It was generally thought that Bach wrote the Orgelbüchlein, a collection of 46 seasonal chorale preludes, during his Weimar residency, but more recent research has suggested otherwise; Heinz-Harald Löhlein, the editor of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe suggested that although the works were written at Weimar, their chronology centres around three annual cycles, which in turn correspond to the church year. His findings suggest the years 1713-14, 1714-15 and 1715-16, the evidence for which is somewhat dubious: that the church at Weimar was out of commission between Pentecost 1713 and Easter 1714 also negates the force of his argument. More recently, research by Christoph Wolf has suggested an earlier provenance, due in part to the uniform the nature of Bach's manuscript during the period 1708-1715, which acts as a starting point for Stinson's curious but valuable resource, an expansion of an earlier article that appeared in the 1995 collection of essays, Bach Perspectives. Stinson approaches the problem of date and chronology by examining not only Bach's handwriting, but also other features, namely the cancellation of accidentals, clefs, script size, etc, that others have wholly ignored that. Comparing these with Bach's pre-1718 manuscripts, an interesting series of results emerge, from which Stinson has formed a chronological sequence that is intelligent and convincingly argued. Thus, bibliographical evidence suggests a three-phase compilation, dating from between 1708 and 1726 (if not later). Although not the primary reason for this monograph, his results would have been usefully cited since such evidence would be immensely valuable to Bach scholars wishing to date material using similar methods.

Before becoming too caught up in such a survey, however, Stinson changes tack and takes us on a whistle-stop tour of Bach's composition process, as evinced by three chorale preludes dating from differing periods: Wir Christenleut (BWV 612), O Mensch, bewein (BWV 622) and In dulci jubilo (BWV 608). Each is representative of one of the three chorale types found in the collection, but despite Stinson's arguments to the contrary, these seem also to have been chosen because of the rich number of revisions and corrections, and are therefore excellent paradigms of Bach's compositional process. From carefully-made observations of the autograph, Stinson is able to conjecture convincingly about the way in which the score was prepared, the order in which parts were written and why revisions were deemed necessary. This is important and valuable work-although in many cases such results can be nothing other than supposition, the logic which Stinson applies his arguments suggests that his findings have a firm and believable basis.

However, this is also where the utmost frustration results, since Stinson seems quite satisfied with a description of only these three chorale preludes. The other 43 are examined in a somewhat cursory manner that is not as enlightening as the previous material. We are no longer party to Stinson's detailed autopsies - instead the majority of his descriptions are little other than statements of the obvious that reveal little.

Stinson's examination of figuration is a case in point. String figuration plays an important role in the development of a quintessential keyboard language, and nowhere is this more prevalent than in North Germany. The organ works of such composers as Böhm and Buxtehude, and later Bach, are littered with figurations that owe a debt to the writings of an earlier generation of string composers and are important to scholars and performers alike. The Orgelbüchlein is no exception to this rule and although it would have been foolhardy not to mention the most obvious of these, the accompanying line to Ich ruf zu dir (containing what Samuel Scheidt referred to over a century before as imitatio violistica), other instances of string figuration would benefit from a more detailed approach.

This is a recurrent problem; overall, what is said is of utmost value, but no individual subject is covered adequately or taken to a natural conclusion. It is only when examining its reception during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that the material seems complete. This begs the question as to what Stinson is trying to achieve: since there are few references to kosher performance practice (despite its being a relevant feature in the sections that deal with nineteenth-century treatment), one can only assume that its intended audience is the scholar. But there is little of absolute value to the scholar, unless s/he wishes to take Stinson's findings as a convenient starting-point for other investigations. This is not to negate the significance of what is said, since Stinson's findings have been arrived at logically and demonstrate a sense of insight that is refreshing-from this viewpoint, The Orgelbüchlein remains a valuable and important resource.

John Woodford