J. S. BACH Jonathan Berkahn - Victoria University - Victoria ...

Unlike Handel, however, there no tutti passages to set this procedure into relief—the
texture, in fact, is decidedly thin, with most entries being presented in three or even
two voices. This is a problem, because there are no episodes, nor really any
independent counterpoint. The entries of this combination cover an exceptionally
wide range of keys: from the tonic, G minor to the very distant region of F sharp minor
(b.192). There are no abrupt tonal juxtapositions; the journey is accomplished in
gradual steps (B flat in b.118 – D minor – A minor – C – G – D – B minor – F sharp
minor), and the return in a similar manner.
This extensive tonal range has attracted the attention of previous
commentators, 64 but it alone is not sufficient to give interest to a texture which consists
almost entirely of repetitions of the subject-combination (itself repetitious), with no
other material to give it variety. One sympathises with H. Diack Johnstone when he
finds the fugue ‘unduly protracted’. 65 Once we have reached this distant point,
however, things get more exciting and the movement more than redeems itself. In
b.208 the orchestra, which has hitherto docilely followed the voices alla capella,
suddenly takes up an independent role, and from then on the piece is effectively a
double-choir motet for voices and orchestra. Whether recalling the polychoral writing
of Gabrieli (which he just possibly may have known) or the more immediate example
of Handel’s Israel in Egypt, the rest of the movement exploits this opposition to full
dramatic effect (Ex.2.18). In the fourth system of Ex.2.18 we see Wesley find
Sullivan’s ‘lost chord’ 78 years before Sullivan did.
64 J. Marsh, ‘Samuel Wesley’s “Confitebor”’, Musical Times 113/1552 (June 1972), 610; Olleson,
Wesley, p.256.
65 Review of John Marsh’s edition of the Confitebor, Music & Letters 60/4 (October 1979), 485.
156