Dec. 17, 1874J 



NA TURE 



125 



years of his life to the preparation of a great History of 

 Music,* has made a most elaborate investigation of this 

 point, partly in the third volume of his work, and still 

 more fully in a separate memoir published by the 

 Academy of Sciences of Brussels. It is ably and forcibly 

 argued, in opposition to many learned German critics 

 who have held Mr. Chappell's view, and M. Fttis arrives 

 at the conviction that " the supposition of the exist- 

 ence of harmony among ancient nations is one of the 

 most remarkable extravagances of modern times." Mr. 

 Chappell is very positive in his own opinion, but when 

 we come to compare the two essays we cannot help 

 seeing what a poor match his desultory guerilla argumen- 

 tation is for the powerful disciplined logic of his more 

 experienced antagonist, and cannot hesitate for a moment 

 which side should prevail. 



But even if we were inclined to believe with our author 

 that the ancient Greeks did use some sort of harmony 

 (other than the octave, which M. Fdtis freely allows 

 them in common with all nations), we are not much the 

 forwarder : for even Mr. Chappell appears quite at a loss 

 to form any reasonable idea of what this harmony was like. 

 After all, therefore, the dispute is little more than " 'twixt 

 tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee." 



The subject of ancient musical instruinoits is as im- 

 portant and as interesting as that of the music itself : and, 

 indeed, they have in all ages had such a necessary con- 

 nection, and have been so dependent on each other, that 

 improvement in one has gone hand in hand with improve- 

 ment in the other. 



Mr. Chappell has devoted much attention to the evidence 

 as to the nature of the instruments used in ancient times. 

 This, he says, has always been found a difficult subject 

 to treat upon, partly because so few of the instruments 

 named by classical writers can be identified by pictorial 

 or written descriptions, and partly because such descrip- 

 tions, when they do exist, are often obscure or contradic- 

 tory, particularly when obtained only through the medium 

 of incorrect translations. He goes through a long list of 

 ancient instruments of the three classes— wind, percussion^ 

 and string — and has given a large fund of information 

 about them. 



But what he prides himself most upon is the elucida- 

 tion of the construction of the hydraulic organ, about 

 which there has hitherto been much doubt and difficulty. 

 He shows that this has arisen either from misapprehen- 

 sion of the ancient descriptions or from a want of suffi- 

 cient knowledge of mechanism to understand the technical 

 details ; and he gives, in a most interesting chapter, an 

 account of the instrument, which evidently presents a 

 high claim to be the true one. In this particular we are 

 delighted to award him the merit of a real triumph over 

 his enemy, M. Fdtis, who says, after speaking of the 

 ambiguity of the description of the instrument left by 

 Vitruvius ; 



" Sous ce rapport I'incertitude persiste, et tout porte a 

 croire qu'elle ne sera jamais dissipi^e, k moins que le 

 hasard ne fasse ddcouvrir un des instruments du mScani- 

 cien d'Alexandrie, dans les recherches faites a Pompeii." 



* '' Histoire generale de la Musique, depuis les temps les plus 

 jusqu'a nos jour;,." Par F. J. Fetis. Paris: Unnin Didot. Kour 

 volumes ot this are now ready, bringing Ihe history down to somewliat 

 later than the time of Guide d'Arezzo ; and, we understand, materials have 

 been left for still more. 



If it were only for his solution of this difficulty, Mr. 

 Chappell's work deserves high praise. 



We cannot expect every historian to be a Gibbon 

 or a Hume, and though we readily testify to the 

 merits of Mr. Chappell's work, we are obliged to say it is 

 not without its faults. One is the tendency of the author 

 to be diffuse and discursive in his style, to such an extent; 

 indeed, as to give the work the character rather of an 

 amusing gossip than of a serious historj'. 



Another of Mr. Chappell's peculiarities is his strong 

 tendency to over-confident dogmatic assertion, which 

 renders it often difficult for the reader to distinguish 

 between statements he has evidence for, and mere 

 opinions of his own. Every writer on history should 

 remember that on that subject dogmatism is utterly out 

 of place : no man's ipse dixit is v.'orth the paper it is 

 written on : if he cannot or will not show chapter and 

 verse for all he has to say, he had better let histor)' alone. 

 Hypotheses and speculations on obscure points are all 

 very well ; they are often useful for discussion, and some- 

 times turn out right ; but they must be put forward clearly 

 as what they are, and not given as truths. 



Mr. Chappell has a high opinion of his own qualifi- 

 cations for his work, which is quite pardonable ; but 

 this is unfortunately coupled with an unduly low esti- 

 mate of the competency of other historians, which is 

 not pardonable. His contemptuous sneers at M. Fdtis, 

 for example, are in the worst taste ; and if the Nestor of 

 musical literature were alive to reply, we would not be in 

 Mr. Chappell's shoes for a trifle. As it is, did it never 

 occur to him that, as M. Fetis's history has now a wide 

 circulation, and is becoming, in fact, the European 

 standard book on the subject, readers who have access to 

 both works might be tempted to retaliate by comparisons 

 not altogether in favour of the English historian ? Those 

 who live in glass houses should not throw stones. 



We have alluded above to an anachronism in the 

 form in which Mr. Chappell has presented some 

 of the Greek tunes. There are other analogous cases 

 where he produces confusion by ascribing to the 

 ancients ideas that have only arisen in modern times. 

 He talks, for instance, often of the key and the key-note 

 of Greek music. Docs he mean to assert that any ideas 

 existed in those days analogous to what we understand 

 by these terms now 1 And when he sees, in an ancient 

 picture, a man shown clapping his hands, he calls him 

 a "conductor beating time." Had Sir Michael Costa 

 really a prototype among the Egyptians, who gesticulated 

 four in a bar ? 



We wish we had no worse faults to find than these, 

 which are, after all, only peculiarities of style (and le style 

 c'est riwminc.) ; but unfortunately there is one part of the 

 work which, as it affects the interests which it is the 

 peculiar object of Nature to promote, we are bound, 

 though most reluctantly, to speak strongly on. The fol- 

 lowers of Zoroaster hold that every man is subject to the 

 akernate influence of two spiritual agencies, one prompting 

 him to good, the other inciting him to evil. Onnuzd (we 

 think that is the name) has been active with Mr. Chappell, 

 leading him through the pleasant pages of Aristotle and 

 Plato, and dictating to him all the agreeable matter 

 in which we have been delighting, while the serpent- 

 like Ahriman has been looking grimly on. But, the 



