court does homage to the season, the kneeling at pilgrims' feet and washing them, in imitation of the divine example, and suppose that they who go through all this would select the very hour of our Lord's passion for a festive meeting and the pleasures of the table? For does not Dr. Pusey's narrative cruelly force one to conclude that the day and hour are chosen expressly, almost in mockery of the day?

Now let us see how the truth stands. The services of Holy Week are performed at the Vatican. They are long, and occupy both morning and afternoon on Thursday and Friday in Holy Week. There is but a short interval between the services, and it has been customary, on those two days, to have two repasts in the palace, one presided over by the secretary of state, the other by the maggiordomo. The first is for the higher order, the second for the lower order of persons engaged in the functions. The cardinal will probably invite foreign ambassadors, and some cardinals; the master of the palace, the gentlemen in waiting, masters of ceremonies, and clerks of the chapel, the officers on duty and other official persons. Surely thus far seems nothing more than almost a duty there would hardly be time for those engaged in the duties of the day to go to their homes from that remote quarter of the city, and return. The days are appointed because of necessity, not by choice. Now as to the dinner. We have our doubts whether, when a duty of hospitality has to be discharged, it be not in better accordance with the precept not to appear to men to fast," and to "wash our faces," and not to be," as the hypocrites, sad," to prepare a table in accordance with the rank, and usages of the society, of your guests, observing the precepts of the Church regarding meats, and leaving it to each one (in that his only meal in the day) to regulate himself as he thinks right, rather than to place before them what perhaps would be more becoming food at any time for sinners, the dry fare of the anchoret's table. The choice is meagre enough on those days in Rome, no fleshmeat, nor eggs, nor milk, nor butter, nor cheese; and whatever the rich sauces may have been, which probably, aided by the novelty of the entertainment to the journalist, seemed very "rich," fish, depend upon it, was the sole substance, and oil the only condiment of the feast.* But let not the display of

66

* We have tasted of these supposed feasts (which would almost deserve to be called Tayestian, if given in the spirit which Dr. P. seems to attribute to them), and can safely pronounce, that many of their recondite and fallacious dishes

their ingenuity by Italian cooks, however misplaced, become a locus theologicus in our present controversies.

We are tired of following Dr. Pusey into this sort of detail, but we have several reasons for doing so. First, we find him particularly cautious about evidence which we adduce. "Romanist citations of the fathers," he says, "require to be sifted." (p. 115, note.) Now from one who thus writes, we have a just demand for authenticity in his facts. And if we are apt to be over-credulous in regard to what we deem manifestations of God's power in favour of his Church triumphant, is it less dangerous to be credulous regarding grievous charges, like idolatry, against his Church militant? Secondly, we think it right to call attention to the manner in which any evidence is taken up against us, however ungrounded, however trivial, or however painful. We cannot but trust that many minds of a generous cast will be more easily undeceived by exposure of this eagerness to condemn Rome, at almost any rate, than by any controversial discussion. They will look with misgivings upon a position which requires them to charge her with idolatry, and to accept as sufficient, evidence like this. These reasons must plead our apology for what many readers may consider almost solemn trifling and if we have expressed ourselves warmly, it has been more in sorrow than in anger at seeing the name of one whom we have long honoured and esteemed, now set down as a voucher for assertions which a few months ago would only have come from an opposite direction-from common adversaries.

We cannot better conclude our article, which, though prolonged beyond our original intention, has not touched on some important topics which we had intended to include in it, than in the words of Mr. Ward, with whom we part with feelings of regard and kindness.*

"Many persons are very painfully affected when things are said in favour of the Roman Churches, without protests being

will better suit the dura massorum ilia, than those of "English gentlemen in uniform." There are several other secondary errors in Dr. Pusey's account. Formerly the cardinals all dined together semi-publicly; this has long been abolished. Very few, if any, unattached to the palace, dine there at all.

*We ought to have noticed that in the case of University subscription, Mr. Ward allows the "imponens" of the Articles to be the University. We differ from him in two things therefore:-19. In thinking that the University has declared its "animus" by the practical exclusion of Catholics; 20. In taking the case of the University only as an illustration, for deciding, by analogy, who is the "imponens" on other occasions of subscription.-p. 77.

also expressed against their corruptions. Now, on the other hand, several persons who fully believe in the existence of those corruptions, dislike this habit of always mentioning them; and this for three reasons: first, it seems ungracious in a Church so faulty as our own to be continually throwing stones' at our neighbours, and seems almost to imply (though Mr. Newman nowhere does imply it) that we consider our own Church purer. 2. It tends to make persons forget the true character and claims of the Roman Church, as being a true Church built upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets,' as having held up for imitation, certainly more than any other Church of modern times, patterns of evangelical sanctity; and having been, even in her worst times, on most points, a firm and consistent witness in act and word for orthodox doctrine, when in that respect it rather becomes us to imitate than to criticise. 3. It tends to make persons forget, what it is so important that they should remember, our own practical corruptions. Surely the faults of others concern us not so nearly as our own; and national Churches, not less than individuals, bear the surest mark of their own condemnation, when they are loud in self-praise. Might not Rev. iii. 17, 18, afford at times a useful lesson to many of us English Churchmen?"-Few More Words, p. 79.

