a certain degree imperfect; and that, while the rules hinted at in the following queries are overlooked by compofers and performers, vocal mufic, though it may aftonish mankind, or afford them a flight gratification, will never be attended with those important effects that we know it produced of old in the days of fimplicity and true taste.

1. Is not good mufic fet to bad poetry as unexpreffive, and therefore as abfurd, as good poetry set to bad mufic, or as harmonious language without meaning? Yet the generality of muficians appear to be indifferent in regard to this matter. If the found of the words be good, or the meaning of particular words agreeable; if there be a competency of hills and rills, doves and loves, fountains and mountains, with a tolerable collection of garlands and lambkins, nymphs and cupids, bergères and tortorellas, they are not folicitous about fenfe or elegance.

In

which they feem to me to consult their own ho. nour as little as the rational entertainment of others. For what is there to elevate the mind of that compofer, who condemns himself to fet mufic to infipid doggerel? Handel's genius never foared to heaven, till it caught ftrength and fire from the strains of infpiration.-2. Should not the words of every fong be intelligible to those to whom it is addreffed, and be diftinctly articulated, fo as to be heard as plainly as the notes? Or can the human mind be rationally gratified with that which it does not perceive, or which, if it did perceive,

L 4

perceive, it would not understand? And therefore, is not the mufic of a fong faulty, when it is fo complex as to make the diftinct articulation of the words impracticable?-3. If the finger's voice and words ought to be heard in every part of the fong, can there be any propriety in noify accompaniments? And as every performer in a numerous band is not perfectly difcreet, and as fome performers may be more careful to distinguish themselves than do justice to the fong, will not an inftrumental accompaniment be almoft neceffarily too noify, if it is complex ?-4. Does not the frequent repetition of the fame words in a fong, confound its meaning, and diftract the attention of both the finger and the hearer? And are not long-winded divifions (or fucceffions of notes warbled to one syllable) attended with a like inconvenience, and with this additional bad effect, that they difqualify the voice for expreffion, by exhausting it? Is not fimplicity as great Va perfection in music, as in painting and poetry? Or fhould we admire that orator who chose to express by five hundred words, a fentiment that might be more emphatically conveyed in five?5. Ought not the finger to bear in mind, that he has fentiments to utter as well as founds? And if fo, fhould he not perfectly understand what he fays, as well as what he fings; and not only modulate his notes with the art of a musician, but alfo pronounce his words with the propriety of a public fpeaker? If he is taught to do this, does he not learn of course to avoid all grimace and finical

finical gefticulation? And will he not then acquit himself in finging like a rational creature, and a man of fenfe? Whereas, by pursuing a contrary conduct, is he not to be confidered rather as a puppet or wind-inftrument, than as an elegant artist 2-6. Is not church-mufic more important than any other? and ought it not for that reason to be most intelligible and expreffive? But will this be the cafe, if the notes are drawn out to fuch an immoderate length, that the words of the finger cannot be understood? Befides, does not exceffive flowness, in finging or fpeaking, tend rather to wear out the fpirits, than to elevate the fancy, or warm the heart? It would feem, then, that the vocal part of churchmufic should never be fo flow as to fatigue those who fing, or to render the words of the fong in any degree unintelligible to those who hear.7. Do flourished cadences, whether by a voice or inftrument, ferve any other purpose, than to take off our attention from the fubject, and fet us a ftaring at the flexibility of the performer's voice, the fwiftness of his fingers, or the found of his fiddle? And if this be their only use, do they not counteract, inftead of promoting, the chief end of mufic? What fhould we think, if a tragedian, at the conclufion of every scene, or of every fpeech, in Othello, were to ftrain his throat into a preternatural scream, make a hideous wry face, or cut a caper four feet high? We might wonder at the strength of his voice, the pliancy of his features, or the fpringiness of his limbs;

but

but fhould hardly admire him as intelligent in his art, or respectful to his audience.

But is it not agreeable to hear a florid song by a fine performer, though now and then the voice fhould be drowned amidst the accompaniments, and though the words fhould not be understood by the hearers, or even by the finger? I answer, that nothing can be very agreeable, which brings disappointment. In the case supposed, the tones of the voice might no doubt give pleasure: but from inftrumental mufic we expect fomething more, and from vocal mufic a great deal more, than mere sweetness of found. From poetry and mufic united we have a right to expect pathos, fentiment, and melody, and in a word every gratification that the tuneful art can bestow. But in fweetness of tone the beft finger is not fuperior, and fcarcely equal, to an Eolus harp, to Vif cher's hautboy, or to Giardini's violin. And can we without diffatisfaction fee a human creature dwindle into mere wood and cat-gut? Can we be gratified with what only tickles the ear, when we had reason to hope, that a powerful address would have been made to the heart?-A handfome actress walking on the ftage would no doubt be looked at with complacency for a minute or two, though fhe were not to fpeak a word. But furely we had a right to expect a different fort of entertainment; and were her filence to laft a few minutes longer, I believe the politeft audience in Europe would let her know that they were offended. To conclude: A fong, which we liften

to

to without understanding the words, is like a picture feen at too great a distance. The former may be allowed to charm the ear with sweet founds, in the fame degree in which the latter pleases the eye with beautiful colours. But, till the design of the whole, and the meaning of each part, be made obvious to fenfe, it is impoffible to derive any rational entertainment from either.

I hope I have given no offence to the connoiffeur by these observations. They are dictated by a hearty zeal for the honour of an art, of which I have heard and feen enough to be fatisfied, that it is capable of being improved into an inftrument of virtue, as well as of pleasure. If I did not think fo, I should hardly have taken the trouble to write thefe remarks, flight as they are, upon the philofophy of it. But to re

turn:

Every thing in art, nature, or common life, must give delight, which communicates delightful paffions to the human mind. And because all the paffions that mufic can infpire are of the agreeable kind, it follows, that all pathetic or expreffive music must be agreeable. Mufic may inspire devotion, fortitude, compaffion, benevolence, tranquility; it may infufe a gentle forrow that foftens, without wounding, the heart, or a fublime horror that expands, and elevates, while it astonishes, the imagination: but mufic has no expreffion for impiety, cowardice, cruelty, hatred, or difcontent. For every effential rule of the art tends to produce pleasing combinations of found;

and