Chapter II: Part 2

It is to be hoped that these examples will not encourage any reader to pursue Haydn with the cry of plagiarist. No accusation could be more unfounded or more unreasonable. He poached upon no man’s preserve, he robbed no brother-artist, he simply ennobled those peasant-tunes with the thought and expression of which he was most nearly in accord. The whole extent of his indebtedness is at most an occasional melody, and is often but a single phrase; the treatment, the setting, the workmanship belong as truly to him as Faust to Goethe, or Cymbeline to Shakespeare. The master who has written a hundred and twenty first-rate symphonies, and eighty-three first-rate quartets, may surely claim the right to take his wealth where he finds it; and if we are churlish enough to deny this, at least we may allow him the privilege of speaking in his native tongue. To Haydn, the folk-tunes were little more than the words of his accustomed speech, hardly obscured when the Church asserted her contrapuntal dignity, and reappearing in full significance when he returned to the untrammelled orchestra and the freedom of the four magic strings. It is more important to note how closely his special melodic gift is in sympathy with that of his people. Many of the tunes quoted above are among those which a critic would select as especially characteristic: there are literally hundreds of his invention by which, in a more or less degree, the same qualities are exhibited. No doubt he was not only the child of his nation, he had his own personality, his own imaginative force, his own message to deliver in the ears of the world. But through all these the national element runs as a determining thread. That “les grands artistes n’ont pas de patrie” is a sentence abundantly refuted by its very author; it assuredly finds no support in the life of the Croatian peasant who has made immortal the melodies of his race.

A new aspect of the question has been brought into prominence by recent history. The course of policy pursued in our own day by the Austrian Government is tending to reverse the relative importance of the Croatian colony and of the mother country from which it sprang. On the one hand, the central provinces are being steadily Germanised, the Slavonic language is beginning to die out, the Slavonic blood to be crossed by intermixture, and though yet the change is only in process, there is no lack of indication that it is operative. Along the western bank of the Leitha, German is now the prevailing speech, along the eastern bank it is disputing the palm with Hungarian, and between them the Slav, for all his tenacity, will some day be dislodged or absorbed. Hardly any inhabitant speaks of Požun now; the name is either Pozsony or Pressburg; Liesing has almost forgotten that it was once Lešnik, and though Oedenburg[33] still remains as a fortress, it is becoming more and more isolated as the years advance. But, on the other hand, a wider range of opportunity is being opened in Croatia proper. The impulse towards national life, started as we have already seen by Ljudevit Gaj, is being wisely fostered and encouraged by Imperial patronage; and Agram, which a century ago was a little country town, is now assuming the state and dignity of a capital. The University, founded in 1874, has already done much for the study of art and letters; the old market-place has become a fine square, with an opera-house in the centre; the waste ground to the south has been laid out in public gardens, and enclosed with galleries and museums. It is natural that the present race should follow these changes with keen enthusiasm; and should look forward eagerly and confidently to the days of coming greatness. Nor even to a stranger are the evidences lacking. The tone may be somewhat Chauvinist, the self-gratulation somewhat indiscriminate, the record of present achievement a little wanting in distinction; but as yet the movement is new, the resources are new, the whole field has to be contested step by step. It would be idle to expect another Haydn at present; the line has been broken, and must rally before it can advance. Enough for the moment that there are force and impetus and courage, that there is active and restless ability, that there is an unswerving determination to win the day. Who knows in what recruit’s knapsack the bâton of the field-marshal may be lying hidden?

[33] Its Croatian name, “Sopron,” is still in current use, and it contains enough Slavonic inhabitants to employ their language in many of its official notices.

