Haydn’s genius, at a more advanced stage in the practice of music, enabled him to break through the trammels of these chaperoning symphonies, and, had he been only a vocal writer, would, no doubt, have done more. Beethoven, too, whose mighty powers of mind were not so fully appreciated in his own time as now, sets another example—in his trio ‘Tremati,’ for instance—of the non-intervention of symphonies. And in the dramatic music of many other modern writers, a custom so injurious to both stage and musical effect, is generally laid aside. Even instrumental writers are beginning to feel the tediousness of introductory symphonies. In the beautiful concerto of Mendelssohn, which he played last season at the Philharmonic, how did he delight his audience by the bold spirit with which he rushed at once into the principal solo subject, instead of following the old daudling practice of tiring expectation by four or five pages of tedious, and often irrelevant, symphony![3] I therefore agree with Dr. Brown on this point, so far as his principle goes. At page 189 is a striking fallacy and extraordinary contradiction of himself by this critical writer. Speaking of Sternhold’s version of the Psalms, he says, ‘There are few stanzas which do not present expressions to excite the ridicule of some part of every congregation. This version might well be abolished, as it exposeth one of the noblest parts of divine service to contempt; especially as there is another version already privileged, which, though not excellent, is, however, not intolerable. The parochial music seems to need no reform.’ The opinion, that what is only not intolerable needs no reform, will find but few abettors in the present times. I have thought, ever since my attention was turned to the subject, that nothing in the whole range of musical performance requires so much reform and improvement as our parochial Psalmody. There are in London, certainly, instances of its being in a very respectable state, but in the majority of churches and chapels, no one with a tolerable ear and the slightest devotional feeling can say, that the squalling of dozens of children, untaught (at least not properly taught), all straining their voices to the utmost, produces anything but unmodified disgust.
While I am on this subject, I must notice a proceeding which some parishes have adopted—namely, that of greatly reducing the salaries of their organists,—in some cases within my own knowledge—from 70l. to 40l. per annum! Now this is Church reform with a vengeance! but the vengeance falls on the already ill-rewarded organist. And here is a striking proof of the injudicious manner in which we Englishmen set about retrenchment. This is to degrade those who hold important situations in the church to about the rank of beadles or vergers, and, in the end, will only more effectually injure the establishment: for so soon as a man of talent feels himself in danger of losing his just remuneration, it is not likely that he will perform his duties with much zeal.
In Lord Henley’s much-read pamphlet on Church Reform (p. 35, 4th edition) is a passage recommending the entire abolition of what his lordship is pleased to call ‘such relics of popery as chanting anthems, solos, duets, voluntaries, &c.’ in our cathedral service, and advising the introduction of a simple mode of Psalmody. Is it not amazing that a man who is so learned in ecclesiastical law should forget that the Deans and Chapters of all the cathedrals throughout the United Kingdom hold their appointments on the express condition of performing divine service in the manner now practiced? Does he mean by a side-wind, by a little law-cunning, to get rid of all deans and chapters?
I could accumulate the fallacious opinions of many writers till I had half filled your Journal, Sir; but for the present will only add one more, and an extraordinary one it is. In a copy of Sir John Hawkins’ History of Music, in the British Museum, containing MS. notes in his own hand-writing (vol. v. p. 16), is the following remark:—‘Singing follows so naturally the smallest degree of proficiency on any instrument, that the learning of both is unnecessary!’
I am, Sir, &c. &c.
HONORIUS.
MR. G. LINLEY’S ANSWER TO MR. GÖDBÉ.
To the EDITOR of the HARMONICON.
Bolton Cottage, Chelsea.
SIR,