On-line Book Review

he edition under review is produced by the Russian musicologist, Tatiana Shabalina. The score, about the size of A4, is smaller than most editions -- 2.3 cm smaller than Henle in both directions, and about 4cm smaller than the NBA. Yet it is laid out more spaciously than either Henle or the NBA, so there are many more pages to accommodate additional systems.

A strict editorial policy and critical approach appear to have been followed in the production of this edition. Using the NBA (edited by Christoph Wolff) as its critical basis, the editor arrives at her text not only by reassessing nine of the surviving specimens of the original edition published in 1741 as well as seven manuscript copies that were reported by the NBA, but also by examining recently-rediscovered two original prints that have not been used by the earlier editors: shelfmark ‘E 49’ in the Sergei Ivanovic Taneyev’s memorial collection, the S.I.Taneyev Scientific Music Library of the Moscow State Conservatoire (rediscovered by Shabalina and reported for the first time in this edition); and ‘XIV G 246’, the Czech Museum of Music in Prague (initially reported by G. Butler in 1988). The Czech copy, which was owned and annotated by J. F. Agricola, Bach’s student at the time of the publication of the Goldberg Variations, is particularly important as it contains unique additions that may have originated from Bach himself. In the commentary placed at the back of the edition, the editor describes all these sources in some depth, followed by the main text-critical issues encountered in the process of editing each movement.

Contents in brief Facsimile Preface Aria with Variations BWV 988 Supplement 1 Supplement 2 Supplement 3 Commentaries I. S. Bakh. Clavierübung, Chast' IV: Ariya s variatsiyami BWV 988 / J. S. Bach, Clavierübung, Part IV: Aria with Variations BWV 988. Podgotovka urteksta, vstupitel'naya stat'ya i kommentarii T. Shabalinoy / Urtext, edited with a preface and commentary by T. Shabalina spacious layout

The text is practically error-free. The notating of rhythm in variation 14, bars 10 and 11 appears to be the only error, which, by editorial criteria, is considered a very high standard. (Cf. In the NBA and Henle, I have noted 5 and 6 errors respectively which require corrections.) The musical text is also clutter-free -- without fingerings or additional performance indications. There are some editorial additions appearing in square brackets, mainly rests which do not appear in the original edition of 1741, but which, in the editor’s view, Bach would have added, had he noticed the omissions. (Cf. The NBA adds many more of these, all in small symbols, while Henle handles them inconsistently.) Associated with this is the issue of how one should handle inconsistencies in the original. Shabalina adheres to the original in many areas. In appoggiaturas, the note value of the symbol (expressed by its flag, viz. quaver/semiquaver/demisemiquaver) and the presence / absence of the slur are distinguished, with a few exceptional cases where she probably felt that there were errors on the part of the engraver. (Cf. NBA modifies it to appear with the accompanying slur consistently, while Henle is not consistent in this respect.) The beaming of quavers is another issue. As it often implies articulation, I welcome the editor’s decision to keep the broken-up beam in bar 31 of the opening aria. In Variation 14, bars 6-7, the beaming of quavers of the original edition, which seems to indicate a hemiola (---- --|-- ----), is also retained. Although not all of the original beaming is preserved (as many of the original quaver beams appear to have been applied arbitrarily), there is evidence of careful consideration in deciding whether to modify or retain some of these notational features.

There are two imprints of this edition: a hardback with 12 facsimile plates and three supplements: (1) Fourteen Canons, BWV 1087; (2) An early version of Variation 5; (3) A developed variant of Variation 16 (with a preface dated March 2006) and a revised paperback edition with fewer facsimile plates and a supplement (preface dated November 2006). By modern editorial standards, both the preface and commentary are exceptionally rich in musicological information.

NB. For this review, I have also consulted Bach’s Handexemplar kept in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, and noted many errors found in the facsimile edition published by Fuzeau. For details, click here. (YT)