For in all the music of this century there is no phenomenon more remarkable than the steady progress of the Slavonic race. As early as 1818 an English critic was far-sighted enough to predict the advent of Russia,[34] and though his readers never lived to see the presage fulfilled, though in his generation there appeared no greater name than that of Glinka, yet our own day has verified his words beyond the possibility of cavil. There may be some difference of opinion about Rubinstein, there can be none about Borodin or Tschaikowsky, and the traditions which they set are being ably followed by a whole school of younger composers. Toward the middle of the century came Chopin, whose chief ambition, as he himself said, was “to be the Uhland of his country,” and whose chief work was to stamp with the impress of a classic his national strains of polonaise and mazurka. Some thirty years ago Smetana’s brilliant comedy laid the foundation on which Dvořák has built, and rescued from disuse and oblivion the folksongs of Bohemia. It is not without interest that we see another Slavonic nation re-entering the field. In one sense it was the leader of them all, in another it is the latest accession to their ranks, and its fortunes, as it tries to regain a lost position, should be watched by us not only with encouragement, but with close and intimate sympathy.

[34] The passage is worth quoting entire for more than one reason. “Nor can we imagine the art is on the decline while so great a genius as Beethoven lives. This author, though less perfect in other respects than Haydn, exceeds him in power of imagination; and from recent specimens of his unbounded fancy it is to be expected that he will extend the art in a way never contemplated even by Haydn or Mozart. If we were inclined to push our speculations further upon this point we might refer to the very extraordinary discoveries that are now making in Russia in the department of instrumental music. In the course of twenty years it is probable that such effects will be produced in that country as will lead to the most important results in the science of sounds.”—W. Gardiner, in the translation of Stendhal’s “Letters on Haydn,” 2nd edition (London, 1818), page 3.

For, _de nobis fabula narratur_. Western Europe also knows of a land which was once a leader in musical art, which forewent its trust, which suffered its voice to be silenced, which allowed its musicians to bid for popularity by adopting foreign names and foreign methods, which is now striving, with better opportunities than any Slavonic nation can possess, to recover the old ground, and recall the forgotten message. If we disdain the comparison we may learn humility by reading the estimate in which we have long been held by our neighbours. “English music,” says a recent German historian, “may be said to end with Purcell”; “English art,” say our French critics, “has long degenerated into imitation”; and though our present leaders are nobly refuting the charge, there is still with us too much of that cosmopolitan temper which is among the most insidious of our enemies. No doubt times are improving. In Leeds, in Birmingham, in Bristol, even in London, the Englishman may get a hearing, though unless he write Royalty ballads he will hardly find a publisher. But his audience is not yet attuned into proper sympathy with his work. We still judge too much by reference to alien ideals, we are still too indifferent to our own natural language, and our own natural cast of thought. And, until we shake off this indifference and learn to extend our patriotism to our art, we shall never resume our place as a great musical nation.

There is no need that we should offer a less cordial welcome to our foreign visitors, or a less cordial recognition of the immense service that they have done. “Was macht dieser Fremde hier?” is not patriotism, but discourtesy, a mark of the weakness which fears to meet the world frankly upon equal terms. At the same time we have no right either to neglect or to depreciate our own. A great artistic school is not built in a single moment or in a single generation; the work is long, heavy, difficult; it is easily discouraged, it is easily retarded, it needs all the care and diligence that it can command. And there is one way, and one only, in which we can bring it to a successful issue. Let us cut our timber from our own forests, let us quarry our stone from the bed-rock of our own nation, and then let our master-builders deal with the matter as their genius shall determine.

A most hopeful sign is the revival of interest in our national melodies. To the artists who have collected them, to the artists who are making them familiar, our cordial gratitude is due. But it is not enough to have them, we must use them; and it is not enough to use them, we must learn how to catch their spirit. Haydn had a far slighter material than ours, yet he could use it to a purpose which will be remembered when all our exotic romances are forgotten. And now that more than one English master is showing us the way, we have no excuse, we have no pretext for withholding our allegiance any longer.

It is now some years since a few English writers began to advocate the return to nationalism. Since then, much, no doubt, has been done, but much still remains to do, and to us hearers a great part of the reform is entrusted. We have listened to foreign tongues until our own sounds odd and unfamiliar. We have sat so long at Trimalchio’s banquet that we have no appetite left for our native fare. Extremes of passion, extremes of languor, inordinate appeals to sense, all these are alien from our national temper, and we are growing surfeited with them until our taste is spoiled and our palate vitiated. It is just the same in the world of letters. “No one reads Scott,” says one critic; “No one wants Shakespeare,” says another; “give us d’Annunzio and Sudermann and the Immoral Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.” Fortunately English ethics and English literature may be left to look after themselves; they have both a continuity of tradition which will prevent them from falling very far askew. But our art of music is being restored from the heaps of ruin into which it was laid two centuries ago, and it is the business of all who care for art or country to lend a hand. At least we might try to discover what English music has to say, and estimate our composers according to their capacity for saying it.

