related thoughts, ideas, and figures. His passage work makes sense and does not overflow with inane splashiness and monotonous repetition.

An examination of Johann Pachelbel's toccatas quickly reveals that Johann Kaspar Kerll's instruction had made a definite impression on the mind and compositorial skill of his talented pupil. However, Pachelbel may hardly be accused of having become a rubber stamp or a stereotyped reproduction of his mentor. When we compare the two, we find that Kerll, despite his virtues as a composer, is nevertheless more baroque in the literal sense of the term; his music is more ornate than that of Pachelbel, who remains true to his Nuremberg tradition and hence more simple, plain, direct. The virtuoso element is by no means entirely absent, and we do find times in which Johann Pachelbel becomes quite ornate and ecstatic; however, he never loses hold on himself.

Manfred Bukofzer sums up the situation thus: "Pachelbel transmitted the virtuoso style of the keyboard playing that prevailed in the Austrian school of central Germany and thus brought about the rapprochement between the Catholic and Protestant organists. A less profound musician than Buxtehude, he was concerned with playfully ingenious rhythmic patterns rather than with stirring harmonies."^[6]

Moser ^[7]is of the opinion that Wilhelm Hieronymus, the son of Johann Pachelbel, relates himself to Kerll more closely than does his father and that he manifests this through his penchant for musical ornamentation. Winterfeld^[8] goes so far as to assert that Pachelbel's toccatas are not to be regarded as church music. While some may insist upon applying this to an opus like the Nuremberg master's Toccata in G Major,^[9]yet does much depend upon how the toccata is played. In this connection it may be well to recall that Winterfeld has misgivings about many compositions of J. S. Bach. Today we readily discount much of what Winterfeld says regarding Bach.

A striking characteristic of Pachelbel's toccatas is his frequent use of a pedal point. By means of his pedal points Pachelbel holds together the passage work of his toccatas and thus unifies his compositions. Whether one is justified in saying that Pachelbel made such use of pedal point in order to symbolize the indestructible character and the permanence of the church is highly debatable, already because Frescobaldi and others followed the same practice likely without having this in mind.

Gotthold Frotscher^[10] concludes that particularly through his toccatas does Pachelbel distinguish himself from Buxtehude, Bruhns, and other toccata composers of the North German School. Kümmerle^[11] sings the praises of Pachelbel's toccatas and insists that in these particularly do we find a revelation of the genius and skill of Johann Pachelbel. His toccatas differ from those of the North in part because they do not include an incorporated fugato and do not attach themselves to a fugue which follows. A few of his smaller and less important toccatas make one wish that a fugue would follow; they seem to lack the independence of a musical unit that can stand on its own feet. Here Bach showed greater wisdom, though we do not wish to imply thereby that those preludes and toccatas which Bach himself linked up with a fugue evince insecure dependence or lack the qualities of great works which of themselves are sufficient. On the other hand, the foremost toccatas of Pachelbel are certainly independent monuments which stand on their own feet with little effort.

It would seem strange indeed to hear that Johann Pachelbel lived in Vienna during the most impressionable years of his life without learning also from Johann Jakob Froberger (1616-1667), a pupil of Frescobaldi, for whom he naturally had high regard. It would be strange, too, to hear that he had not learned from Froberger's successor in Vienna, Allesandro Poglietti (d. 1683), whose Klavier variations he admired profoundly. While the relationship between Pachelbel and Froberger may be seen most clearly in the organ works of Pachelbel, the relationship with Poglietti found expression chiefly in Pachelbel's variations written for a keyboard instrument. We must remember, however, that such variations, even when based on a chorale, were not written for performance at a pipe organ; they were written to be played on a clavichord or harpsichord, on which they are also heard at their best. Their figurate character, as well as the musical ornaments which such partitas and variations of the 17th and early 18th centuries employed, help to substantiate what has just been said.

You may ask: If the chorale and aria variations of Johann Pachelbel were written for the Klavier and not for the organ, then likely they were not written primarily for performance in the church service; where were they to be performed? Our answer is a simple one: They were written as Hausmusik, that is, they were written for performance in the home. Even the cause for their being written is based on a domestic situation which filled the life of Johann Pachelbel with deep-seated grief. While he was serving as organist of the Predigerkirche in Erfurt, a plague struck the city, which was believed to have been initiated by the hostile Turks. All of Erfurt was quarantined, and all contact with the outside world was shut off. No fewer than nine thousand people of Erfurt died, either because of the plague or because of starvation. Among those who died were Pachelbel's young wife and their only child.

