WILLIAM BLAKE, Doctor in Divinity, was prebendary of Salisbury, and rector of St. Thomas’s church in that city. This is all that we can learn of his history. We conjecture that his death must have taken place more than fifty years ago, for in a volume of anthems published about the year 1780, he is mentioned as ‘late prebendary,’ &c. Burney does not speak of him; his name therefore, of course, does not occur in Hawkins; and we do not meet with it in the new edition of Wood’s Athen. Oxon., or in the Biographical Dictionary. But though he is thus unnoticed, no anthem is more generally known and admired than his ‘I have set God always before me,’ which, for beauty of melody, elegance in construction, and correctness in setting, is without a superior. It has been contemned by those whose beau ideal of excellence consists in canons and fugues, but long-continued public approbation is a sure test of merit, and this the composition in question has enjoyed, till the criticism of pedants is nearly if not quite silenced.
CHARLES KING, Mus. B.—Sir John Hawkins, who seems to have been personally acquainted with the subject of this sketch, states that he was bred up in the choir of St. Paul’s, under Dr. Blow, and was at first a supernumerary singer in that cathedral, for the small stipend of 14l. a year. In 1704 he was admitted bachelor in music at Oxford; and on the death of Jeremiah Clark, whose sister was his first wife, was appointed almoner and master of the children of St. Paul’s; and in 1730 became a vicar-choral thereof. He was also organist of St. Bennet Fink, London; and held these several appointments till his death in 1745. ‘With his second wife,’ says Sir John, ‘he had a fortune of seven or eight thousand pounds, left her by the widow of Mr. Primatt, the chemist, who lived in Smithfield, and also in that house at Hampton which is now Mr. Garrick’s. But notwithstanding this accession of wealth, he left his family in but indifferent circumstances. King composed some anthems, and also services to a great number, and thereby gave occasion to Dr. Greene to say,—and indeed he was very fond of saying it, as he thought it a witty sentiment—that “Mr. King was a very serviceable man.” His compositions are uniformly restrained within the bounds of mediocrity; they are well known as being frequently performed, yet no one cares to censure or commend them, and they leave the mind just where they found it. Some who were intimate with him say, he was not void of genius, but averse to study; which character seems to agree with that general indolence and apathy which were visible in his look and behaviour at church, where he seemed to be as little affected by the service as the organ-blower.’ Hawkins was very much enamoured of the works of Blow, and such laborious, dry composers, and appears to have had little if any genuine taste for what is natural in music—for flowing melody and unaffected harmony,—for both of which King’s productions are eminently distinguished. Their best praise is, that they have continued to be performed from the moment they were brought forth to the present time; they are in constant use in every cathedral in England and Ireland: this is an incontestable proof of merit, and silences all criticism. He who can listen to King’s Service in B flat with indifference, may be assured that he has no true taste, though he may be a great admirer of canons recte and retro, and four in one.
A TREATISE ON MELODY.
(From La Revue Musicale.)
A Treatise on Melody, independent of its connection with Harmony; with a Supplement on the Art of accompanying Melody with Harmony where the former is predominant; the whole supported by the best Models of Melody. By ANTHONY REICHA, Member of the Legion of Honour, and Professor of Composition in the Conservatory of Music. Second Edition. Paris, 1832. In two volumes quarto.
IN the preface to this work, M. Reicha expresses himself thus—“During several ages a great number of treatises have been written on harmony, and not one on melody.” Further on he says, “Several authors of merit have indeed spoken in their various works on the subject of melody, but it has only been with reference to its general effects. In Germany, Italy, England, and especially in France, remarks, more or less important, more or less instructive, and often more or less ingenious, have been published on the subject; but what has been the result of these remarks on the musical art? Why have they been of so little profit to it? Because vague reasonings, unsupported by demonstrative proofs, however ingenious, however instructive they may be, having very little internal evidence, are susceptible of being combated and refuted by other reasonings, and consequently remain without effect. It is with music as with geometry; in the one you must prove every point by musical examples, as in the other by geometrical figures. In both you must proceed regularly, from consequence to consequence, and establish a system so solid, that no reasoning whatever can shake it. It is in this point of view that I say nothing has yet been published respecting melody; all the remarks which have been made on the subject united would not furnish matter for a real treatise on melody. I found myself in my researches, therefore, entirely abandoned to myself; and if unwittingly I have, on some occasions, followed the paths of those who have written on melody before me, it will be an immediate emanation of my own system, and in that case it would be unjust to make it a matter of reproach.
“It will be seen in the course of this treatise that the musical period has a real existence. This period has remained a secret even to the present time, no one has ever proved or defined it indubitably, and even when it has been spoken of, it has been only too much confounded with the phrases and melodic members which are in fact only its decisions. This is the reason it played so unhappy a part in the famous contest between the Piccinists and the Gluckists.
“Musical rhythm, the knowledge of which is so important, not only in music, but in lyric poetry, for similar reasons, has shared the same fate.”
I have extended my quotation to this length, only that the object M. Reicha proposes to achieve by his book, and the circumstances under which he wrote it may be well understood. Not only has he felt the utility of a systematic treatise on melody, but the necessity of it has appeared to him so pressing, that he has persuaded himself there existed no previous work on the subject. Though he is mistaken in this respect, it is a point which should be borne in mind, in order that he may be allowed all the merit of his own ideas.