Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

women who have not young children. This is true, of course, of hundreds of thousands of women. But there are others who make it a time of fascinating activities. The women who love work of the mind and hands find it the most fertile period of the year. One company of middle-aged ladies spent two hours of each summer morning botanizing in the dim Wisconsin woods under the instruction of one of their number, who is a distinguished scientist.

These women also made themselves a workshop, and in it they did some truly exquisite cabinet work, using only fine and beautiful

woods, and decorating their cabinet, chairs, . and screen, which were the result of the

summer's industry, with carving, stenciling, and some pictorial inlaying of delicately colored woods. Nor was the least of their achievements the construction of a flight of steps down the bluff leading from the wooded plateau where stand their homes to the beach of a bewitching little lake. A spirit level tested the perfection of each step, the proper implements packed the mobile earth, and on the base of the upper steps ran certain lines from «M'Andrew's Hymn) in celebration of good workmanship. Surely a labor such as this must win the applause of all who like to have a needed thing well done.

ELIA W. PEATTIE.

CHICAGO.

A WORD ON MARRIAGES

T

he worst characteristic of matrimony is nately for progress there are few individual or

that it results in a pause, a cessation. original men.
Marriage should be a beginning. A girl Marriage for companionship is the only real

is educated for marriage. It is her ambi- marriage whose reason can continue to exist. tion, almost her destiny, certainly her thought. This alone would raise it above the others. And when she marries the thing is done. Her And not only does the motive continue to exist, destiny is accomplished. The result is domes- but it may even grow in intensity. Though ticity, which to a husband who is still her lover companionship has transient reactions, yet, is not at all what he married her for. This is when founded on esteem and practised in courwhy most marriages, where the man continues tesy, its course is onward, and it grows deeper to feel about the girl as he felt before, are a as it grows closer, becoming clearer as it bedisappointment. It is absolutely true that the comes placid. Companionship is beautiful bemost comfortable marriages are those in which cause it implies willing self-forgetfulness in each person takes the other as a matter of thought of another. It should mean openness, course. Is this sort of marriage a success? and simplicity, and unboasting reliance on the It depends on a man's ideal of matrimony, and other's fidelity. Then it does not matter much fortunately most men are not burdened by in- if one is deceived, for the lesson has been dividual ideals.

learned. In companionship it is not what one Marriages may perhaps be divided into three gets that matters, it is what one gives. How varieties, — marriages for a pretty face, mar. fine a thing, then, is the companionship of a riages for money or position, and marriages for man and a woman, entered into voluntarily, with companionship

mutual understanding and respect, - a companThe marriage for a pretty face is probably ionship not only of affections but of interests, the most common. We call it sentimentality, not only of the emotions but of the mind! It - a nice word for a sensuous thing. It is the makes marriage high and enduring. It is more shallowest of all motives. This marriage the than a fancy; it is more than a gain; it is an soonest loses its reason; not so much because honor. of the aging of the pretty face as because a man How few marriages are an honor)! Most tires of one pretty face, or even of all.

of them are a bore. The tragedy of marriage Marriage for money is not marriage; it is an is not so much when the love of both the man arrangement. It is repellant to a man of the and the woman eases off into indifference; that least idealization because it partakes of buying. is at least indifference. It is when the love of It is a civilized form of the slave market, -only one decays while the love of the other still here the slaves are willing. The immorality is lives, that love becomes a torment. The lover the same, but the slave of antiquity had the suffers a constant slight. The heart grows excuse of unwillingness. Some day men will weary. It longs bitterly not to love. Cynicism realize that morality and custom are innately rusts it.

It aches beneath the ashes of livedalien; to use an old simile, morality is the water out and long-dead passions. In the face of this and custom is the oil. Only individual and ori- indifference it stands in silence, pitiful, accuginal men can see that neither the universality mulating angers against its disappointment. of a custom or its antiquity is a reason for its The heart of its love grows rageful, and at last existence or a sign of its excellence. Men to it hates. But it still loves, and that is the whom this would seem a reason are surely not tragedy. capable of making good customs. Unfortu- A yet greater tragedy is the bitterness of love defiled. This is a woe of the soul loves his wife; he is used to her. It is absolutely which is everlasting, because there can be no true. Woman's only chance of continued comre-raising of ideals. Of all bitternesses this is panionship is to grow with her husband.

