MUSIC.

A CRITIC ON HIS CRAFT.

MR. JOSEPH BENNETT is careful to define the scope of his volume,* and adheres faithfully enough to the limited scheme marked out for himself. Although the period of his survey extends to the year 1905, he excludes living musicians from his portrait gallery, and has next to nothing to say about many recent composers. For instance, TschaikoWsky is not even alluded to, and the solitary mention of Brahms occurs in a letter from the pianist Rosenthal. The title is, indeed, almost a misnomer. Instead of being "Forty Years of Music," it should have been "Music Forty Years Ago." But when all deductions are made on the score of the writer's limitations, self-imposed and otherwise, there can be no question as to the value of his narrative, or his claims to a bearing. Mr. Joseph Bennett is not merely the doyen of English musical critics. As the representative of the Daily Telegraph from 1870 to 1905 he probably exerted a greater influence in the musical world during the last five-and-twenty years than any Pressman since the death of J. W. Davison of the Times. By advanced amateurs he has always been held to be a reactionary, almost a Philistine, and it would be hard to mention the case of a single modern composer in regard to whom he was in advance of the opinion of the majerity. Yet his equipment is undoubtedly superior to that of most of his colleagues; there is no reason to doubt time sincerity of his opinions ; and in his old age he admits frankly, not only that his early criticisms were unjust, and even reckless, but that the race of musical critics has vastly improved within the last fifty years. When be adopted that career, it was as the honorary deputy of an incompetent amateur, who was honest enough after a short time to resign in his favour. The status of the musical journalist or "reporter," as he was often called, was so low and the remuneration so meagre that very few people were tempted to undertake the work, and those few only managed to make a living by pluralism. Mr. Bennett tells us that when he was in the prime of life he kept quite a sheaf of papers in hand. "At one of the Norwich Festivals, for example, I supplied with reports and criticism the Daily Telegraph, Norwich Mercury (which liked 'copy' by the page), Pall Mall Gazette, Graphic, Pictorial Times, and Sunday Times." And even when he was exclusively retained for daily work by the Daily Telegraph he alter- nated musical criticism with a great deal of descriptive correspondence. Thus for many years he recorded nearly all the important funerals and many State pageants for that lion- hearted journal; he went crusading in Palestine with the Kaiser; undertook many "delightful trips" to the spas of England, the "silver sea," the hills of Wales, and historic or romantic spots in the Western counties ; and, as a keen Volunteer officer, was in request for reports of the Easter reviews in pre-Territorial days. Mr. Bennett, in short, was in the fortunate position of being able to combine the work of a specialist with that of "general utility" man, and thoroughly enjoyed both. He "had a ready pen," and soon acquired a mastery of that orotund periphrasis, that con-

scientious avoidance of repetition, which has been the glory of Peterborough Court. Even to this day he talks of "sudorific moisture " ; Bayreuth becomes "the old Franconian city," Milan "the Lombardian capital," and dancers "votaries of Terpsichore." Was it Mr. Bennett, we wonder, who invented • Forty Years of Music, 1800-1904. By Joseph Bennett. London Methuen and Co. [168. net.]

that exquisite alternative for Telramund,—" the unfortunate Brabantian nobleman" P Of the band of critics, whose ranks he entered more than forty years ago, Mr. Bennett gives a series of instructive portraits. Of H. F. Chorley, in some ways the most remark- able of them all, he tells us little, for the sufficient reason that there was no love lost between him and Davison, who dominated the circle which Mr. Bennett joined. Chorley now survives chiefly through the anecdotes in which he figured as the butt of Douglas Jerrold ; but as a matter of fact he was well able to take care of himself, and, though his criticisms were often perverse and prejudiced, they left little to be desired on the score of outspokenness, and may still be read with pleasure for their caustic candour. The picture which Mr. Bennett gives us of the group of critics which Davison dominated by his ability and versatility is more interesting than edifying. The equipment of some of its

members was ludicrously inadequate ; their camaraderie was intermittent, but they were united by a common bond of

Bohemianis' m and a remarkable fondness for midnight symposia. Davison was a man of culture as well as great ability, but we cannot share Mr. Bennett's admiration for his pseudo-Rabelaisian humour; and the society of

"Muttonians," whose vagaries enlivened the pages of the Musical World, formed but a squalid counterpart to the fantastic confraternity of Schumann's Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik. None of the group, moreover, was disposed to welcome any successor to Mendelssolm ; Davison was a pro- nounced anti-Schumannite, and his comrades took their cue

from him ; and when Mr. Bennett broke away from this

influence and wrote an appreciative notice of Schumann in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1868, George Grove welcomed it as marking "an epoch in English musical criticism." Here, as

with Schubert and Wagner, it was the amateurs who did the spadework, while the musical critics followed at a considerable distance. Mr. Bennett's attitude towards Wagner un- doubtedly underwent modification, but may best be described as one of reluctant admiration. As early as 1882 he called him the greatest musical genius of his age; but his appre- ciation was always attended with substantial reserves, as may be gathered from the following anecdote :-