The grief-stricken husband and father sought comfort in musical composition and wrote four sets of chorale variations which he called Musicalische Sterbensgedanken aus 4 variierten Chorälen bestehend, anno 1683. These variations were to be played manualiter at a cembalo and were based on four chorales which even today are heard frequently in Lutheran funeral services; they are: Christus, der ist mein Leben (12 variations), Alle Menschen müssen sterben (8 partitas), Herzlich tut mich verlangen (7 partitas), and Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan (9 partitas).

In these Pachelbel does not employ the cantus firmus technique, and here we thus find one departure from the methods employed by Sweelinck and Scheidt. Instead Pachelbel does employ cleverly conceived rhythmical patterns which the Germans call Spielmanieren; at times these let the chorale melody stand out quite clearly, and at other times they offer only intimations of the melody. Despite the fact that Pachelbel was fond of writing chorale partitas and although Moser^[12] refers to them as "monumental," your essayist is of the opinion that they are but bagatelles when compared with the larger toccatas, fugues, chaconnes, fantasies, and other works which Pachelbel based on chorales. I hear in them too much of the rhapsodic Italian spirit of a Poglietti and too little of Pachelbel, the serious-minded and at times grave German and Lutheran. I find in them not many Sterbensgedanken but rather an artifical and stereotyped type of escapist joy. They are not as important for the world of music as are his simple cembalo suites, which at least helped to pave the way for well-tempered tuning and for Bach's monumental Forty-eight.

Pachelbel's Sterbensgedanken are expressed, I believe, with greater depth of feeling in his cantata Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan.This cantata will be published by Concordia Publishing House in an edition prepared by Prof. Dr. Otto Gombosi of Harvard University. In his foreword to this cantata, Professor Gombosi calls attention to the fact that Pachelbel obviously modeled the cantata after a set of chorale variations for organ. While comparing the cantata with the cembalo variations which the composer based on the same chorale hardly convinces us that this cantata has its roots in said variations for cembalo, the fact remains that in this cantata we find proof for Pachelbel's fondness for the variation form.

The same applies to his cantata based on Christ lag in Todesbanden, which has been published jointly by the Bärenreiter Verlag of Kassel, Germany, and by Concordia Publishing House of Saint Louis in an edition prepared by Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht. In it we see clearly where J. S. Bach got some of the best musical and interpretative ideas which he incorporated into his monumental cantata based on this same famous chorale written by Martin Luther. That in his chorale variations Johann Pachelbel at times employs dance forms and patterns illustrates to us that Pachelbel was hardly a purist and that we need not go to Northern Germany and to a Dietrich Buxtehude in order to find chorale variations in which this was done. It shows, too, that a close relationship existed between the suite and the partita and that this music was in reality Volksmusik and Hausmusik.

A great deal of truth accompanies the claim made by those who insist that the variation technique is basic to practically all of Johann Pachelbel's work as a composer. In one of his fantasies, which you will find in a volume dedicated to his works in the Denkmäler deutscher Tonkunst in Bayern (II, No. 11), for example, Pachelbel makes effective use of an ostinato variation. Some fantasies are excerpts from toccatas, in which the figuration of the toccata is tossed about in varied forms over quiet sustained notes and chords. Referring in passing again to his toccatas, we note that Pachelbel is as fond of using a pedal point in his fantasies as he is of using it in his toccatas. One gains the impression, however, that Pachelbel used the name "Fantasy" when he did not know exactly what designation to use. His fantasies are really somewhat hybrid in character; while from the standpoint of musical form they are free, they are by no means formless, aimless, or chaotic. They often have little in common with fantasies by other composers and are really in a class by themselves.

