A few more words on the "Bach wrote chords so chords they shall be" argument: actually, as Oliver points out, he didn't really write chords but separately-stemmed notes, besides which he wrote all kinds of things (dotted notes over triplets for example) which likewise relate to a view of notation somewhat different from more recent notions (though the idea that musical notation is supposed to specify exactly everything that a performer needs to do to realise the score is I think unmusical and pedantic whichever period you're looking at). So we're left with one piece of iconographic evidence so far... is that all we're going to get, Baz?
This is beginning to stretch the semantics of the English language to a point which it cannot reasonably be expected to bear! You are not telling me, Richard (are you?), that because the notes aligned with each other are individually stemmed they are therefore
not chords? Well, if you look at virtually any one of the Preludes from the '48 (not even taking in the fugues!) you will still find that differing notes in vertical alignment are stemmed separately. But this does not mean - does it? - that they are not CHORDS? And we are not even here encumbered with an argument about whether the hands that played them were expected to use curved or straight fingers, are we?
I don't know whether you are asking me to provide for you iconographical evidence that
Bach himself intended this movement to use a curved bow - if you are then I cannot take your request seriously. If, however, you are asking for iconographical evidence to support the notion that curved bows were quite normal - and complaining that I have only given a single example - then that is a different matter.
It is not at all difficult to provide evidence that curved bows were, for centuries, perfectly normal and routine. But most examples cover their use with members of the Viol family (not surprisingly, since this was the standard bowed instrument throughout the Renaissance and early Baroque when most iconographical sources were produced). But their use also with members of the Violin family is documented quite clearly as early as 1511 in Germany by Virdung, as seen here:
They are also shown by Agricola in 1528:
...and again by Gerle in 1532:
Moreover, the following woodcut from Prague dates from 1614:
We could simply go on providing images like this (and you could really find them for yourself if you could be bothered). But to save further time and patience you may care to
CLICK HERE and just scroll down the huge number of images. On this link (which defaults only to P. 4 of the source) try clicking on any of the other pages listed at the head, and you will find
even more images.
So it seems, does it not, that the curved bow had always been the
normal equipment for bowed instruments for centuries, and that it was still being documented and illustrated well into the 17th and 18th centuries.
Now I am not expecting you to be in any way convinced enough by any of this so as to change your evidently entrenched views as to how you wish the Bach piece to sound - and why should you? The glory of this piece is that it still sounds perfectly good performed in the way to which we are accustomed. But there is absolutely
nothing whatsoever in Bach's notation that in any way rules out the use of such a bow.
With regard to Ollie's point about the way these supposed chords must end (as opposed to beginning), the stroke of the bow does not have to be continuous for the instrument to continue sounding the notes struck (unlike on a modern violin). Rather like a viol, the
resonance of the instrument itself would continue to sustain the pitches after the bow is withdrawn, provided that the fingers remain upon the strings that are already vibrating. So the first bar (for example) can actually sound exactly as it is notated (if desired) by keeping the LH position while the bow again strikes the final quaver A.
Baz
