It is a remarkable fact that, previous to the appearance of those musicians in Germany, England had already been visited by foreign musicians, whose talents, considering the positions obtained by several of them, must have had considerable influence upon the taste of their English colleagues. There were five German musicians in the service of Richard III., in the year 1483; eighteen foreign musicians in the service of Henry VIII.; and as far as can be made out from the corrupt spelling of the names, the bands of Edward VI. and of Queen Elizabeth contained about as many foreigners as that of Henry VIII. The Dutch lutenists, Philip van Welder and Peter van Welder, held a superior position in the band of Edward VI. The former had already been engaged by Henry VIII. as teacher on the lute to the royal children. The distinguished lutenist Jacques Gaulter (or Gouter), in the service of Charles I., was a Frenchman.
The generally acknowledged superiority of the foreign musicians explains the dissatisfaction with the popular taste expressed in the works of several English musicians. Already John Dowland complains in his Prefaces of being neglected. Matthew Lock, in his 'Little Consort of three parts, containing Pavans, Ayres, Corants, and Sarabands, for Viols or Violins,' London, 1657, remarks: "For those mountebanks of wit, who think it necessary to disparage all they meet with of their own countrymen, because there have been and are some excellent things done by strangers, I shall make bold to tell them (and I hope my known experience in this science will enforce them to confess me a competent judge), that I never yet saw any foreign instrumental composition (a few French Corants excepted,) worthy an Englishman's transcribing." John Playford, in his 'Musick's Delight on the Cithren,' London, 1666, complains: "It is observed that of late years all solemn and grave musick is much laid aside, being esteemed too heavy and dull for the light heals and brains of this nimble and wanton age; nor is any musick rendered acceptable, or esteemed by many, but what is presented by foreigners: not a City Dame, though a tap-wife, but is ambitious to have her daughters taught by Monsieur La Novo Kickshawibus on the Gittar, which instrument is but a new old one, used in London in the time of Queen Mary." Again, in his 'Introduction to the Skill of Musick,' John Playford complains: "Our late and solemn musick, both vocal and instrumental, is now justl'd out of esteem by the new Corants and Jigs of foreigners, to the grief of all sober and judicious understanders of that formerly solid and good musick." This is copied from the edition published in 1683; the first edition appeared in 1655. Christopher Simpson, in his 'Compendium of Practical Musick,' London, 1667, boldly asserts: "You need not seek outlandish authors, especially for instrumental musick; no nation, in my opinion, being equal to the English in that way; as well for their excellent, as their various and numerous Consorts of three, four, five and six parts, made properly for instruments," etc. Thus also Christopher Simpson, at the conclusion of his 'The Division Violist, or an Introduction to the Playing upon a Ground,' London, 1659, says: "And here I might mention (were it not out of the Rode of my Designe,) divers others [besides Mr. John Jenkins]; most eminent men of this our nation, who, for their excellent and various compositions, especially for instruments, have, in my opinion, far outdone those nations, so much cryed up for their excellency in Musick."
The preference given by these musicians to their own music does not, however, throw much light upon the question: Of what kind was the music played by the English instrumentalists, who accompanied the comedians on the continent?
A satisfactory answer to this question may be obtained from an examination of the secular music popular in England about three hundred years ago, and from the stage directions in the dramas performed by the strolling actors.
As regards the diffusion of musical knowledge in England at the time of Queen Elizabeth, the historical records contain contradictory statements, which however may, with some discrimination, be reconciled with each other. It is well known that England possessed at that period some estimable composers of sacred music who would probably have obtained a hearing on the continent, had they not been obscured by the excellent Flemish and Italian church composers. Some intelligent foreigners who made a trip to England, at the time of Queen Elizabeth, praise the music which they heard in the principal churches of the country. Paul Hentzner, a German scholar, who visited England in the year 1598, remarks in his journal: "The English excel in dancing and music, for they are active and lively, though of a thicker make than the French." He subsequently expresses a less favourable opinion of the musical taste of the English: "They are vastly fond of great noises that fill the ear, such as the firing of cannon, drums, and the ringing of bells."[60] This statement accords with a remark of Dr. Burney in his History of Music, Vol. III., p. 143; and likewise with Handel's advice to Gluck, when the latter, after the performance of his opera 'Caduta de' Giganti' in London, anno 1746, complained of want of success: "For the Englishman you must compose something which is powerful, and which acts upon his tympanum."[61] Music was also called noise. For instance, in Shakespeare's Henry IV., Part II., Act 2, Scene 4:—
'And see if thou canst find Sneak's noise; Mistress Tearsheet would fain hear some music.'