But the deepest. And the vile ridicule of it all is this requires a rare woman. that to the desecrated one there seems no dese- Lastly it may be well to mention, among cration. Then the heart grows solitary, and it the things that make a marriage unhappy, the laughs.

lack of control of temper. Two people living The fact of being loved deeply, honorably, in companionship, supposing each to have some and lastingly surely entails some duties. One individuality, will certainly differ, not only on owes something to a love like this even if one many subjects but in many ways. Yet friends does not share it. One owes a certain nobility may differ and not quarrel. Why could not of action toward the lover who has given one people who are married do so? Perhaps the such a love. All high, courteous natures will principal reasons are that — first — friends dread pay the debt, and they will pay it in a way that the breaking of friendship by a quarrel, while absolves them from any blame of not sharing married people feel that they are bound to the love, in a way that is the dearest to the one one another. But this is unworthy. Highwho loves, in a way that is more valuable to minded people would not see it as an excuse. themselves than any other act could be. They The second reason is that friendship is largely will repay it by trying to be the thing their founded on mutual esteem, which is forgotten lover dreamed them. But there are so few in marriage, mutual passion taking its place. high, courteous natures!

The third reason is that married people usually The best thing in love is friendship, but few do not allow each other a separate character, married people are friends. They are not ene- while friends do. In marriage there should be mies; they are too used to one another to be so, conformity as much as possible in two things, – and it would be uncomfortable. But there is actions and standards. But the character of a vast fatigue of one another lying hid beneath each person should not conform. And many the customary affection which they have made married people demand this both consciously their surface. Interest in one another has and unconsciously. Their natures are at war. lessened. Why? It is usually because one or And there is one other sort of temper very the other has seemed to cease to grow, to common and very troublesome in marriage, change. Interest is soon satiated in one phase. the intermittent nature, - temper arising from When they marry, people adopt a certain char- uncontrolled moods, from exaggerated intenacter toward one another from which they sity of feelings about little things, or simply seldom vary.

And even when they do vary it from hysterical tendencies. There is only one is in their manner toward others, not toward remedy, and this remedy lies only with the paeach other. This soon wearies interest. Each tient. It is what men call philosophy, a thing feels that he or she knows the other, while alien to most people. And there is only one often only the surface is known.

relief for the victim,- for in this case the But, worse than this, one or the other often patient is not the victim,- and that is the conactually ceases to grow mentally. It is almost stant realization that such moods are intermite invariably the woman, particularly if she has tent. In the presence of temper of this kind offspring. The reason is obvious. She be- self-control is always superior, as stability is comes a servant, and not only this, but a ser- superior to instability. And it is at the same vant to creatures who are not adults. So her time the most dignified thing, the kindest, the mental development stops. But the man goes least regrettable, and, if one desires revenge, on. He evolves into the care-taker. His wife the most revengeful, and it is sometimes even has become his housekeeper. This is a tragedy provocative of remorse — in thinking people. which few men realize. How can they feel Marriages are happy usually only between tragical about their housekeeper? And, do the very stupid and the very intelligent. But they still love ? Love? What is there of the many are content, many are disagreeable, and girl of their choice — the girl they fell in love a few are tragic marriages. with-in this woman? And even if she re- The truth of it all is that the best thing in mained the same - his wife and not his house- love is friendship-and few people are capable keeper — would he in his new growth find her of friendship!