Johann Pachelbel's ricercari, though at times chromatic,^[13] are vocal and motetlike in character. This is not unusual in ricercari. Unlike the motet, they have a sectional construction which makes them more extensive than the motet. The themes of Pachelbel's ricercari quite naturally call for Lebensraum; they call for space also as far as their development is concerned. That his themes and counterthemes are often vocal and cantabile illustrates that he practices what he taught his students, namely, that the parts of all voices must be attractive and good. This he applied also to his fugues, which at times one can distinguish from his ricercari only with a great deal of difficulty. One can readily understand why Franz Commer^[14]uses both names, Fuga and Ricercar, for a composition written in F-sharp minor. While some of Pachelbel's fugues are what we might call strict fugues, many others show that he used the term freely and perhaps even indiscriminately. Some are simply bicinia and tricinia. In these works, too, we find proof for his fondness of variation techniques, and one must agree with Manfred Bukofzer, who makes the amply justified statement: "Like Johann Krieger, Pachelbel was still clearly dependent in his fugues on the transformation technique of the variation ricercar."^[15]

Let us not underestimate the genius of Johann Pachelbel because of his shortcomings. Even while discussing his chorale variations, we compared Pachelbel with Pachelbel. So, too, let us be fair when we discuss his fugues; some illustrate that the fugue had by now progressed no farther than its adolescent stage of development; others again prove that Johann Pachelbel must be counted among those who helped the fugue to arrive at its stage of maturity. To be fair as well as objective in our judgment, we should be content, therefore, to compare Pachelbel not with a Johann Sebastian Bach but rather with Johann Pachelbel and those contemporaries of his who, like himself, were forerunners of Johann Sebastian Bach and as such performed the arduous and very necessary task of preparing the way for the foremost composer of our church. Even the charming little fughettas of Johann Pachelbel incite us to admiration and marvel; they prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were written by a composer of the first water who possessed not only a tremendous amount of musical ability and a great amount of originality and technical skill but likewise a clear, orderly, and well-disciplined mind.

Permit me, at this very time and in connection with the remarks just made, to call special attention to the supernal chaconnes written by Johann Pachelbel. The Ciacona in D Minor has been included by Karl Straube in one of his well-known collections published by C. F. Peters;^[16]Karl Matthaei has included the same chaconne as well as the one in F minor in his collections of organ music by Pachelbel.^[17]Others will be found in the Denkmäler deutscher Tonkunst in Bayern, II.

We are here dealing again with a variation type of music and in these works see Pachelbel in all his glory and greatness. J. S. Bach likely learned much from these works, and there is but one step from the chaconnes of Pachelbel to the Chaconne in D Minor and Passacaglia in C Minor of Johann Sebastian Bach. The chaconnes of Johann Pachelbel are mature, full-grown music; they may well be put beside the great works of this category written by such towering figures of the organ world as Frescobaldi and Buxtehude. In them the great Dietrich Buxtehude meets his foremost compeer and equal.

We find no toccatalike passage work in the chaconnes of Johann Pachelbel but rather melodic themes and phrases over a ground bass. Like in his other variations, in his toccatas, fantasies, ricercari, and fugues, Pachelbel never loses himself; he is sure of his goal, proceeds to it directly, and arrives at the right time. He does not depart far from his basic tonalities and hence builds few, if any, bridges; he includes no padding or stuffing. His music does not dispossess itself of its lucid clarity; his contrapuntal themes and counterthemes may be traced and delineated without great difficulty, and his music never halts or vacillates as it presses onward to emerge from the labyrinthian texture created by Pachelbel's mind and genius. However, to compare it with the labyrinth of Daedalus would be misleading already because the textures of Johann Pachelbel house neither a Minotaur nor monsters of any kind; what they house is life-giving and energizing, not destructive or mortal.

Though all seems simple and self-evident, these chaconnes contain such a wealth of carefully prepared detail amidst all this simplicity that we might well resort to analogy and liken the work of Johann Pachelbel to the clear and yet profound Epistles of St. John, St. Peter, and James, while we liken the work of Johann Sebastian Bach to the straightforward and yet more complex Epistles of St. Paul and to the Epistle to the Hebrews. The simple language and logic employed in his music by Johann Pachelbel should render it ideal for the common man, though, for the same reason, it likely will not appeal to the sophist and snob; its stanch, manly character as well as its moderation and reserve bespeak its competence for use in an edifying type of church service; its lyric and poetic nature qualifies it for use in concert performances of artistic worth, and its solidity and architectonic grandeur should prompt us to hear and perform it when we seek vitality and strength. While these qualities may be found perhaps in richest measure in the chaconnes of Johann Pachelbel, they most certainly may be found also in his other works, notably in his inspiring choral compositions in which he follows the lead of Italian masters and gives us a foretaste of the music of George Frederick Handel.

