Page:Scottishartrevie01unse.djvu/128

102 who laboured at the same period in France. If ever a school of music existed at any time, there is no doubt that this was the period. The conclusion forced upon the mind, however, is that musical progress is due not to the united efforts of a school so mucli as to the independent action of individual musicians. Of course it is possible to infer the existence of some sort of general principles observed by all at a particular period. These may be triumphantly referred to as proof of the teaching of some recognised school. Similarities of phrase- ology, of grammatical sequence, and of harmonic combinations in composition are found in the works of all composers belonging to a particular period. There is direct proof in historical records that these several musicians learned their art in different places, each often remote from one another. The music of the sixteenth century, whether composed by Birde, by Tallis, by Palestrina, by Gibbons; of the seven- teenth century, whether it be by Corelli, by Purcell, by Lulli, or other representative men of the time; of the eighteentli century, whether by Handel, by Bononcini, by Mozart or Haydn, or the numerous composers of the period, bears so strong a family likeness, one piece to the other, that often the work of one writer may pass for that of another of his date. The centuries may be divided into lesser epochs, and eacji will bear to the educated and expert hearer the impress of the period of produc- tion almost as plainly as current coin. So clear are these tokens, that it does not require more than a limited amount of attention to enable the interested listener to become educated and expert in distin- guishing them. These statements tend to show that the classifications are not those of schools, but those of time. In the present century the matter is eqiially easy to recognise. Moreover, the familiar knowledge of the works of the composers — their history, their habits, characteristics, and personal peculiarities afforded by their many and exhaustive biographers — show that they are for the most part the founders of their own school. They may, but they do not always, at the outset show traces of the work of the masters under whom they have studied. But until they assert their own individuality they can never attract apt scholars. We speak of the school of Beethoven, of Mozart, of Mendelssohn, of Wagner, of Gounod, or others, when we recognise some easily imitable trick peculiar to either in the works of a new writer. We can discern the influence which either or all may liave upon the labours of young- composers. It is this influence, more or less preva- lent, which gives impetus to progress. Men of genius in music are representatives of culminating points in human effort. A Beethoven is not pos- sible without a preceding Haydn or Mozart. A AVagner is the outcome of the efforts of a Berlioz, a David, a Meyerbeer, a Beethoven, and so on. Each and all have potentialities, the end of which cannot be guessed. When Purcell died the English School was said to have perished with him. From many of his formulas were derived the fashionable musical phrases then prevalent among his lesser imitators. But there was no school of Purcell. Many of his thoughts were his own, it is true, but many of his peculiari- ties of expression can be found in Corelli, in Lulli, in Campra, in Zachau, in Couperin, and others. They lasted through a long period, and they may be traced even in Handel, wjiose effective labours belong to later date. Who knows whether our modern English composers, Stanford, Cowen, Corder, Mackenzie, Hubert Parry, Hamisli M'Cunn, are not in their works reviving the prestige enjoyed by their forbears in art, which began with Tallis and ended with Purcell." They may never form a school. It is not desirable that they should, but they may be accumulating an influence, and this is the earnest hope of all. Each at present exhibits proof of partiality for some composer or another, who is set up voluntarily or involuntarily by them as an ideal or pattern. The experienced hearer notes peculiar features in many modern writers already identified with the names of Brahms, Gounod, Wagner, Mendelssohn, Liszt, and even Balfe. This is not plagiarism, but the pursuit of cherished ideals. Out of these and of other influences a recognised English style may come forth. If so, there is hope for native art. The greater the number of elements of which it is compounded, the more copious and lasting it is likely to be. As a pattern and example it is only necessary to refer to the structure of the English tongue, which is made up from many sources, and is, some philologists affirm, destined to be the almost universal tongue. The English musical style may be constructed in like manner. All that is now required is a Chaucer in music who will make the first effort to prove that the hitherto despised speech of the ' lewed folk " is not only valuable for ordinary purposes, but is capable of expansion, extension, and solidification, without losing a particle of its flexibility and characteristic vigour. W. A. Barrett.