R. V. RISLEY. sufficient? No. The average man no longer New YORK.

ART AND MUSIC

ART AND RELIGION

HE true work of art,” says Michael An

gelo, is but a shadow of the divine

I perfection.» «The art of an age or

[ocr errors]

nation, writes another, is the efflorescence of its whole spiritual life and endeavor.” The art of a people is therefore only the embodiment of its prevailing ideas, affections, and conceptions, in architecture, in sculpture, and on the glowing canvas. A nation's art is but a mirror reflecting the image of the features and body of the age, its finer spirit and its inner strivings and longings. Victor Hugo, in «Les Miserables,” says, “There is a spectacle grander than the sea, - that is the sky; there is a spectacle grander than the sky,— that is the interior of the soul. It is because artists have sought to give us a view into the inner workings of the soul of which the poet sings, the preacher discourses, and upon which the philosopher meditates, because they have sought to give us a glimpse of the heights and depths of this inner sky, that art must go down the centuries interlocked, as it were, in the holy bonds of wedlock with religion. And where shall the artist find grander and more inspiring scenes, more tragic incidents, tenderer emotions, sublimer examples of patriotism and devotion for his pencil or chisel to portray, than in the religion of his fathers, in which are so strangely blended all the holier feelings of love, adoration, and romantic honor. Religion is the gauge of human progress and bears the same relation to art that cause does to effect in the philosophical world. As a river can never rise higher than its source, so a people can rise no higher than its objects of worship, be they what they will, - wood or stone, as those of the Congos of equatorial Africa, or the Triune God of the Jews, who was, who is, and who shall be. Go back to the remotest antiquity, where history fades into myth and legend; search among the ruins of decayed empires; examine the monumental remains of Asiatic civilization, and everywhere the truth stands out boldly that everything worthy of the name of art has sprung from religion. On the banks of the Nile rose the pyramids and catacombs, — vast receptacles for the dead. On these huge structures were exhausted the wealth, the skill, and the lives of countless generations. And for what? To give the dead a royal resting-place. The Egyptian believed in the transmigration of souls. He believed that his soul, and those of his wife and children, would at death enter

some animal, and then another, and so on forever. Therefore the Egyptian cared more for the dead than he did for the living. Hence the worship of animals, the embalming of the dead, and the vast and costly sepulchres.

So in the same manner we can trace the art of Greece to its religion. The religion of the Greeks was the deification of nature and the affection and faculties of man.

Their gods and goddesses who dwelt on Mount Olympus were only beautiful and powerful men and women, such as we might conceive our first parents were when in the Garden of Eden. The religion of the Greeks was essentially terrestrial in its nature. Its fundamental

sition, as manifested in its votaries, was pleasure, - pleasure of the senses, of the imagination, and of the intellect. The future was nothing, the present everything. Such, in short, was the religion of this precocious race. Its art we can easily imagine. Beauty of form and majesty of intellect will be its highest ideals. And such we find it to be. It could not be otherwise. Their gods and goddesses, who were removed only a few degrees in power and strength and beauty above mortals, became the ideal of all true and genuine artists, who found in them materials for immortality. To express the form divine and the rich intellectual endowments which the Greeks attributed to their deities, statuary was the most effective and the best adapted. Therefore we find that sculpture was the central art among the Hellenic race, around which all the others were wreathed as a garland. It was the religion of the Greeks that furnished their artists their sublimest conceptions and the style of dress best suited to exhibit the soul within the crystal shrine.

The same relation can be traced between modern art and Christianity as that which existed between Grecian art and Grecian mythology. The Christian religion is in its character essentially different from that of the Greeks. It is divine in its origin and in its aims. The present, compared with the future, is nothing. It is only a vale of tears, a day's journey, a cold and barren point between two eternities. In the divine economy of this new faith the physical man is nothing; the spiritual man is everything. It is only as he is related to infinity that he becomes a little lower than the angels and crowned with glory and honor. It is present at all times and everywhere. Sculpture being unable to express the infinite, the boundless, Christianity had to resort to painting as the art best adapted to express its fundamental idea. Hence painting is the central art of modern civilization, to which all others are subordinate. Like sculpture in Greece it became the national art as it brought forth in fuller relief the religious conceptions of the people. A picture has no merit in the eyes of the moderns unless it is related to the whole universe; back of the objects represented must be a wide perspective of grand mountains and solemn seas fading away into the infinite. It is the same with architecture. Compare Grecian temples with the Catholic cathedrals of the Middle Ages. The former combine gracefulness with masculine grandeur, elegance with sublime plainness. The latter are vast, varied, and fantastic. Of them Hawthorne writes:

