national principle, and may, generally speaking, be consulted with equal confidence on French or Italian, as on English matters. This is especially the case with the longer articles, which are one and all far above the average level of works of this class. But it is different with the short biographical notices of twenty or thirty lines, and for a very obvious reason. To go for this kind of information to remote sources, such as old newspapers and other contemporary accounts, is a task few writers would like to undertake, and, in fact, generally impracticable. It is here, then, that the temptation to follow another dictionary becomes strong indeed, and in this manner the error of one man is repeated and perpetuated, spreading from one encyclopædia to another, and thence to newspapers and other ephemeral publications. The work of Fétis was formerly the fertile source of mistakes of this kind, but since the numerous errors of that arch-blunderer have been discovered, few writers would like to trust him implicitly. But another authority almost equally dangerous has taken his place. Some years ago, Herr Mendel, a laborious but by no means distinguished writer, started a 'Musikalisches Conversations-Lexikon,' the eleventh and last volume of which has just been published under the editorship of Dr. Reissmann, Herr Mendel having died in the meantime. There is in this work a large amount of solid and excellent information, and on German matters Herr Mendel may be consulted with tolerable confidence. But his contributors are, with few exceptions, Germans, and their information regarding other countries is, to say the least, limited. Some of the errors of this book have crept into Mr. Grove's Dictionary, but they are not of any great importance.

Mr. Grove has avoided another serious danger with all but unimpaired success. His book is almost entirely free from party spirit, and this is saying not a little in these days, when the adherents of the classical models and of the Future stand facing each other in battle array. While the struggle between the Gluckists and Piccinists was at its hottest, the test question in Paris society was no longer whether a man was a Molinist or a Jansenist, a Voltairian or a staunch believer, but whether he admired the music of the German or of the Italian composer. A similar state of things becomes apparent in more than one London drawing-room, whenever the names of Mozart and Haydn, or of Wagner and Liszt are mentioned. But the noise of this battle has found no echo in Mr. Grove's pages, and, although the names of prominent representatives of the two militant schools are in the list of contributors, they have sunk their spirit of combativeness for a season. It is true that the representative

representative writers of the Future have not as yet been treated of, but we may trust to Mr. Grove's tact as an editor that, whatever may be said in praise of Wagner or Liszt, the great masters of the past will be left undisturbed on their pedestals. It is true that the spirit of general appreciation pervading the Dictionary is sometimes a little monotonous. If we are to believe all that is said, dull composers and incompetent virtuosi must have been rare-as rare as bad husbands and fathers in tombstone inscriptions. But a dictionary is not a work of criticism, and Mr. Grove, as a writer as well as an editor, deserves praise for not obtruding his personal likes and dislikes on the reader. Gratitude for his discretion will be especially felt by those who are acquainted with other musical dictionaries. Fétis's narrow-minded prejudices are at least as objectionable as his inaccuracies, of which they are in more than one instance the cause, and he is by no means the only editor with a 'purpose.' This leads us to say a few words of the musical dictionaries which have preceded Mr. Grove's.

The number of these, as we said before, is legion, and the list given in the present volume by M. Chouquet, although by no means complete, fills several columns. Only a few of them need detain us here. Perhaps the most interesting, from a bibliographic point of view, is the first in date, Tinctor's 'Diffinitorium. It has a history of its own, and many interesting questions arise in connection with it. Even the author's name

is not established beyond dispute, any more than are the place and date of his birth. In his 'Catalogue of Illustrious Men,' the learned Trithemius mentions Johannes Tinctoris, born at Nivelles in Brabant, and canon of the chief church of the same town; moreover a 'doctor utriusque juris,' and late cantor and chief chapel-master of King Ferdinand of Naples; also a great mathematician, an excellent musician, and generally a most learned man. A list of his books on music, including one in which Christ is proved to have been the greatest singer,' is also given by Trithemius, who adds that at the time of writing (1495) Tinctoris was still alive in Italy, aged about sixty. With these statements the discoveries of M. Van der Straeten are considerably at variance. According to the latter, Tinctoris was born at Poperinghe in Flanders, about the year 1445, or ten years later than is stated by Trithemius. He became chaplain to King Ferdinand in 1476, wrote his celebrated book, De Arte Contrapuncti,' in 1477, and died on October 12th, 1511. For Van der Straeten's authority the reader is referred to the fourth volume of Coussemaker's Scriptores de Musica,' where a complete list of Tinctoris's works, and a reprint of the ‘Diffini

torium,

torium,' may also be found.

But before we turn to the latter, a few words ought to be added with regard to the author's name. 'Tinctoris, although adopted by both ancient and modern authors, is not an intrinsically probable form. It irresistibly suggests a genitive, and the surmise seems confirmed by the mention of a Johannes Tinctor, also living towards the end of the fifteenth century, also of Netherlandish extraction, and also an author on philosophic topics. The identity of the two men has therefore been conjectured, and in the catalogue of the British Museum both names are quoted. The best manuscript of the Diffinitorium,' dating from the fifteenth century, is in the Bibliothèque Royale of Brussels. On it Coussemaker's edition is founded. One or two quotations will suffice to convey a general idea of the Diffinitorium.' Armonia,' we are told, 'est amoenitas quaedam ex convenienti sono causata.' other definitions are less primitive and abrupt. Contrapunctus' is well defined as 6 cantus per positionem unius vocis contra aliam punctuatim effectus,' and a division is made into 'simple' and diminished' counterpoint. Contrapunctus simplex est dum nota vocis, quae contra aliam ponitur, est ejusdem valoris cum illa'—a definition which agrees with what modern theorists class as the first species of plain counterpoint, that called 'note against note.' Tinctor's contrapunctus diminutus' is the equivalent of the modern florid counterpoint,' which name indeed is also known to him. Of double counterpoint' and its varieties, curiously enough, he makes no mention. It may be added that Tinctor's extremely learned treatise is politely dedicated to the most illustrious' Beatrice of Aragon.