"I never exchanged a word -with Wagner either viva voce or in writing. Honestly, I never wished to do so, and therefore sought no opportunity, while it is more than likely that Wagner on his part would have sported his oak against me had I tried to break in upon the presence. I recall how, at Bayreuth in 1876, when chatting with Edward Dannrenther outside the Wagner theatre, I made some remark which he took as denoting that I wished to be received by the master. He was absolutely wrong, but at that time the 'perfect Wagnerite ' laboured under an impression that everybody was dying to penetrate the sacred recesses of Villa Wahnfried. That very many were languishing under the stress of a longing to do so is undoubtedly true, but the perfect ones were not capable of imagining an exception. So it came to pass that Dannreuther drew himself up stiffly and said, 'The master does not receive,' to which I made reply, 'And the outsider does not visit.' I imagine that no reasonable being shuns another because of an honest difference in matters of art. The thing is too absurd for words. It was not Wagner the artist who was a cause of offence to me, but Wagner the man. I disliked him for his personal qualities, which, as he is dead and gone, I would not describe if it were needful to do so. Enough that to me he was 'impossible,' and there was an end of the whole matter. But that did not hinder me from perceiving his high rank as a musical genius, nor from acknowledging it on all fitting occasions."

Here it is only right to add that in regard to Verdi's Requiem Mr. Bennett at once recognised the sincerity of that much- canvassed work, and was under no obligation to publish a

palinode—as von Billow did—to the opinion he expressed in rhyme in 1875. Incidentally we may express our regret that Mr. Bennett makes no mention of his Cockney verses, which Grove used to speak of with great admiration.

Dealing with the musical critics of a past generation, Mr.

Bennett discusses at length the charge of venality, from which some of the most distinguished did not escape. His verdict, we are glad to note, is one of acquittal ; but he tells some curious stories of the temptations to which they were

subjected, and in particular brings a direct charge of attempted. bribery against two distinguished British composers, both dead. In this context he alludes to the frank cynicism of Fiorentino, the most influential critic in Paris fifty years back, who rated Davison for not adopttag his methods of levying tribute. " I shall die rich,' he would say, and you

will die poor. What the better are you for your poverty ? ' "

The late Mr. Sutherland Edwards used to tell an amusing story of an impecunious English singer who had obtained an engage- ment at the Scala in Milan. On his arrival, according to the usual custom, he called on the leading critic, who showed him two notices, ready written, of his debut,—one laudatory, the other

very much the reverse. The former, the critic explained, cost 210, the latter nothing. The singer had not 210 to give away, and said so; but the critic, not to be defrauded of his due, suddenly observed —"That is a very fine suit of English clothes you are wearing. We are very much of a size, and if you will let me have it, you shall have the favourable notice."

The singer agreed, a transformation scene took place, and in due course the eulogium appeared in the Press.

Besides the critics, many other notable musical figures of the past generation figure in these pages,—conductors, singers, players, and composers. Nowhere have we met a juster estimate of the services rendered by Costa. Mr.

Bennett is fully alive to Costa's limitations : his love of noise, his vehement partisanship, and his lack of geniality. But no one who witnessed a Handel Festival performance under his direction can deny the substantial accuracy of Mr. Bennett's view. It was not Costa's mission, as Mr. Bennett says, to evolve new ideas from old texts, after the fashion of the modern conductor. But his great work was as a disciplinarian and "organiser of victory"

"I think, however, that he accomplished most for art through his influence upon the orchestra of his day. There was hardly any discipline on the platform where sat the instrumental per- formers of more than forty years ago. These gentlemen did pretty much as they liked, and in the matter of respect for, and obedience to, the wielder of the baton, they certainly could not boast. If they boasted at all, it was the other way about, for not even Hendelssohn, despite his personal charm and high distinc- tion, could bend them to his will or secure decent order. Costa —let us give him credit for it—put an end to all that. He set himself to raise the English orchestra from the condition of a concourse of atoms to that of a homogeneous body, subordinate to one will, and that will his own. The typical conductor of the day was often a poor creature, with no real qualifications for leadership—a fact perfectly well known to his men. When Costa came the men recognised a master, who, through force of capacity and will, sought to secure, by rigid justice, the respect even of those who suffered from it. He himself set an example of strict discipline. Insisting upon punctuality in others, Costa took care to be punctual himself. Demanding serious attention to the work in hand, he never relaxed in the discharge of his own duties. He knew, moreover, how to command, and how to show himself a friend of those he ruled. In battles with managers, he acted as the leader of his men, and if, when they offended, there was little hope of escaping reprimand, there was equally small chance of being overlooked if they deserved approbation. His manner has been described as stern; it was rather one of calm dignity, which at times apparently became impassiveness."

We have left ourselves no space to deal with many other features of interest in Mr. Bennett's volume,—amusing anecdotic reminiscences of Gye, Mapleson, Jarrett, and

other impresarios ; the record of his intimate association with Sullivan before the composer became "immersed in West-End life " ; and. best of all, an admirable sketch of the Saturday Concerts at the Crystal Palace in their palmy days. Of those who attended these concerts he says "It was not a company of many opinions, but a band of worshippers, having one faith and one soul." Whatever may be urged against Mr. Bennett

on the score of partiality or limited outlook, he is, and always has been, a true and enthusiastic votary of Schubert, and he reckons amongst his unforgettable experiences the first hearing of the "Unfinished" Symphony and the " Rosamunde " music. The omissions in the book are tantalising. We should greatly like, for instance, to hear Mr. Bennett's opinion of Strauss, Debussy, and other ultra-moderns. But with all deductions, this is a valuable contribution to the chronicles of English music and musical criticism in the middle and later Victorian