This position is strengthened by all evidence of musical history. The same hand which made Germany a people enriched her with the “Marseillaise of the Reformation,” and so founded the long dynasty of her great composers. Art in France was at its lowest, when the chief occupation of Paris was to dispute between the claims of the Bavarian Gluck and the Italian Piccinni. Italy herself declined as she lost her national character, the Slavonic peoples have advanced as they have reasserted theirs. And what is true of nations is equally true of their leaders. “The greatest genius,” says Emerson, “is the most indebted man”; the man, that is, who can turn to the most noble and enduring use the traditions of his age and country. So it was with Haydn. Nothing can be more false than to regard him as merely a Court musician, writing with ready and facile talent the _pièces d’occasion_ that were needed for the theatre or the reception-room. His life at Eisenstadt gave him opportunity such as no composer had ever before enjoyed, but the patronage was too enlightened and the character too strong to be satisfied with work that was mannered or artificial. Under the famous “livery of blue and silver” there beat the heart of a rustic poet, full of kindliness, of drollery, of good-fellowship, of the love of children and animals. His genius, trained by years of assiduous labour, gave him a complete mastery over the inherited resources of his art, his imagination extended them with fresh discoveries and inventions. But throughout the whole his favourite themes are pastoral, songs of the shepherd and the harvester, songs of country courtship, songs of the vintage feast and the jovial holiday. It is little wonder that he should speak in the language of his people, or recall the phrases that had been familiar from his childhood.

Yet it is no patois that he uses, but the speech of a whole nation; a living force that spreads wide and reaches to distant boundaries. Nor is he great because he has chosen this or that topic, this or that form of utterance; it is because he is great that there was no choice in the matter. He could not have written of set habit in the German idiom; he was Slav by race and Slav by temper, and his music is too genuine to present itself in foreign guise. It is from this point of view that we should understand him; not by loosely classifying him among a people with whom he had little in common, but by regarding him as the true embodiment of his own national spirit. The Greek proverb condemns a man of two tongues: through the world of art the condemnation is still in force, and at least some measure of it should fall on the ingenious critics who call patriotism parochial, and justify their epithet by obliterating frontiers.

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A.

_Croatian Musicians_, 1835-1848.

(1) _Composers_:—Lisinski. Čačković.
Livadić. Štoos.
Wiesner. Mašek.
Rusan. Baron Prandau.
Pintavić. F. von Suppé.
Jaić.

(2) _Singers_:— Countess Rubido. Stazić.
Štriga. Ledenig.

(3) _Virtuosi, &c._:—
Ivan Padovec.
L. A. Zellner.

N.B.—The following rules of pronunciation should be observed.

r (as a semi-vowel) carries a very short vowel sound before the consonant. Brlog = Berlog made as near a monosyllable as possible.

c = tz. Zajc is pronounced Zaitz.

č = ch soft (like ch in Church).

ć = ty in which the y is a consonant (as it is for instance in the word “you”). The sound is half-way between the “te” in “righteous” and the “tch” in “wretched.”

š = sch or sh. Pušovec (see Appendix C) is pronounced Pushovetz.

ž = the French j, as in jour.

lj and nj are like the gli and gn in figlio, campagna.

The other letters are, roughly speaking, pronounced as in German, except z, which = s in sehr; and s, which = ss in Strasse.

APPENDIX B.

_Croatian Musicians_, 1848-1880.

(1) _Composers_:—
Rihar.‡ G. Eisenhut.
Vilhar.‡ A. Mihalović .
Fleišman.‡ Kociančić ‡
Köck. Leban.‡
Epstein. Valenta.‡
Zajc. Slava Atanasijevic.
Strmic. Faller.
Just. Kuhač.