Art. IX.-A Collection of National English Airs, &c. &c. Edited by W. Chappell, Esq. F.S.A.

THAT English music and English musicians should so

long have been matter of scorn, or at least of indifference, not only on the continent but at home, seems to us, on duly considering the subject, hardly surprising. Music is so closely wedded to romantic poetry, that the decay of the one involves essentially the decline of the other. During the reign of Elizabeth, when the greatest poets flourished, that the musicians of England bore away the palm from every other country is an undisputed fact. That the gradual decline of poetry from that fertile period, till its utter extinction in the cold and epigrammatic reign of Anne, hurried music in its embrace to a like destruction, is equally undeniable. Milton and Purcell, Dryden and Arne, are but exceptions to the general rule, and splendid arguments that individual genius is of no time, but for all ages. For a moment these gifted men arrested the rapid stream in its headlong course to the waters of oblivion, but as they departed, the reaction was only the more intense; and, as if exasperated

by their stout though brief resistance, the rapidity of the torrent increased tenfold, and when Pope and poetry were one thing, England and music were entirely severed. It must not be forgotten that the illustrious Handel was, by birth and education, a German. A brighter period has arrived. Poetry, revivified from the Phoenix ashes of our Shakespeares, our Spensers, our Jeremy Taylors, and our Miltons, assumed the living shapes of Scott, Byron, Moore, Shelley, Wordsworth, and all that illustrious constellation of meteors, which became visible at the commencement of the present century, and has since shed such glorious light over the world of literature. Warned by its prophetic voice, music, its golden-tongued sister, has already arisen from the tomb, and already has begun to sing with a voice of marvellous enchantment, and to renew with increased lustre those melodies of early years, which once made England the land of song, the cradle of sweet harmonies. At this opportune period, Mr. Chappell's book appears, as if to cheer on the young musicians of England, by reminding them of the glories of their forefathers, and inciting them to renewed efforts, to equal if not excel them. We must confess, that we were of those who were sceptical as to the existence of any such mine of melodic wealth, as Mr. Chappell has brought to our notice in his very entertaining and laborious work. Of the rich store of melodies belonging to Ireland, and of the numerous (though by no means so authentic) collection of Scottish airs, we have long been possessors; but to England we were not inclined to admit the envied distinction of a worthy rival, or even that of an unworthy competitor; for we imagined the claims of that otherwise undeniably gifted land to be null and void, as regarded the fountains of national melody. Let us cheerfully admit that we have been most agreeably and triumphantly undeceived. Mr. Chappell has brought extensive reading and untired research to the composition of a work so long wanted to support the claims of his countrymen, as vociferously denied by one party, as vehemently claimed by another, to a place among the favoured lands of song,-Spain, Italy, Germany, Ireland, and even France; where feelings and passions the most varied have for ages been represented by sounds, which intoxicate the ear and raise emotions in the heart. Whether he has entirely succeeded in his difficult task remains for another age to determine; but if enthusiasm in his labours can assure him success, we may predicate confidently that he has secured the

*

approbation of posterity. Mr. Chappell has prefaced the literary volume of his work, by a very able essay on the "Ancient Minstrelsy of England," which, uniting the gist of the labours of Percy, Ritson, and others, on this interesting subject, unfolds many new ideas, and is altogether a very useful compendium, containing extensive reading laid before the peruser of the book in a few pages. From this we extract an interesting passage, the more readily, since it seems to bear upon our idea of the close connexion between poetry and music.

"It may not be amiss to remark here," says Mr. Chappell, "that no poets of any other country have made such frequent and enthusiastic mention of minstrelsy as the English. There is not an old poem but abounds with the praises of music. All our old poets, and Chaucer particularly, seem to have received great pleasure from the music of their time, whatever it was; and never lose an opportunity of describing its beauties and effects."

In illustration of which, Mr. Chappell cites numerous passages from Chaucer, and others of the old poets, all tending to the same end as Adam Davy's* couplet:

Mery it is in the halle to here the harpe;

The mynstrelles synge, the jogelours carpe."

In this essay we find also some curious passages relating to the rich rewards bestowed upon the then musicians, which prove their services to have been highly valued by the great of those times. Henry the Fifth, at a certain Feast of Pentecost, when entertaining as his guests some illustrious European potentates, endowed sixteen of his minstrels with costly gowns. The same monarch, before his death, granted an annuity of one hundred shillings (a large sum in those days) to each of his minstrels, which grant was confirmed in 1423 by his son Henry VI, and the money disbursed from the Exchequer. Music was then, not to speak profanely, more in esteem than even the offices of the clergy; at least if we may judge from the comparative remuneration on various occasions of the priests for singing dirges, and the minstrels for singing Heaven knows what, certainly not masses. ing the reign of Henry VI, at the yearly festivals of the brotherhood of "the Holy Crosse," at Abingdon, in Berk

Dur

* The work consists of two volumes, the one containing the airs in question, and the other anecdotes and remarks on each in succession.

A poet in the time of Edward II.