this monosyllable is unsuitable to the prolonged musical note to which it is adapted? Then surely they should have expressed themselves differently. It is not, that this word should not have a long note, but, that the long note should not have this word. It is however manifestly impossible to secure a full vowel for every long note or accented position: and neither in this hymn, nor in the others belonging to the volume, do the sharp accents occur with any greater frequency than in the hymns expressly selected for musical adaptation by Webbe, Shore, Taylor, and other composers guided chiefly by the rules of their own art. (b) They say that some of the hymns in this volume can no more be set to music than a catalogue of household furniture and exemplify this remark by citing Bishop Heber's Evensong, which is as follows:— Gód that mádest | eárth and | heaven, Darkness and light! Who the day for | toil hast | gíven, Máy thine ángel- | guards de fénd us, Now it is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of undeniable fact, that this hymn is absolutely perfect in its metrical structure, with the single exception that the wordDarkness' in the second line is a Trochee instead of an Iamb. Its faultlessness in all other metrical respects must be perceived at once by any one who can scan. The reviewers, I suppose, had tried their hand upon it in vain ;-puzzled perhaps by that admixture of Iambic with Trochaic lines, which constitutes one of the greatest and most established beauties in the mere mechanism of verse. (c.) line, 6 It is asserted that the words 'Remit all our,' in the following 'Remit all our offences, we entreat,' are repeated three times before the important word "offences" is' allowed to follow. Now in no sense are these words repeated more than twice; by no singer are they repeated more than once; and in no correct sense are they repeated at all. They occur in a fugue passage, and are assumed successively by the different voices, beginning with the underparts, and terminating with the first voice, which gives them only once. I need not say that this is not what is meant by repetition in the standard language of musical criticism, and that a false impression is left by the employment of this phrase. Whether, when the fact is truly stated, the passage is still open to the reviewers' objection, is a matter of opinion to which I have no title to advert. Naturally enough, the reviewers are as little fortunate in their distribution of praise, as in their award of censure. Of the five compositions which are mentioned with unqualified admiration, three are less perfect in the mechanism of the verse than any which have been selected for animadversion; and one poem (p. 40.) contains more metrical licenses than any hymn in the collection : so that nothing but its extreme beauty in other respects would have induced me to consign it without alteration to the skill of my musical friend. Nevertheless, when the utmost has been done which the rigour of mechanical criticism can effect, I venture to affirm that the forty-two hymns in this volume contain fewer false accents than would be found in the same number of hymns taken at random,-I do not say merely from Watts and Doddridge, but-from the productions of the most musical of our sacred poets, Milton, Luther, and Charles Wesley; writers whose musical flow of natural thought, as well as acquired knowledge of the laws of melody, the most exacting critic will not deny. Thus then I have laid at your feet the burthen of my complaint; with perfect confidence that your sense of justice will lead you to give insertion to this letter in the next number of the Christian Teacher. I have been anxious to protect you from all occasion of controversy on this matter, by strictly limiting myself to an exhibition of facts; about which there is no room for any kind of doubt. The statements which I have made can be verified at once, by merely opening Mr. Ogden's book, reading the Preface, and scanning the metres to which reference has been made. This is a mere mechanical business, within reach of any body that can spell and count his fingers. By what unnatural mishap,-of what strange spirit, so utterly alien to your own,-it can come, that correspondents of yours, in reviewing a publication of mine, (for, after all, the criticisms refer to the literary, not the musical, part of the work,) should mis-quote passages, fabricate sentences, commit errors in every remark on the details of accent and rhythm, and leave an incorrect impression of my whole design, I am altogether at a loss to conceive. The whole affair would be of little moment, were it not, that even in the most trivial tasks of criticism, accurate remark is the natural expression of a just and serene temper, and truth of statement is at least an approximate measure of veracity of spirit. I remain, always, dear friend, Affectionately yours, JAMES MARTINEAU. Now, we must, in the first place, clear the Review from the possible charge of giving judgment upon matters beyond its province. The Christian Teacher does not profess to be a musical authority, but having a strong interest in the general design of Mr. Ogden's and Mr. Martineau's Work, heightened by a consideration of the quarter from which it proceeded, we deemed ourselves extremely fortunate in securing as its Reviewer so high an authority as the Author of the Music of Nature,' and in being able to associate with him one with whom he has always taken 'sweet counsel' on these subjects, a reverend gentleman, himself no mean proficient in the science of music, and one whose literary reputation was long ago cited by Dr. Parr as contributing to redeem the dissenting ministry from the reproach of unlearned.' In such Reviewers we could place nothing short of absolute confidence, and on all points connected with music we leave their vindication in their own hands. On matters not strictly musical they have requested us to make, in their names, the following replies, under the several heads of Mr. Martineau's complaint. 1. They think he has no reasonable ground of objection to the expression, 'proposed reformation in psalmody,' when applied to a work which proposes to find musical expression for a large class of "productions" (we quote from Mr. Martineau's preface,)" belonging to the highest order of sacred poetry, for which no suitable musical expression could be found throughout the usual range of psalmody,"—in which," the more perfect the adaptation of the music to the theme prescribed, the more certain is it that the restraints of ordinary psalm tune writing cannot have been observed,"—and which acknowledges "the wide departure of many of the compositions from the rigour of the ecclesiastical style,”-and that "the words for which they have been written deviate considerably from the established character of Church poetry." Surely this is the proposal of a reformation in psalmody, according to the common use of language, and, if the work has succeeded in its express aim, it is a reformation to have introduced into the service of the Church a large class of Hymns, of the highest order of poetry, hitherto excluded by the want of suitable music. Mr. Martineau says that he "defends the principles of taste which prevail in Mr. Ogden's compositions and adaptations," "no farther than this particular class of melodies:" but surely the attempt at reform is attributed to him "no farther than the particular class of melodies," which make the work under review. No designs of reform are attributed to him beyond what he has avowed and published. 