There are those who believe the music of Pachelbel to be too well-behaved, staid, and uninspiring. Of such we must say that they likely do not really know Johann Pachelbel and his music. Others who have made it a point to become better acquainted with the compositions of the elder Pachelbel feel quite differently about this matter. In fact, careful study and analysis have prompted not a few to conclude that, in the history and development of Lutheran church music, Johann Pachelbel was the first to appear on the scene who composed organ music for the Lutheran church service which possesses intrinsic poetic beauty and charm as well as genuine sparkling lyricism. At the close of Richard Wagner's music drama Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, Hans Sachs, grasping the hand of the victorious Walther, sings in part:

Verachtet mir die Meister nicht,
Und ehrt mir ihre Kunst!
Drum sag ich euch:
Ehrt eure deutschen Meister,
Dann bannt ihr böse Geister!

We might sing similarly regarding the music of Johann Pachelbel and other master composers of the Christian church and say in words related to an extant though faulty translation of the above:

Despise ye not the masters,
But honor their great art!
Hence I insist:
Honor the church's masters,
Thus help stave off disaster!

In 1667 Johann Pachelbel bade farewell to Vienna and to his Viennese comrades and friends, notably to Johann Joseph Fux, Johann Heinrich Schmelzer, and Georg Reutter. He went first to Eisenach, where he served as court organist. Daniel Eberlin, another native of Nuremberg, was Kapellmeister at the court; Eberlin later became the first father-in-law of Georg Philipp Telemann. In Eisenach the twenty-four-year-old Pachelbel became a personal friend of Ambrosius Bach, the father of Johann Sebastian, and likewise of Johann Christoph Bach, the uncle of Johann Sebastian, whom we remember best as the composer of the motet Ich lasse dich nicht and of the 44 Choräle zum Präambulieren.

Pachelbel remained in Eisenach for only a year. In 1678 he consented to become organist of the Predigerkirche in Erfurt, a post formerly held by Johann Bach (1604-1673). Erfurt was a center of the Bach clan; hence in Erfurt all organists were called Bachs. The Predigerkirche of Erfurt became famous in part through the work of its organists, for not only Johann Bach and Johann Pachelbel, but likewise Nikolaus Vetter, Heinrich Buttstedt, Jakob Adlung, and Christian Kittel here served as organists.

In his Erfurt years Pachelbel's fame as a teacher began to spread; the excellent training he received from unusually capable teachers was likely responsible at least in part for the fact that Pachelbel himself became a pre-eminently successful teacher. Not a small amount of his music was written for his pupils, who came to him from many parts of Germany. Among these we find Andreas Nicolaus Vetter, Heinrich Buttstedt, Wilhelm Hieronymus (the son of Johann Pachelbel), Johann Cristoph (the older brother of Johann Sebastian Bach), and a host of lesser lights. These again became the teachers of such well-known personalities of the organ world as Andreas Armsdorff, Georg Friedrich Kauffmann, Johann Gottfried Walther, Johann Michael Bach, Johann Bernhard Bach, and, of course, Johann Sebastian Bach. The pupils of Johann Pachelbel are reported to have learned to know him as a devout Christian, an exemplary church musician, and a devoted teacher.

The twelve years Pachelbel spent in Erfurt were indeed fruitful. However, they were years of trial as well, for it was in Erfurt that he lost his first wife and child through the plague and famine referred to previously. In 1684 he married again, this time the daughter of a Herr Prummert, a coppersmith. In Erfurt Pachelbel had much contact with the Bach clan, whose high regard he enjoyed.

It is possible that Pachelbel began to write his Acht Choräle zum Präambulieren while he was still in Erfurt. Whether he did or not is by no means tremendously important, but it is important that the type of chorale prelude we usually identify with Johann Pachelbel likely had its origin in Erfurt. Hans Joachim Moser^[18] reports that Pachelbel was required not only to accompany the chorale but also thematice praeambulando tractiren, that is, to play thematic preludes. There existed likely a good reason for this demand.

