more generally useful to enter into the discussion of particulars than to reason on abstract principles, I will proceed to give my impressions on the present state of the opera in England; requesting the indulgence of the musician, to whom I may appear to pass superficially over matters demanding a deeper and fuller investigation, while I may possibly weary the general reader on points to which he feels a total indifference. When Spontini, on his return from England, was requested to publish, in one of the musical journals at Berlin, an account of the state of music in this country, he replied that the art was at so low an ebb in England that he considered it unworthy the trouble of criticism; and this opinion has been spread pretty widely on the continent by other foreign musicians of equal celebrity. Although I admit that there is ample ground for censure, I cannot but consider this sweeping condemnation as more severe than we actually deserve; but, accustomed as the Germans are to a high degree of excellence with a comparative dearth of means, they are naturally astonished to find mediocrity in a city which affords, perhaps, greater facilities for the attainment of musical excellence than any other. Now we, on the contrary, are apt to flatter ourselves that our opera presents a model of perfection, and to look down on the German houses as deficient in that important desideratum a prima donna. The truth would seem to lie between these conflicting opinions, each country possessing advantages not to be found in the other, although the sole impediment to our capability of exhibiting the united excellencies of both may fairly be attributed to the inferior amount of musical knowledge possessed by the English public. Criticisms of a high order may, indeed, be found in Baker's Quarterly Musical Journal, the Spectator, &c.,* but these publications are either unknown beyond the circle of the professionally musical world, or are unintelligible or uninteresting to the public at large. Perhaps it may not be considered as too sanguine to indulge the hope that the following remarks, appearing in a periodical so deservedly popular and so generally interesting as the Analyst, may attract the attention of those who, if not altogether, have it largely in their power to remedy the defects, and remove the stigma under which we now labour. In regard to the orchestra, the foreign critic is instantly and for * We hope that in Music our own Journal will, in future, be found deserving of that praise which, in its other departments,-without vanity be it spoken-it has obtained from those whose praise is most valuable.-EDs. cibly struck by a want of precision, not only in the time, but in the observance of pianos, fortes, and crescendos; he feels the absence of that thorough understanding which, in the best German orchestras, pervades the whole, from the conductor and leader down to the drum. This want of understanding is the reason why, in a band containing so many first-rate musicians, we seldom hear a passage well-executed in piano by the whole band; the fortes thus necessarily lose much of their effect, and long crescendos are scarcely attempted. Yet listen when they accompany one of Pasta's or Rubini's arias, or when they play the introductory symphony! It is the beau ideal of elegant and graceful instrumental execution, and surpasses any accompaniment I have had an opportunity of hearing on the continent. When an orchestra of upwards of fifty performers executes passages where all its powers are brought into play, they cannot possibly succeed in expressing the meaning of the composer if they have not undergone much previous training, and if the eye of a skilful conductor is not constantly upon them. This preliminary training is not requisite when ten or a dozen of the most consummate masters, on their respective instruments, in the constant habit of playing together, have to execute the simple symphonies and accompaniments to modern Italian airs. Mori, Lindley, Dragonetti, Nicholson, and Willman, require no prompting in their respective parts, and they, moreover, enjoy the inestimable privilege of accompanying constantly the finest singers in the world. No orchestra can excel in the performance of difficult music if the conductor is not au fait in reading a full score at sight, and capable of instantaneously detecting the most trifling inaccuracies in the performance; it is equally indispensable that he should be perfectly master of the manner in which every style ought to be executed. The Italians are seldom adepts at making out a score ; their knowledge of composition is usually superficial, and they are easily satisfied in regard to execution. It is a fact perhaps not generally known that Italian orchestras are incapable of getting through even the notes of such operas as Der Freischutz, Robert le Diable, &c., not only from the difficulty of the keys in which they are written, but on account of the precision required in the performance of the concerted pieces; to Italians any other music but that of their own country and time is as an unknown tongue. In these circumstances we discover one great disadvantage under which our opera has long laboured, namely, that the conductors have been, with few exceptions, Italians. Were a German musician of eminence to be ap pointed to this most responsible post, it is easy to foresee that the orchestra would speedily undergo a marked change for the better, and, consequently, the public taste would improve in the same proportion. The objection that a German would be incapable of entering into the spirit of Italian music, is entirely void of foundation; he who is able to appreciate Beethoven and Weber may be supposed competent to understand the superficial merits of Rossini and Bellini; of this capability no further proof need be adduced than the manner in which the works of this school are got up in Germany. A German would be invaluable in drilling the chorus, the state of which is, at present, a national disgrace; Italians appear to consider precision in this department as totally unconnected with the effect of an opera: to give an instance, the choruses in Marino Faliero were, last season, drawled out in a manner which could only have been the result of negligence. The precision and spirit with which the German companies, when in England, gave the most difficult choruses, excited general admiration; yet the idea never appeared to occur that it would be desirable to introduce this much-needed improvement into our own chorus. In selecting a German conductor, care should undoubtedly be taken to avoid appointing a bigotted adherent of the modern crabbed school of Spohr, Ries, Marschner, &c. No censure is here intended to be passed on these great masters themselves; it can only attach to those who, with Rinck and many others, have adopted the defects without the beauties of their style. From the observations which I have had an opportunity of making on the characters of the different schools of Germany, I am inclined to think that Vienna and Prague are the most likely to furnish musicians in all respects suited to the office. One of the most glaring errors in our establishment remains to be noticed- -an error proceeding in some measure from the persons to whose control it has been committed. I allude to the fact that, within the last five years, the performances have, with some few exceptions, such as Don Giovanni and Medea, consisted exclusively of the works of one school; viz., that of Rossini and his followers. I must now take leave of the reader for a season. In my next paper I will endeavour, by an impartial survey of the merits of these composers, to ascertain how far they are entitled to this exclusive preference over the masters of all other times and countries. Y. D. (To be continued). 