Twelve Good Musicians Part 10

Dec. 24, Paid for a quart of Purle with Mr. Purcell .... 2d.

{122}

As a rule only the names of important personages are put in the accounts. As the Steward did not _live_ in London, it looks as if Mr. Purcell was a former acquaintance from somewhere near Chirk.

This place is on the borders of three Counties of which Shrops.h.i.+re is one, and as the Purcells probably came from Salop, their birth-place or place of residence, may have been at the Chirk end of the County. Possibly Mr. Purcell was an old friend of the Steward's."

There is no doubt the elder Purcell lived in the place called the Almonry, where the "Singing Men" had houses. These stood where the well-known Westminster Palace Hotel now stands. And here his distinguished son was born.[1]

It is generally stated that he was born in 1658. It seems, however, just as likely--or even more likely--the date should be 1659.

Unfortunately it has been impossible to find the record of his baptism.

The Register at St Margaret's Church, Westminster, for this period (which was then very carefully kept) does not show Henry Purcell's name. The approximate date is fixed fairly well for us by the fact that in June, 1683, Purcell published some Sonatas to which his portrait was prefixed. On this portrait he is {123} said to be "_aetat: suae_ 24," i.e. in the twenty-fourth year of his age. Again on his monument in the Abbey we find "_Anno Aetatis suae 37_," i.e., in the thirty-seventh year of his age. Therefore, if he was in his thirty-seventh year on November 21, 1695 (the date of his death), he must have been born between November 21st, 1658, and November 20th, 1659.

Not only is his baptism during these years not recorded at St Margaret's, but the _Rate Books_ of St Margaret's for 1658 and 1659 _do not contain the name of Purcell_, as they certainly would have had his father had a house in the parish.

A friend has made most careful enquiries for me on this point. I expect the Almonry was in the precincts of Westminster Abbey, and so would not be "in the parish," and it is quite reasonable to suppose the child born in the Almonry was christened in the Abbey: but I have never yet found any record of this. Purcell's own son, Edward, was christened in the Abbey in 1689.

It is interesting to know that Henry Lawes lived also in the Almonry, and so must have known the little boy Purcell; but, as Lawes died in 1662, the child could not have given any great proof of his future genius. The elder Purcell died in 1664, and the young boy was {124} placed in the Chapel Royal Choir at the early age of six years.

Thomas Purcell, brother of the elder Purcell, was a distinguished musician also and a member of the Chapel Royal, besides holding other important posts. He looked after his clever little nephew, and was a real father to him. As in the case of Henry Purcell, Senior, we know nothing of the previous history of Thomas Purcell until we find him in his high position. Who trained him and his brother Henry we know not.

Henry Purcell was thus one of the remarkable set of boys to which I have often alluded in these Lectures, among his fellow choristers being Pelham Humfrey and Blow. Like the other boys, he began to compose, and the first reliable composition we have was the _Address of the Children of the Chapel Royal to the King and their Master, Captain Cooke, on His Majestie's Birthday A.D. 1670, composed by MASTER PURCELL, one of the Children of the said Chapel_.

Purcell, no doubt, owed much to Captain Cooke, but it is also certain that the influence of Pelham Humfrey, with the experience he gained by his studies with Lully, must have made a deep impression. As we know, Humfrey died at the early age of twenty-seven, and Purcell continued his studies with Blow, whose monument in the {125} Abbey records he was "Master to the famous Henry Purcell."

The first appointment Purcell held was that of copyist to Westminster Abbey (1676), a post which his father had held before him. We know little for certain as to his compositions for the Church in his early days. As a matter of fact, he seems to have been drawn (like Henry Lawes) more to the secular side, writing for the theatre. It has been suggested that he was introduced to this kind of work by Locke, who we know was a prominent composer for the stage. We must also remember that Humfrey would, very likely, have helped to influence the mind of the young Purcell in that direction. On Locke's death in 1677 Purcell wrote an ode _On the death of his worthy friend, Matthew Locke_.

In 1680 Dr Blow resigned his position as Organist of Westminster Abbey, and Purcell succeeded him. There is no record of Blow resigning or the cause of it in the Chapter Books; one simply finds in the Treasurer's accounts that Purcell drew the salary as Organist instead of Blow.

Probably his appointment to Westminster turned his mind more towards Church than stage.

The composition of the Opera _Dido and aeneas_ is, I think, proved by Mr Barclay Squire's {126} clever article on Purcell's dramatic music not to be a composition of his early years. It is not possible for me to go minutely into the subject of Purcell's many compositions, but I will for a few moments call attention to what I consider almost his master-piece. I allude to the splendid and original set of Sonatas which he issued in 1683.[2] This was Purcell's first publication, and it was issued from St Ann's Lane, beyond Westminster Abbey, where the composer resided--having been married in 1681. (It should be added that he was made Organist of the Chapel Royal in 1682, holding that post at the same time as the Abbey.)

These Sonatas are a very interesting study in Purcell's career. Like many of the composers mentioned in these Lectures, Purcell wrote Fancies; but the Sonatas are a very different thing. Written for Two Violins 'Cello and Ba.s.so Continuo, and consisting of three or four movements of differing character, they are a wonderful advance on anything previously done in this direction, either in England or abroad.