We are reminded in this connection of a resolution passed by the ministerium of Lübeck in 1701 which insisted that hymn boards be used in the churches of Lübeck and that the hymns for the service be posted on these, since the congregations could not ascertain from the preludes played by the organist according to which melody the following hymn was to be sung.^[19]A problem like this would be obviated, therefore, by playing a prelude whose thematic material was derived from the hymn which would follow. The fugal preludes of Pachelbel represent their composer's solution of the problem. They are related, of course, to the more elaborate chorale fantasy and follow the same basic principle. Fugal preludes of this type, in which the entire chorale is presented, belong to the category known as Orgelchoräle.^[20]In others, known to us as chorale fugues, the one principal theme of the entire prelude is the first phrase of the chorale melody.^[21]In a third category, known as the cantus firmus chorale, the chorale melody appears as cantus firmus in sustained notes either in the upper voice or in the bass, while the other voices move along either fugally or in jubilant passage work.^[22] In Pachelbel's works, this third category is often combined with one of the other two; at times it follows a fugal introduction and builds up to an animated climax.^[23]Of one thing we may be sure, when these preludes are played there can be no question as to which hymn tune is to follow.

Each year on June 24, the Day of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, Johann Pachelbel was required to play a half-hour organ recital after the vesper service of the day; this program was to serve a twofold purpose: (1) to commemorate Pachelbel's appointment to the Predigerkirche in 1678; (2) to give an account of the progress he had made and of the composing he had done during the past year. The preludes we have just discussed played an important part in these recitals. In these preludes Johann Pachelbel combined much of what he had learned from his own prelude on Allein Gott in der Höh' sei Ehr. That the occasional charm which we find in his unpretentious chorale partitas carried over to his preludes may be seen from his lovely canonic pastorale of Vom Himmel hoch. With good cause do some believe that Bach's charming little prelude in G major based on In dulci jubilo may have been inspired by this composition; both are pastorales, both use the chorale as cantus firmus in the bass while the pastoral motif is heard above, and both use canonic devices. Here we have proof for the statement that Pachelbel was perhaps the first lyrical composer of chorale preludes.^[24] When writing lyrically, Pachelbel did not resort to what was banal and tawdry. Even when his music has charm, it does not become gushy or sentimental; its beauty invariably reveals good taste.

In 1690 Johann Pachelbel accepted an attractive offer to become court organist in Stuttgart. His twelve-year stay in Erfurt was the longest professional stay of his career. The Erfurt parish granted him his release with profound regrets. At the time he left Eisenach, Kapellmeister Daniel Eberlin expressed his regrets at Pachelbel's leaving and referred to him as einen perfecten und raren Virtuosen, as a man who, though bitterly attacked by people who lacked understanding, was nevertheless endowed with einem treuen und aufrichtigen Gemüthe.^[25]That the people of Erfurt regretted his departure may be seen from the testimonial given him by the parish of the Predigerkirche, which referred to Pachelbel's diligence and faithfulness, to his godly life, and to the gratitude he deserved so well for the work he had done.^[26]

He remained in Stuttgart for only two years and left because he and the other citizens of Stuttgart were driven out of their city by the French, who also took away from Pachelbel all his property. On November 8, 1692, he became organist of the mother church in Gotha, His fame had spread largely through his pupils, and shortly after his arrival in Gotha he was offered an appointment at Oxford, in England, which he, largely because of his family, declined to accept. He was asked to return to Stuttgart but declined.

After serving as organist in Gotha for three years, he returned in 1695 to Nuremberg, the city of his birth, to become organist of the Sebalduskirche. Here he succeeded his eminent teacher, Georg Kaspar Wecker, who had died on April 20, 1695. Other musicians of note had served this parish; among them we find Sebald Heyden, the author of O Mensch, bewein' dein' Sünde gross; Kaspar Hassler, the brother of Hans Leo Hassler; Johann Staden; and Valentin Dretzel. The church had, therefore, a great tradition. Its organ enjoyed widespread fame; it had been built in 1444 for Konrad Paumann and was rebuilt in 1691 for Georg Kaspar Wecker. On the day the rebuilt organ was dedicated, Pastor Konrad Feuerlein preached a sermon based on Psalm 150. Later, when Johann Pachelbel became organist of St. Sebaldus, Pastor Feuerlein had this sermon printed and dedicated it to his new and noted organist. Moser^[27] rightly calls attention to this rare act of homage of a theologian for his organist. In view of the fact that the specification of this organ is not only unique and interesting but also because it helped to determine the character and style of the compositions Pachelbel wrote while serving as organist of St. Sebaldus, we herewith include the specification:

You will note from the above that the specification is true to the South German type of organ insofar as it does not stress the need of reeds and gives prominence instead to the flue or labial stops which provide the organ with a clear and bright tone. Only the Rückpositiv has much in common with the North German organs.