49 AN HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE CHARACTER OF FISHER, BISHOP OF ROCHESTER. "I love Fisher; you have taught me to hate Harry the Eighth more than ever."-DR. PARR.* ALMOST every learned foreigner of the present day who has directed his researches to English history, has animadverted upon the disposition of Protestant writers to exaggerate the merits of Henry VIII. and unduly to soften his crimes; while another main impression is, their disparagement of those personages who had the rare magnanimity to oppose his arbitrary dogmas in church and state. It is quite impossible not to attach this charge of partiality to the historian of the Reformation, Bishop Burnett, however loud and frequent may be his vauntings that truth was the sole end and object of his labours. This celebrated author may be said to have given the impulse, to have set the tone to this favourite and fashionable principle. In exemplification of this remark, take his delineation of the characters of Cranmer, Cromwell, and Fisher. Surely he might have done ample justice to the two former without attempting to throw a cloud over the venerable virtuest of the latter. We do not blame him for his lavish praises upon the two great in * See Butler's Reminiscences, vol. ii., p. 227. : + So unconscious, however, does Burnett appear of making his readers more acquainted with the faults than with the excellencies of Fisher, that he does not scruple to say, "I seem to write like one that intended to raise his character rather than to depress it."-Hist. of the Reform., v. iii., part 2., p. 519. Now it must strike a man of plain understanding to be rather a novel method of exalting Fisher's character, to affirm that "he was much addicted to the superstitions in which he was brought up."-Hist. of the Reform., v. i., p. 708 and, again, "his charity was burning indeed. He was, a merciless persecutor of heretics, so that the rigour of the law under which he fell was the measure that he had measured out to others."—Hist. of the Reform., v. i., part 2, p. 439. "Call you that backing of your friends? A plague upon such backing." Moreover, it may be observed, that a less partial historian, if he had occasion to couple the names of Fisher and More in the same sentence, would not have passed over the merits of the former in the slighting manner Burnett has done, as if there were no elements of greatness or goodness in his composition, however true it may be that the reputation of the latter still shines with undiminished brightness. "The taking so many lives, particularly Fisher's and More's, the one being extreme old, and the other one of the glories of his nation, for probity and learning, &c. &c."-Preface to the Hist. of the Reform., p. xvi. VOL. VI.NO. XIX. G struments of the Anglican Reformation, we blame him only that with his avowed reverence for historical impartiality, he should have spoken so lifelessly and coldly of that truly apostolical man the Bishop of Rochester, Cardinal, as the papists style him, of the Holy Church of Rome; whose nobleness of principle, unalterable purity of action, disinterestedness, and generosity of soul, should at least have been described with fairness and liberality, if they did not command his willing admiration.* One would have imagined, from its being so demonstrable that Henry could not find hatred enough in his heart, or punishment enough on earth,† for that inflexibly honest prelate, our upright and conscientious historian would, as often as the name of Fisher presented itself to his notice, have penned not a few sentences of moral reprobation upon those hellish inmates of Henry's breast which may be called his household gods. But from the manner in which he glides over the monstrous iniquity of his sentence, the hasty and superficial reader might be led to suppose, that Burnett was as ignorant of it, as of the mighty powers of steam; whereas, to those * The qualities of his head and heart were such, as at one time to extort from Henry himself this high compliment to them: addressing Cardinal Pole, he said, "Se judicare me nunquam invenisse in universa peregrinatione mea, qui literis et virtute cúm Rofferne esset comparandus.”—Apol. Poli., p. 95. † The brutal malignity of Henry did not, according to Pole, cease with the life of Fisher, but extended itself towards his remains :-" Itaque cum post carceris miseriam quindecim mensium spatio perpessam produci eum fecisset, capite, plecti jussit. Nec vero hoc satis, nisi mortui corpus omni contumeliæ objiceret, quod nudum prorsus in loco supplicii ad spectaculum populo relinqui mandaverat, ad quod nemo accedere audebat tyranni metu, præter eos qui contumeliæ causa accederent, vel qui mortuo indumenta detraxerant."--Apolog., p. 96. There is a detailed account of the treatment of Fisher's dead body, in Dr. Hall's, or, more correctly writing, Dr. Bailey's Life of Fisher, from which any one might justly conclude that the English people were not then emerged from savagery, even to a semi-civilization.-p. 210. But what I shall now state on the authority of the Roman Catholic historian, Dodd, will transcend the belief of the present age, and can be received by the vulgar only, whose credulity is always probable :-" After the exposure of Fisher's head for fourteen days upon London Bridge, it was thrown into the Thames, in consequence of a report that rays of light were observed to shine around it.”—Church Hist., v. i., p. 161. Hall, more modest in his reference to this miracle, though ready enough to give it welcome admis sion, contents himself with saying, that "the face was observed to become fresher and more comely day by day, and that such were the crowds collected together to look at it, that almost neither cart nor horse could pass.”Life of Fisher, p. 212. |