2. In the passage quoted from Mr. Martineau, and complained of as misprinted, the definite article is dropped before the word 'knowledge,' the commas are not right, and either dilemma' is a blunder, of the pen or of the types, it is now impossible to say which, for "either side of this dilemma." We frankly confess that such blunders ought not to occur, but as no one could attribute such a blunder to Mr. Martineau, nor to any one else who ever ventured into print, the injury to him is not great, for the correction is obvious. We are sincerely sorry that the beauty of his writing should be marred by misprinting in our pages, but his argument that the error belongs to the Reviewers, (does he he mean intentionally?) because the Christian Teacher had expressed its sense of the importance of mechanical correctness, is not fair towards them. No Periodical, nor other printed work, can pretend to be quite free from typographical errors; not absolute faultlessness, but a habit of accuracy and care is the severest law it can be expected to observe. Besides it would really not improve the matter, if we had supposed our Reviewers correct in their citation, and, which we must have done in that case, deliberately referred the blunder, as a literary one, to Mr. Martineau. We cannot therefore accept Mr. Martineau's clearance of the Christian Teacher, at the expense of its Reviewers. 3. Mr. Martineau justly complains of two misquotations from his Preface. We do not agree with him that his meaning has been misrepresented; but certainly his writing has been disfigured, a great liberty has been taken with his words, and an appearance of quotation given to passages which only contain his supposed meaning, in a manner that we will not, in the slightest measure, defend. We are instructed to say, that the Reviewer had no thought of misrepresenting Mr. Martineau, and loosely marked what he understood to be Mr. Martineau's meaning, to distinguish it from his own observations. We shall make all the re paration that is now in our power by printing together the passages as given in the Review, and their foundations in Mr. Martineau's Preface: (a) The Review, p. 420, vol. v. :— "They were chosen out of the general mass, avowedly for the peculiarity they possess, in differing so much from the metres in common use." " Mr. Martineau's Preface, p. i. :— "On account of this very deviation in sentiment as well as metre, they were selected from the general mass of hymns and submitted to the Author, in order to be treated as exceptions, not as specimens. وو (b) The Review, p. 421: "The book is handsomely printed, and, as we learn from the preface, it has given great pleasure to the circle of the Author's friends, though its plan and performance have deviated so much in sentiment and metre, from the rigour of the Ecclesiastical style,' we hope and believe that the religious public will receive the same pleasure, and form the same favourable opinion of it." Mr. Martineau's Preface, pages iv. and i.: "Should these general principles of criticism on church music fail to obtain the concurrence I could desire, I shall yet feel confident that the domestic use of the present volume will prove to many a family a source of sacred delight. Grateful for the peaceful hours it has already given, I please myself with the thought of its Sunday evening history for years to come; a history which I would that the Author's modesty permitted him to read."-p. iv. "From this account an explanation arises of the wide departure of many of the following compositions from the rigour of the ecclesiastical style. The words for which they have been written, deviate considerably from the established character of church poetry. On account of this very deviation in sentiment as well as metre they were selected," &c.—p. i. 4. Mr. Martineau mistakes the obvious meaning of the following passage in the Review:-"All music which is gratifying to the ear, is governed by certain laws in its movement, to which musical poetry must conform, not only in rhythm, but in the very formation of the words. For instance, the word 'apt' is placed under a long note when it requires a short one." No one could justly conclude from this passage that the poetry was represented as defective in rhythm, but merely that there was something in the formation of the individual words, which rendered it difficult to sing upon them the long or short notes allotted to them. Mr. Martineau should have observed the difference between when and where. It is not said that the word "apt" has a long note where it (the metre) requires a short one, but that it has a long note when it (the word) should never be sung to any but a short one. Mr. Martineau has indeed twice fallen on the real meaning, and, we think, the obvious one, of these passages, but only to set it aside, and direct the force of his answer against a meaning which, as we understand, the Reviewers never intended to convey. Whether they can justify it or not, which we leave to them, their meaning is, that in the compositions specified there is something in the formation of the words which renders it difficult or impossible to sing upon them the notes which the metres required. We cannot think that this is a matter upon which "any body that can spell and count his fingers" is competent to give judgment. We resign it to the Author of "Music and Friends." 5. Mr. Martineau states that the Reviewers, as might be expected, are not more fortunate in their praise than in their censure, and alleges in proof that the hymns attached to the praised airs are imperfect in the mechanism of their verse. Now it so happens that only the airs are praised, and nothing is said of the words attached to them. It is most likely that the Reviewers formed their judgment of the airs from the inarticulate organ or piano, without any reference to the hymns appended to them, which indeed they do not mention in any way. We close, for the present, with the expression, in the name of the Review, of our sincere regret that Mr. Martineau should have had so much cause of just complaint of the Reviewers' method of quotation,—and in behalf of the Reviewers, of our confidence in their intention to do substantial justice. Mr. Gardiner, being more of an original thinker than a quoter of other men's writings, had, we suppose, little experience of the established practice in these things, and thought it not |