(2) _Singers_:—
Ema Murska. Grbić.
Matilda Marlov. Kašman.
Matilda Mallinger. Maria Kotas.
Ema Vizjak. Maria Pikril.
Irma Terputec. Maca Matačić.
Mazoleni.
Sofia Kramberger.

‡ Slovenian.

(3) _Virtuosi_:—
Šteiner. Petrié.
Hummel. Ivan Mihalović.
Ludmilla Veizer. F. Krežma.
Josif Eisenhut. Anka Krežma.
Ciol. Kolander.

(4) _Conductors, Professors, &c._:—
Kukulević. Antun Švarc[35].
B. Ipavec. Martin Jenko.
G. Ipavec. Adolf Schwartz
Ida Wimberger.

[35] Possibly German, see “Schwartz” below.

APPENDIX C.

_Croatian Names in the Pusterthal and Neighbourhood_

_Germanised form_:— _Croatian form_:—

Aegrathal. Ograda.
Arvig (?). Oranik.
Berlogaz. Brlog.
Bschwoitz. Pušovec.
Dolnitz. Dolina.
Frutscherthal. Vručidol.
Garnitza. Krnica.
Glanz. Klanjec.
Glinz (Linz). Glinica.
Gollisel. Goloselo.
Gruschgize. Kruškica.
Kollnig. Kolnik.
Kräll. Kralj.
Libisel. Ljubisel.
Lasser. Lesar.
Lessing. Lešnik.
Motschenboden. Mocva.
Pedoll. Podolje.
Petsch. Peč (Pešti).
Plötsch. Ploca.
Polliz. Polica.
Pusterthal. Pustodol.
Rudenek. Rudnik.
Stoanitzbrunn. Studenac.
Stollizen. Stolica.
Tragen. Draga.
Tristach. Trstje.
Villgraten. Velegrad.
Zabemig. Zavrhnik.
Zelzach. Selca.
Zuchepoll. Suhopolje.

NOTE.—For similar examples in other parts of Austria, see Kämmel’s “Die Anfänge deutschen Lebens in Oesterreich.”

APPENDIX D.

_Traces of Croat Population in the District near Pressburg._

The following towns and villages have possessed a Croat population, either predominant or at least considerable:—

Maiersdorf. Wildungsmauer.
Zverndorf. Kaglor.
Pangort. Pišelsdorf.
Marchegg. Mannersdorf.
Bratisey. Au (Cindrov).
Senfeld. Hof (Cimov).
Hlohovac. Landeck.
Siebenbrunn. Kroatisch Wagram
Horisey. (Ogran hrvatski).
Štrandorf. Frama.
Poturno. Fuchspichl
Limisdorf. (Fukšpil).
Andlersdorf Ort.
(Razvitnjak). Bratštatin.
Guštatin. Lower Siebenbrunn.
Petronel. Kroatisch Haslern
Rohrau (Trstnik). (Hazlor hrvatski).

Besides the whole district round Eisenstadt, Oedenburg, and the Neusiedler See.

APPENDIX E.

_Musicians born in Pressburg and its Neighbourhood._

‡Hans Neusiedler, Lutenist, born 1563 near the Neusiedler See.

‡Veit Bach, grandfather of J. S. Bach, born about 1580 at Pressburg.
‡Andreas Rauch, organist and composer, born about 1590 at
Pottendorf.

‡Samuel Bockshorn (Capricornus), conductor, born in 1629 at
Pressburg.

‡J. S. Kusser (Couser), composer, born in 1657 at Pressburg.

‡Joseph Haydn, born in 1732 at Rohrau.

‡Michael Haydn, born in 1737 at Rohrau.

‡Johann Evangelist Haydn, born in 1743 at Rohrau.

‡Matthias Kamiensky (Kamenar), composer, born in 1734 at Oedenburg.

Theodor Lotz, musical instrument maker, born about 1740 at
Pressburg.

‡Anton Zimmermann, composer, born in 1741 at Pressburg.