6

But

From Tinctor we may pass to an infinitely more celebrated, although technically less valuable book, Jean Jacques Rousseau's 'Dictionnaire de Musique,' Geneva, 1767. Of this M. Chouquet remarks, somewhat irrelevantly, that it is to Rousseau's' literary ability rather than to his elevated views on æsthetics that the enormous success of his dictionary is due.' M. Chouquet, if he had wanted to say anything in disparagement of Rousseau, ought to have placed himself on strictly technical grounds. As to Rousseau's æsthetical views, they were in many respects in advance of his age. The following extract, for instance, concerning the growth of 'tone melody' from word melody,' contains in clear and brief language all that can be said on the subject, and is quoted with approval by the adherents of the

most recent school of music :

'Toute musique nationale,' Rousseau remarks, tire son principal caractère de la langue qui lui est propre, et je dois ajouter que c'est principalement la prosodie de la langue qui constitue ce caractère.

Comme

Comme la musique vocale a précédé de beaucoup l'instrumentale, celle-ci a toujours reçu de l'autre ses tours de chant et sa mesure; et les diverses mesures de la musique vocale n'ont pu naître, que des diverses manières dont on pouvait scander le discours et placer les brèves et les longues, les unes à l'égard des autres: ce qui est trèsévident dans la musique Grecque, dont toutes les mesures n'étaient que les formules d'autant de rhythmes fournis par tous les arrangements des syllabes longues ou brèves, et des pieds dont la langue et la poésie étaient susceptibles.'

M. Chouquet's remarks seem to be a faint echo of the scepticism with which Rousseau's musical achievements were looked upon by his contemporaries. The world would not allow that one of the most celebrated writers of the age might be at the same time an able composer, and, in consequence, Rousseau's claims to the music of the 'Devin du Village' were called in question on the authority of an obscure journalist, whose absurd story on the subject implied a charge of something very like petty larceny against himself. But Rousseau's enemies did not stop here. His articles on music in the 'Encyclopédie' were made the subject of an abusive pamphlet, and the same attacks were repeated when the Musical Dictionary' was published. That the latter contains errors of a more or less grave kind, is a statement which may be repeated with truth of every musical dictionary, from Tinctor to Grove. It may also be admitted that, for some of his technical information and terminology, Rousseau very naturally referred to Brossard's 'Dictionnaire de Musique,' published sixty-four years before his own. But, in spite of this, it may be said that Rousseau's dictionary, both as regards method and literary ability, is by far the most creditable work of the kind produced in the eighteenth century. It may serve as a specimen of the class of musical dictionaries written with a 'purpose.' Rousseau held very decided views on the subject of music, and was apt to express them in more than decided language. Although himself the composer of a French opera, he abused the French school of music, and extolled the merits of its Italian rival, with a violence to be partly explained no doubt from personal motives. Rameau had passed severe censure on Rousseau's works, and by attacking French music in general Rousseau at the same time hit its representative master. But even this circumstance can scarcely account for the manner in which Rousseau inveighs against his own language in its musical character, and compares French singing to an aboiement continuel.' In his dictionary he is much more moderate, and it is under such headings as Goût or Onzième that he introduces his subtle attacks on Rameau and the French school,

even as Dr. Johnson used the word oats or pension for a similar purpose. It is curious to notice in the first-named article how a man, so used to à priori reasoning as Rousseau, candidly accepts the consensus doctorum as the last tribunal in æsthetical

matters :

'Mais il y a,' he remarks, aussi un goût général sur lequel tous les gens bien organisés s'accordent; et c'est celui-ci seulement auquel on peut donner absolument le nom de goût. Faites entendre un Concert à des oreilles suffisamment exercées et à des hommes suffisamment instruits, le plus grand nombre s'accordera, pour l'ordinaire, sur le jugement des morceaux, et sur l'ordre de préférence qui leur convient. Demandez à chacun raison de son jugement, il y a des choses sur lesquelles ils la rendront d'un avis presque unanime; ces choses sont celles qui se trouvent soumises aux règles; et ce jugement commun est alors celui de l'artiste ou du connoisseur.'

Beyond this collective taste there is, Rousseau remarks, an individual taste, founded on instinct rather than on reasoning, and belonging to the homme de goût proper. Where these men of taste differ, the only way is to count the votes and abide by the verdict of the majority. Voilà donc ce qui doit décider de la préférence entre la musique françoise et l'italienne,' he winds up triumphantly. This, it must be remembered, was written ten years before Gluck had become the champion of French music, and had entirely changed the views of the best French critics, including Rousseau's own.

The excellence of Rousseau's 'Dictionnaire' becomes most apparent when we compare it with a similar attempt made in this country towards the close of the century. Dr. Thomas Busby, the author of A Complete Dictionary of Music,' published in 1786, was a man of great industry and no doubt of excellent intentions, who wrote numerous books on the theory of music and similar matters. The aim of his dictionary is indeed of the most ambitious kind; but its grandiloquent promises are sadly at variance with the appearance of the little volume in duodecimo, still more with the unsatisfactory way in which the most important subjects are treated. For instance, all that Dr. Busby knows of barcarolles' is that they are 'certain songs composed by the Venetian gondoliers, and sung by them in their boats. The style of these airs is simple and natural, like the manners of the people who produce them.' In Mr. Grove's Dictionary the article on 'barcarole' fills over half a column, and contains, besides an account of its origin, and its rhythmical and melodic character, a list of the chief instances in which composers have made use of the gondoliers' song. It is true that these latter belong one and all to Vol. 148.-No. 295.

H

modern