« Their walls, columns, and arches seem a quarry of precious stones, so beautiful and costly are the marbles with which they are inlaid. Around their lofty cornices hover flights of sculptured angels; and within the swelling interior of the dome there are frescoes of such brilliancy, and wrought with so artful a perspective, that the sky peopled with sainted forms appears to be opened only a little way above the spectator." The whole is admirably designed to impress the soul with an awe-inspiring grandeur and with the insignificance of man. Compare Greek art with Italian art. The one is the perfect fruit

of the religion of Homer; the other the perfect fruit of the religion of the Nazarene. In the one, time and genius have wrought their perfect work; in the other we catch foregleams and visions of eternity and immortality.In the former the divine was merged into the human by clothing the dwellers of Olympus with flesh and blood; in the latter the human is exalted into the divine by giving the human form the wings and appearance of angels. The one attained its ideal perfection when cut off from all the relations of its surroundings; the other reaches its highest perfection as it stands related to the whole universe of God. Grecian art is therefore more expressive. Christian art, on the other hand, is more suggestive. The one is satisfaction; the other aspiration. As in geometry the asymptote continually approaches the point of meeting on a curve and never touches it, so Christian art is its struggle to attain the ideal, which is nothing less than God. Though never succeeding in its efforts, still, as the years roll on, it will grow grander, sublimer, as it catches the reflecting rays of the jasper pavement and the resplendence of the divine majesty as it approaches nearer and nearer to the object of its lofty aspirations.

Philip JAMIESON. St. Louis, Mo.

THE PIANOFORTE — ITS ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION

T“

HE PIANOFORTE is the most widely used and popular of all musical instruments.

any other instruments, as the violin or

flute, can give forth but one voice the melody, but the piano enables one to add harmony to melody, and it thus rivals, to a certain extent, the combination of several voices or orchestral instruments. By means of the pianoforte the noblest works of the masters are familiarized to us. Almost every family circle finds pleasure in its music, and it is a sign of culture in every household. A brief glance at its history will therefore be of interest to many.

It is usual to point to Bartolomeo Cristofori as the inventor of the pianoforte, but it seems probable that others also attempted work on the same lines simultaneously with him. Instruments whose strings were struck by hammers, and which had dampers to stop the vibration of the strings after the keys were released, were invented in the early part of the eighteenth century, and while the Italians dispute all claims to this discovery excepting Cristofori's, it is pretty certain that one Christopher Gottlieb Schröter, of Saxony, and a Frenchman named Marius, also invented such an action. These inventors were contemporaries and made their discoveries without knowledge of each other. The instruments made by them were called forte-pianos, because they could produce either

loud or soft tones, something which had been impossible on preceding instruments. The harpsichord had just then reached its highest development, and it was some time before pianos gained public favor. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, they came into universal use to the exclusion of all other forms.

In the year 1709 Cristofori completed four instruments, but he was not fully satisfied with the mechanism of any of them. He worked continuously, and a few years later made others which were a great advance on his early productions. Pianofortes made by Cristofori still exist; one bears the date of 1720 and another that of 1726.

It may be said that the modern pianoforte had two immediate predecessors, — the clavichord and the harpsichord. The latter went under different names according to the forms in which it was made and the countries where it was used. The clavichord and harpsichord were quite distinct from each other and were developed from different sources. The clavichord was the descendant of the ancient monochord, which, as the name implies, had but one string. The bridge of the monochord was movable, so that its shifting made possible the production of the different notes of the scale. The harpsichord was developed, without doubt,

from the ancient dulcimer,- an instrument by one John Howard, but if this is so pedals whose strings were strung over a sounding- were not then introduced, for we find that board made in the form of a harp.