‡N. Hadrava, Lutenist, born in 1750 near Pressburg.

‡G. Druschetzky (Druzechi), composer, born about 1760 at
Pressburg. (?)

Jacob Hyrtl, oboe-player in the Esterházy orchestra, born about
1760 at Eisenstadt.

Joseph Weigel (Weigl), composer, born in 1766 at Eisenstadt.

‡Ivan Bihari, violinist and composer, born in 1769 at Great Abony.

‡Stephan Koch, musical instrument maker, born in 1772 at Vesprim.

‡Ivan Fuss, composer, born in 1777 at Tolnau.

‡Johann Nepomuk Hummel, born in 1778 at Pressburg.

‡Joseph Blahak, composer, born in 1779 at Raggersdorf.

‡Ivan Fuchs, Kapellmeister to Prince Esterházy, born in 1780 at
Eisenstadt.

Peter Lichtenthal, composer, born in 1780 at Pressburg.

Count Thadeus Amadé, pianist, born in 1783 at Pressburg.

‡Adolf Müller, composer, born in 1802 at Tolnau.

‡Joseph Wurda, singer, born in 1807 at Gjur (Raab).

‡Friedrich Fischer, singer, born in 1809 at Pressburg.

[36]Franz Liszt, born in 1811 at Raiding (Rudnik).

Michael Hauser, violinist, born in 1822 at Pressburg.

‡Ferdinand Kletzer, violoncellist, born in 1830 at Oedenburg. (?)

Joseph Joachim, born in 1831 at Kitsee.

Carl Goldmark, born in 1832 at Keszthelyn.

Ludwig Straus, born in 1845 at Pressburg.

Leopold Auer, violinist, born in 1845 at Vesprim.

Charlotte Debner, violinist, born in 1846 at Kitsee.

‡ Probably Croatian.

[36] The case of Liszt is somewhat apart from the others. The earliest form of his name appears to be Listhius, which Dr. Kuhač claims with some plausibility as Slavonic (naše gore list). But as early as 1747 the Magyarised form appears in the person of Canon Johann Liszt; and there can be little doubt that by the time of the great pianist’s birth the family had become thoroughly Hungarian. There are, of course, many Hungarian families in which Magyar and Slavonic strains are united, and in the music of Liszt the Magyar element unquestionably predominates.

APPENDIX F.

_Names of Croatian Musicians Translated or Corrupted._

(_a_) _Translated_ (equivalent of meaning: conjectural).

_Current Name._ _Croatian Name._

Neusiedler. Novosel.
Bockshorn. Ročić.
Bach. Potočić or Potočniak.
Rauch. Dimić or Dimović.
Zimmermann. Tesar, or Tesarević.
Koch. Kuhač, Kuhačević, or Kuharević.
Fuss. Nogić, or Nogavac.
Hummel. Bumbarević or Ćmeliak.[37]
Fuchs. Lissa, Lisica, or Lisinski.
Müller. Mlinar or Mlinarić.
Fischer. Ribar or Ribarić.

(_b_) _Corrupted_ (adaptation of sound: reasonably certain).

Bulgarelli. Bugarin.
Bona. Bunić.
Brusa. Brusić.
Draghi. Dragi.
Dragonetti. Draganić.
Ferrich. Ferić.
Gerlo. Grlo.
Giornovichi. Jarnović.
Jelich or Jael. Jelić.
Kresnik. Gresnik.
Henkel. Kengelović.
Calinde. Kalin.
Kannabich. Kanabić.
Cola. Kola.
Muzin. Mužina.
Mazoleni. Mazolić.
Mazzuranna. Mašuranić.
Nachich or Nanchini. Nakić.
Pollini. Polić.
Desplanes. Polinar.
Pisaroni. Pisar.
Zappa. Sapa.
Scalichius. Skalić.
Smetenich. Smetenić.
Tamparizza. Tamparica.
Thern. Trn.
Tartini. Trtić.
Tuscan. Tuskan.
Visochi. Visoki.
Zingarelli. Ciganin.
Zagitz. Zaic.
Zuchetto. Zuketić.
Schuppanzigh. Zupančić.