In addition to the distinctive character of the organ of the Sebalduskirche, the liturgy of this Nuremberg parish must be taken into account when evaluating the work done by Pachelbel in this famous Lutheran center and city. Nuremberg held on to many of the liturgical traditions of the Lutheran church of the sixteenth century.

The Kirchenordnungen of Nuremberg prescribed that the Magnificat be sung in no fewer than four vesper services each week of the church year. In Vespers conducted on Sundays it was to be sung figuraliter, that is, in a polyphonic setting; on two weekdays it was to be sung choraliter, that is, in a plain-chant setting; on the Saturdays of the Advent season and of the Easter cycle it was to be sung either according to the Alternatimpraxis of the church (choir and organ alternating with the congregation in the presentation of the various verses), or it was to be performed organistice, that is, played by the organist in an instrumental setting.

A product of frequent use of the Magnificat are Johann Pachelbel's excellent Magnificat fugues, a selection of which is available in an edition prepared by Max Seiffert and published by Kistner and Siegel and Co. of Lippstadt, Germany. These fugues are excellent organ music for the church service. They form a large cycle, relate themselves to individual parts of the Magnificat, are based on various psalm tones, and may be used for numerous purposes. While they vary somewhat in grade or difficulty, most of them are simple. Only a very few are based on themes derived from an extant musical setting of the Magnificat. The majority are based on free and original themes invented by their composer, and at times they were evidently used to introduce what was to follow by way of lively and animated contrast. They are fugal preludes in the best sense of the term.

It is interesting indeed to note that these rather simple compositions were written by Johann Pachelbel at a time when he had arrived at the very height of his creative power. No two fugues are alike; each is in a class by itself. They are all related, directly or indirectly, to the same source and we are not surprised to hear some insist that in them we receive a foretaste of Johann Sebastian Bach's Musikalisches Opfer and Die Kunst der Fuge. In them, too, we find proof for Pachelbel's fondness for the variation form and of variation techniques.

However, in addition do we find elements in some of these fugues which we otherwise identify with secular life. In the Kistner and Siegel volume, No. 38 is a typical trumpet or fanfare fugue, Nos. 32 and 37 are gigue fugues, etc. The Magnificat fugues are intended really for the manuals only; the majority are two- and three-voice fugues, and very few have as many as four voices. Though considered organ music, one may also consider them merely as keyboard music. The Kistner and Siegel edition contains forty-two of the fugues, whereas Pachelbel is known to have composed at least ninety-four.

Johann Pachelbel is rightly regarded primarily as a composer of church music. Our examination of his organ works has shown, I believe, that though he was conservative and chaste as a composer, he was by no means a pedant. Following the jubilant injunction of the 150th Psalm, he employed even the dance to praise the Lord. Though influenced to a marked degree by the conservative South German School and though identified with the temperate Central German School, he is, as stated previously, by no means altogether unrelated to the freedom-loving and more liberal school of North Germany. He is related musically to Frescobaldi, Froberger, Kerll, and Muffatt, to Sweelinck, Scheidt, Scheidemann, Weckmann, Jacob and Michael Praetorius, and, though more distantly, he is related also to the North Germans Buxtehude, Reinken, and J. S. Bach.

Pachelbel had many followers; among these we find not only his pupils and their pupils but the teachers and pupils of others as well. We often refer to Pachelbel's influence on Johann Sebastian Bach; but Johann Sebastian was only one of many to follow in the footsteps of Johann Pachelbel. Unlike Bach, Pachelbel was not a forgotten man after his death; through his music he continued to live on into our twentieth century. His music is being published in Europe, and it is being published in America; as stated previously, our own Concordia Publishing House is publishing his cantata Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan in an authentic, bilingual edition, and, together with the Bärenreiter Verlag, Concordia is making available bilingual editions of the motets of Pachelbel. It is such enterprise that helps to bind us together as heirs of a common heritage and which, in the most recent issue of Musik und Kirche,^[28] prompted Hans Joachim Moser to refer to our Concordia Publishing House as the "Nachwuchszentrum der evangelischen Kirchenmusiker Nordamerikas."