It may be supposed that the popular taste for loud music was some centuries ago much the same as it is at the present day, where quantity is often more thought of than quality. But, there are some records from which it would appear that the cultivation of music was universal among the educated classes. Henry Peacham in his 'Compleat Gentleman,' London, 1634, enumerates with the many requisite accomplishments of a gentleman, some practical and theoretical knowledge of the art of music. However, he does not describe the gentleman as he finds him, but, as in his opinion he ought to be. To conclude from his description that in the seventeenth century every English gentleman was musical, would be as unwarrantable as to conclude from Lord Chesterfield's well-known advice to his son to leave violin-playing to the professional musicians, that in the eighteenth century Englishmen of education considered it derogatory to play on a musical instrument.
In Thomas Morley's 'Introduction to Practical Musick,' London, 1597, which is written in dialogue, Philomathes says to Polymathes, in the beginning of the discourse, that recently when at a party he could not join in their madrigal singing after supper "euery one began to wonder. Yea, some whispered to others, demaunding how I was brought up: so that vpon shame of mine ignorance, I goe now to seeke out mine old friend master Gnorimus, to make my selfe his scholler." This statement appears, however, to be in contradiction with one made about the same time in another instruction book, entitled 'The Schoole of Mvsicke; wherein is tavght the perfect Method of trve fingering of the Lute, Pandora, Orpharion, and Viol-da-Gamba; with most infallible generall rules, both easie and delightfull. Also a Method how you may be your owne instructor for Prick-song, by the help of your Lute, without any other teacher: with lessons of all sorts for your further and better instruction. Newly composed by Thomas Robinson, Lutenist; London, 1603.' This book likewise is written in the form of a dialogue, the persons in conversation being "Knight" and "Timothevs." In the beginning of the dialogue Knight remarks: "In mine opinion I think it impossible to be a good Musitien, except a man be seene in all the seauen liberall Sciences; for I know many great clarkes in Diuinitie, Phisicke, Law, Philosophie, etc., that haue small, or no knowledge at all in Musicke, nay, some quite reject it."
No doubt, these statements of two professional musicians contradictory to each other, as to the cultivation of music by English gentlemen towards the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, must not be taken literally, but rather as what the authors thought an ingenious and elegant manner of proving that their works supplied a want. Thus, Thomas Morley teaching vocal music, maintains that every young gentleman is expected to be a singer; and Thomas Robinson, teaching the lute and the cither, expresses his dissatisfaction that many gentlemen know nothing about musical instruments,—indeed, nothing of music. Moreover, Thomas Robinson is a "Student in all the liberall Sciences;" we know this from his own statement on the title-page of his 'New Citharen Lessons,' London, 1609; and being a learned man, he considers it impossible to be a good musician without being versed in "all the seauen liberall Sciences."
The fact that there is no English book dating from the sixteenth, seventeenth, or eighteenth century, which contains descriptions with illustrations of the different musical instruments formerly in use in England, while a considerable number of such books were published on the continent, sufficiently proves, if other testimony were wanting, that instrumental music was not so much cultivated in England as on the continent. The English books of instruction for certain instruments were generally but poor compilations got up by the publishers themselves. The illustrations of musical instruments given in Hawkins's 'History of Music' have most of them been copied from Luscinius and Mersenne. Hawkins appears to have been unaware that these instruments, of which he gives descriptions derived from foreign sources, were formerly also in use in England. At any rate, he mentions several of them by their German names, without giving their English names.