[37] According to the two meanings of the word Hummel.

APPENDIX G.

_Variants of the Name “Haydn” within the Limits of the Composer’s Family._

(_a_) _Haiden_:
Register of Caspar Haiden’s marriage, Hainburg, 1657.

Register of Joseph Haiden’s death, Hainburg, April 19, 1715.

Register of the composer’s baptism, Rohrau, April 1, 1732
(the father’s name is given as Mathias Haiden).

Register of his mother’s death, Rohrau, February 25, 1754.

(_b_) _Hayden_:
Register of Thomas Hayden’s death, Hainburg, September 4,
1701, and of his widow’s re-marriage, Hainburg, January 8,
1702.

Register of the composer’s marriage, (St. Stephen’s, Vienna,
November 26, 1760).

The composer’s signature (quittance for salary) Eisenstadt,
January, 1762.

Register of Mathias Hayden’s death, Rohrau, September 14,
1763, and the monument to him now in Rohrau Churchyard.

Frequent concert notices, both of the composer and his brother
Michael, the latter at Salzburg.

Habitual signature for many years of Michael Hayden.

The composer’s monument in Count Harrach’s Park at Rohrau.

(_c_) _Haidin_:
The name of the composer’s mother is so given on the monument
in Rohrau Churchyard.

(_d_) _Heyden_:
The composer’s name is so written throughout the “Convention
und Verhaltungs-Norma” under which he held his appointment at
Eisenstadt.

(_e_) _Heiden_:
Register of Thomas Heiden’s baptism, Hainburg, 1655.

(_f_) _Hayd’n_: } Occasionally, though rarely,
(_g_) _Haydtn_: } in concert programmes.

(_h_) _Haydn_:
Register of Mathias Haydn’s baptism, Hainburg, January 31,
1699.

The composer’s habitual signature after February, 1762.

Register of his wife’s death, Baden, March 20, 1800.

Diploma of the Freedom of Vienna, April 1, 1804.

Many notices and concert programmes.

Monument to the composer in the Einsiedeln Church at
Eisenstadt.

(_i_) _Haidn_:
Register of Barbara Haidn’s baptism, Hainburg, January 2,
1658.

Frequent notices and concert programmes.

Letter of Beethoven, 1822.

(_k_) _Hayrn_:
Register of Thomas Hayrn’s marriage, Hainburg, November 23,
1687—his father’s name is also given as Caspar Hayrn; see
letters (_a_), (_b_), and (_c_).

(_l_) _Hein_:
Register of Mathias Hein’s marriage, Rohrau, November 24,
1728.

(_m_) _Haden_: }
(_n_) _Hädn_: } Occasional variants in registers and
(_o_) _Hayn_: } documents at Hainburg, Rohrau, &c.,
(_p_) _Hain_: } noted by Dr. Pohl.
(_q_) _Heim_: }

_Large crown 8vo., with Portraits on Copper. Price 7s. 6d._

STUDIES IN MODERN MUSIC.

HECTOR BERLIOZ, ROBERT SCHUMANN, RICHARD WAGNER.

THIRD EDITION.

By W. H. HADOW, M.A., _Fellow of Worcester College, Oxon._

“We have seldom read a book on musical subjects which
has given us so much pleasure as this one, and we can
sincerely recommend it to all who are interested in the
art.”—_Saturday Review._

“It is a real relief, amid the rambling and slipshod
effusions which constitute the bulk of musical _belles
lettres_, to encounter such a volume as these ‘Studies in
Modern Music,’ by Mr. W. H. Hadow. Mr. Hadow is himself a
musician of no mean attainments; but there is no parade of
technical knowledge in his book. He writes like a scholar
and a gentleman, his style is felicitous and his critical
attitude at once sane and generous.”—_Graphic._

“He writes with striking thoughtfulness and breadth of
view, so that his essays may be read with much interest by
musicians. It is a remarkable book, because, unlike the
majority of musical treatises by amateurs, it is full of
truth and common sense.”—_Athenæum._

“The essay on musical criticism is well worth anybody’s
reading; its general tendency is to extend the basis of
modern criticism, commensurably with the larger and wider
scope of modern music, to establish standards of musical
value by which modern works can be more justly measured than
by the pedantic misapplication of once valid rules. In his
whole discourse on the subject Mr. Hadow gives evidence of
immense common sense, backed up by innate and cultivated
artistic perception.”—_Atlantic Monthly._

_BY THE SAME AUTHOR. With Portraits. Price 7s. 6d._

STUDIES IN MODERN MUSIC.