These pianos made in 1766 did not have any. Pedals strings were struck with little hammers held by were patented by John Broadwood (an English the performer. About the thirteenth or four- piano-maker) in 1783, and from that date have teenth century a keyboard was attached to one been in constant use. Before the introduction of these instruments, forming the first and of pedals, pianos had draw-stops at the left primitive clavicembalo.

hand of the player; when these were pushed in, The dulcimer is known to be a very ancient dampers were pressed on the wires; while drawHebrew instrument, — mention of its use being ing them out raised the dampers and left the found in the book of Daniel; but a musical in- wires free. It will be seen that any rapid use strument which is still more ancient, and in of these draw-stops was impossible, and therewhich is plainly seen the foreshadowing of the fore many of the beautiful musical effects of pianoforte, is the Chinese pien king. This is to-day were unknown. said to be the oldest percussion instrument of The earliest pianofortes had a compass not which anything is known. It had a number of exceeding four octaves. In 1793 keyboards metal plates, varying in size, suspended on two were extended to five and a half octaves; in horizontal bars, which, when struck in their 1811 to six and a half; and in 1851 to seven order, gave out the notes of the Chinese octaves. Since 1851 three notes have been scale.

added, but they lend little, if any, improveTaking the several instruments which pre- ment. The development of power, sonority, ceded the piano, they may be arranged in and tonal brilliancy has been very marked in somewhat the following order: the pien king,

recent years. dulcimer, psaltery, virginal, spinet, clavichord, Bach, Händel, Haydn, and others of the and harpsichord. The psaltery was a species great masters used only the instruments which of lyre or harp. The virginal was a small preceded the pianoforte. In 1817 Broadwood keyed instrument which was placed upon a presented Beethoven with a piano which had table when played upon. It was much used in

a compass of six octaves.

Mozart used an Queen Elizabeth's time. The spinet followed, instrument having five octaves. After the inand has been called “a couched harp,” being a troduction of pedals Beethoven discovered cerharp-shaped instrument which rested on a stand tain effects by the use of the shifting (or soft”) with legs. The virginal, spinet, and harpsi- pedal. Later on Schumann and Chopin brought chord were quilled instruments; that is, the tones pedalling to perfection,- especially the use of were produced by an arrangement of plectra the damper pedal. This latter pedal is popu. which plucked the strings. These plectra were larly called the loud » pedal, many persons made of quills, pieces of ivory, or hard wood, thinking that its use is simply to increase voland were set in the upper end of a bit of wood ume of tone. Chopin was the first to reveal to called the jack, which rested on the farther end the world the proper use of this pedal. Through of the key. When the key was pressed down him was learned its capacity for sustaining the jack moved upward and past the string, melody and for producing fine effects in "overwhich was caught and twanged by the plec

tones. » trum. The clavichord was much like the spinet; Names famous as workers upon, and manuits tone was agreeable and impressive, but not facturers of, the pianoforte in its development strong. The harpsichord resembled the mod- are: Cristofori, of Italy; Schröter and Silberern grand pianoforte in shape, but sometimes mann, of Saxony; Stein, of Augsberg; Zumpe had two rows of keys,- one set producing a and Pohlmann, who were German manufacsofter tone than the other because the wires turers in London; Americus Backers, assisted were struck an octave higher. In many of the by John Broadwood and Robert Stodart; Erara. earlier instruments there were not as many in France; Pleyel, Roller, and many others, strings as keys, but a different pitch was pro- until we come to our own times and the celeduced by striking the same string at different brated makers of this country. places. When the equal tempering of the scale From the Chinese pien king to the ninewas introduced, each key had its own string. teenth-century grand piano is a long distance.

All of the instruments preceding the piano- The development has been gradual but steady. forte were inexpressive, incapable of accent, There has been a succession of improvements, and lacked resonance. There was a great one gradual evolution, until we have to-day an desire for a more enduring tone, the brevity of instrument of such perfect mechanism that we the sound making it impossible to sustain mel- feel a reverence for the patient perseverance ody. This need led Cristofori and the others to which it evidences and a deep sense of gratimake their experiments and resulted finally in tude for the possession of an instrument which their invention of the pianoforte, the mechan- makes possible such musical interpretation as ism of which was quite different from all its we have, at the present time, in pianoforte predecessors.

FRANCES C. ROBINSON. It is said that pedals were invented in 1670 WAKEFIELD, MASS.

music.

« ÎnapoiContinuați »