Page:Scottishartrevie01unse.djvu/124

100 the possession of a distinctive school is an indication of musical character and capability ? If so, what nation has shown that individuality with which we may compare ourselves and our efforts and take note how much we come short of the quality desired ? Most persons interested in musical history have read of the various so-called historical schools of music — the Flemish School, the Italian School, and its various subdivisions, Roman, Neapolitan, Venetian, ]Iilanese, Florentine, or other ; the French School, the German School, and even of the English School of Purcell.

If we regard the term ' School ' as indicative of special use of forms of expression in music originat- ing with, or brought to perfection by, the nominal representatives, it is feared that the divisions quoted above, and accepted by the unthinking among musical jstudents and teachers, are more fanciful than real, more convenient than accurate. Ex- ]ierience shows that the term is moreover mislead- ing, and scarcely to be defended even on the ground of locality or history. The arrangement of the advances of music into schools, which originated in particular periods, and at specified places, may have been a convenient method for those who are nothing if not formal, but the whole history of the art shows that it has no connection with 'the political divisions of kingdoms, and that the division of it into schools of art, particularly of those j^eriods when there can generally be no mention made of their existence, would prove, in the history of music, the most useless and deceitful of all. For the boundaries of real or decayed schools, according to time and place, indeed their very existence as schools, would be difficult if not impossible to be proved ; and this division but too frequently compels the historian, through the want of complete and authentic in- formation, to assume or supply data at the sacrifice of his own conscience, and therefore of truth, in order to force all his materials into one or other of the compartments above mentioned.' None of the ' Schools ' originated with themselves, but all were outgrowths from earlier teaching. Few even show so much independence that they cannot be mistaken the one for the other.

Before entering more fully upon the subject, it must be said that these several schools — so named — are held to represent recognisable qualities of artistic production by a class. Unfortunately no school that has existed can show many marked distinctions beyond the titles conferred upon it. Music, unlike its sister art Painting, cannot be formulated into concrete patterns. It is not an imitative art, nor can its successful forms of expression be limited to conventionalities of utterance. The aspects of nature teach the painter much that he is willing to learn, and his own moods suggest the varieties of treatment. More than that, he has the help of his own character to aid him, and so far as he can accomplish things in a fashion new to his fellows, he invests his labours with peculiarities which may become the basis of a new style. He may be the founder of a so-called school, but as this consists chiefly in the constant reproductions of his mannerisms, whether of drawing, colouring, or subjects, it is restricted in its influence. His own style may be as distinctly legible as his handwriting.

This may be also imitable, but to those who care to make themselves familiar with it there are characteristic qualities which are absolutely peculiar and inimitable. The accumulation of types refer- able to a common origin makes the basis of the school. If these are retained and constantly reproduced, no artistic advance is possible. TJie school of Velasquez, of JMurillo, of Rubens, of Rembrandt, of Del Sarto, of Vandyke, of Lely, of Reynolds, of Gainsborough, of Allan, of Morland, of Hogarth, of Landseer, of Etty, of Wilkie, and of all great painters endowed with originality, dies with them and their immediate imitators. They leave little or nothing to the store of art that could be made points of new departures.

The forms of art followed by the musician, though comparable in some respects with the labours of the limner, are not always parallel. The musician may be inspired by a contemplation of the beauties of nature, but so soon as he attempts to imitate natural sounds he degrades his art, or at all events imparts to his productions an element which gives rise to undignified reflections. His music becomes a series of mechanical suggestions, valuable enough for his purpose perhaps, but useless as evidence of the existence of imaginative power. In the expression of this imaginative power, or in his ability to arouse it in his hearers, lies the greater strength of the true musician. Beethoven, great as he is in the exercise of his art, would never have been great had he confined his labours to the multiplication of such works as his ' Pastoral Symphony.' This pleases the unthinking, though he himself evidently felt its weakness inasmuch as he, probably feeling that his music did not do so, took care to describe in words the effects he desired to reproduce. There is a distinct element of undesigned humoiu- in the serious efforts made by Haydn in his oratorio ' The Creation,' to imitate not only the various animals, but the physical phenomena referred to in the text of the work. Moreover, all these attempts are singular. They are personal expressions and not those of a school. Each composer who, like both of these