_SECOND SERIES._

FREDERICK CHOPIN, ANTONIN DVORÁK, JOHANNES BRAHMS.

_PRECEDED BY AN ESSAY ON MUSICAL FORM._

SECOND EDITION.

“The three biographies are charming; and in each case the
author has something both true and new to say.”—_National
Observer._

“The development of form is described with many brilliant
touches and with complete grasp of the subject, and the
book, which will probably be considered to be even better
than the former work, is most heartily to be recommended to
all who wish to attain the highest kind of enjoyment of the
best music.”—_Times._

“Highly finished portraits are presented of the three
modern masters named, and the articles are distinguished by
the same musicianly knowledge and felicity of expression as
those in the earlier book.”—_Athenæum._

“The amount of labour and research condensed into these
pages is really remarkable.”—_Musical Times._

“There is not a word either in the historical or
exegetical portions of Mr. Hadow’s work which will not
furnish agreeable suggestion to the casual reader, and
satisfaction to the student.”—_St. James’s Gazette._

LONDON: SEELEY AND CO., LIMITED, 38, GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C.

_Published in Two Editions, price Sixpence and One Shilling; sewed; also in cloth, at Eightpence and Eighteenpence._

THE CHORAL SERVICE BOOK

FOR PARISH CHURCHES,

CONTAINING

_THE FERIAL AND FESTAL RESPONSES, THE LITANY, CHANTS ARRANGED FOR THE CANTICLES AND PSALTER, AND MUSIC FOR THE COMMUNION SERVICE._

Compiled and Edited by J. W. ELLIOTT,

_Organist and Choirmaster of S. Mark’s, Hamilton Terrace, London._

The Book contains the following music for the Services of the Church:—

THE FERIAL RESPONSES AND THE LITANY. With the Ancient Melody by JOHN MARBECK. Harmonised by J. W. ELLIOTT.

THE FESTIVAL RESPONSES. With the Harmonies by T. TALLIS.

THIRTY CHANTS FOR THE VENITE.

TWELVE SETS OF CHANTS FOR EACH OF THE OTHER CANTICLES.

TWELVE SETTINGS OF THE KYRIE ELEISON.

A SETTING OF THE COMMUNION SERVICE. By DR. J. NAYLOR.

TWO COMPLETE SETS OF CHANTS FOR THE PSALTER

SPECIAL SETTINGS OF THE PROPER PSALMS, AND OF PSALMS FOR A FLOWER SERVICE AND HARVEST FESTIVAL.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

“It was a happy thought to combine in one book all the
music required for an ordinary choral service. Most of our
living Church musicians have been laid under contribution to
this most excellent collection.”—_Musical Standard._

“In the selection of chants the compiler has been guided
by an excellent taste. The organist or choirmaster who
uses this book will find here not merely the familiar
chants we should all be sorry to miss, but many others but
little known, and yet both beautiful and well adapted to
congregational use. The book is very skilfully arranged and
is clearly printed.”—_Record._

“A very useful book. The intention of the editor is to
promote congregational singing, and therefore all music
which is too elaborate in character, or too high in pitch,
has been rigorously excluded.”—_Church Bells._

“An abundant supply of chants, single and double. Mr.
Elliott’s work will assist organists in the choice of
suitable chants.”—_Church Times._

“A great variety of chants, old and new, will also
commend the book, a set for the proper Psalms being
especially useful. Altogether this is a book safely to be
recommended.”—_Saturday Review._

LONDON: SEELEY AND CO., LIMITED, 38, GREAT RUSSELL STREET, W.C.