Johann Pachelbel died on Wednesday, March 3, 1706. He died a beautiful death, for in the moments of his departure he listened attentively to the singing of his favorite chorale, Herr Jesu Christ, meins Lebens Licht. While his son Wilhelm Hieronymus helped to carry on the traditions of his father, whom he respected highly, and was a more glamorous type of composer and performer than his more eminent father, we still think of Johann Pachelbel when we hear the name Pachelbel mentioned. Johann Pachelbel performed the tasks assigned to him in the spirit of Christian faith, devotion, and consecration. He was a faithful servant of the church and as such had the mind which was also in Christ. His works have become a part of the heritage of the church, and we are the beneficiaries. For this we are deeply grateful to Him who gave to Johann Pachelbel the talents, the will, the heart, and the mind to serve the church and thus to contribute to our rich heritage.

Cited References and Notes

1. Hans Joachim Moser, Johann Pachelbel-Zur 300. Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages, in Musik und Kirche (Kassel and Basel: Bärenreiter Verlag), May/June 1953, p. 82.
2. Hamburg, 1740; reprint edition prepared by Max Schneider, Berlin, 1910, p. 244.
3. Moser, p. 82.
4. Mattheson, p. 244; Carl von Winterfeld, Der evangelische Kirchengesang (Leipzig, 1845), II, 626.
5. Cf. Manfred Bukofzer, Music in the Baroque Era (New York, 1947), p. 96.
6. Bukofzer, p. 266.
7. Moser, p. 83.
8. Winterfeld, p. 633.
9. Johann Pachelbel-Praeludien, Fantasien und Toccatened. Max Seiffert (Kistner und Siegel), Organum series, pp. 18, 19 Johann Pachelbel-Ausgewählte Orgelwerke,ed. Karl Matthaei (Kassel: Bärenreiter Verlag), I, 5.
10. Gotthold Frotscher, Geschichte des Orgelspiels (Berlin, 1935), I, 505.
11. Salomon Kümmerle, Encyklopädie der evangelischen Kirchenmusik (Gütersloh, 1890), II, 661.
12. Moser, p. 86.
13. Matthaei, I, 40-45.
14. Musica Sacra, Band I, Sammlung der besten Meisterwerke des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts für die Orgel zum Gebrauch beim Gottesdienst und zum Studium gesammelt und herausgegeben von Franz Commer (Berlin: Bote und Bock), pp. 206, 207.
15. Bukofzer, p. 266.
16. Karl Straube, Alte Meister (Leipzig: C. F. Peters, 1904), pp. 79 ff.
17. Matthaei, pp. 46 ff. and 54 ff.
18. Moser, p. 85.
19. Cf. Fritz Dietrich, Geschichte des deutschen Orgelchorals im siebzehnten Jahrhundert (Kassel: Bärenreiter Verlag, 1932), p. 62.
20. Cf. Der Tag, der ist so freudenreich in Matthaei, II, 14 ff.
21. Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund, in Matthaei, II, 42, 43.
22. Vater unser im Himmelreich, in Matthaei, III, pp. 8, 9, and Nun lob', mein' Seel', den Herren, pp. 28-31.
23. Allein Gott in der Höh' sei Ehr-Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her, and others, in Matthaei, II.
24. Frotscher, p. 514: Johann Pachelbel gilt in der Literatur als der eigentliche Begründer des poetisierenden Orgelchorals, den er aus Elementen der süd- und mitteldeutschen Stilsphäre gestaltete.
25. Testimonial published by Mattheson in his Grundlage einer Ehrenpforte, ed. Max Schneider, p. 245.
26. Cf. Mattheson, p.246.
27. Moser, p. 27.
28. May–June 1953, p. 90.

Concordia Seminary
St. Louis, Mo.

From The Musical Heritage of the Church, Volume V (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1959). 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.