Corelli issued his Sonatas in the same year that Purcell's appeared.

But Corelli's--although beautiful--have not the depth or originality of {127} Purcell's, which are admirably written for the strings and abound in clever devices, but are in no way dull or suggestive of vocal writing. The three strings are often complete without the Continuo, but occasionally there is an extra part for this. My own experience of them in performance is that the least possible accompaniment is best, and it should be remembered that the Continuo is not written for a modern pianoforte with its powerful tone, but for the Harpsichord or Organ.

Purcell in his Preface says: "for its Author he has faithfully endeavoured a just imitation of the most favour'd Italian Masters". He goes on to explain the meaning of certain Italian "terms of Art perhaps unusual," such as _Adagio, Grave, Presto, Largo_, etc., and concludes with a wish that his book may fall into no other hands but those who carry musical souls about them; for he is willing to flatter himself into a belief that with such his labours will seem neither unpleasant nor unprofitable."

The question of the models that Purcell had in writing these fine Sonatas and what famous Italian Masters he imitated has been often debated. For myself I cannot but believe that Purcell owed much to a remarkable Neapolitan violinist, Nicola Matteis.

{128}

This Italian violinist and composer came to London about 1672, and resided there till after Purcell's death. The date of Matteis's birth is not known, but the accounts of his playing given from personal observation by such authorities as John Evelyn in his contemporary _Diary_, and Roger North in his _Memoirs of Musick_, show that he came here as a mature artist. Purcell was then fifteen years old, and during the eleven years which elapsed till the publication of the 1683 Purcell Sonatas, Matteis was much the most prominent foreign musician, and the only Italian musician of any rank resident in London. The propagation of musical styles from one country to another was carried out in those days very little by the dissemination of copies, whether ma.n.u.script or printed, and much more by the activity of persons who went here and there giving performances and concerts. And Roger North says specifically: "But as yet wee have given no account of the decadence of the French musick, and the Italian coming in its room.

This happened by degrees, and the overture was by accident, for the coming over of Sig. Nicolai Matteis gave the first start. He was an excellent musician, &c., &c., &c." Purcell, the Organist of Westminster Abbey, must of course have known Matteis, as he directed the concerts of Chief {129} Justice Francis North (Roger North's brother) in Queen Street, and it is evident from the writings of Roger that the Norths were supporters of Matteis. In the Bodleian Library I have found Chief Justice North's name inscribed as the owner on one of the volumes of Matteis's _Aires for the Violin_. Then as to the explanation of Italian terms in Purcell's Preface, it is a little singular that much the same sort of information is found prefixed to Matteis's second volume of Violin Pieces. Again I have discovered in MS. parts in the Bodleian Library, and had performed at a Lecture at the Royal Inst.i.tution, a Sonata in A by Matteis, in the exact Sonata form used by Purcell in 1683; and, though the date of this MS.

composition cannot be traced, it is at least as likely to have been composed before 1683 as after. However, I am not a.s.serting that a composer like Purcell copied Matteis's works. I am only saying that it was Matteis who made the Italian chamber-music prevalent in London, and that but for him Purcell would possibly never have thought or written in that style. And I cannot better conclude than by quoting from one of North's voluminous ma.n.u.scripts, _Essay of Musical Ayre_ (Brit.

Museum, _Addit._ MSS., 32, 536, folio 78):

{130}

The poor man (Matteis) as a grateful legacy to the English nation, left with them a generall savour for the Itallian manner of Harmony, and after him the French was wholly layd aside, and nothing in towne had a relish without a spice of Itally, and the masters here began to imitate them, _wittness Mr. H. Purcell, in his n.o.ble set of Sonnatas_.

Purcell composed another set of Sonatas, which was published after his death. One of them, generally called _The Golden Sonata_, is, perhaps, the best known of any in either of the issues. But it is inferior to others, particularly No. 4 of the first set, and altogether I do not think the second is at all on a level with the first. I may add that I have in my library the parts of the original publication of the first set. The Continuo contains an immense number of additional figures, and there are a few corrections in the other parts, which I have never found in any other copy. It would appear almost as if Purcell had himself made the corrections, and, indeed, Sir Hubert Parry was of opinion this was so. I hope I may be able shortly to print these Sonatas in separate parts so that they may be accessible to lovers of Purcell.

I cannot linger now over these interesting Sonatas, but must glance at Purcell's further activities. He wrote an _Ode for St Cecilia's Day_ in this year (1683) and many Anthems about this {131} time. In 1686 he took part in the compet.i.tion of Organ-Builders at the Temple Church, already spoken of in my Lecture on Dr Blow.

In 1685 he produced music for the Coronation of James II, himself singing in the choir with Blow, Child, and others. Who directed the music, i.e., played the organ, as was customary, we are not told. I possess a very rare engraving of this great ceremony, and one of the Choir seems certainly to hold a baton in his hand, but it was not usual to have a Conductor.

A second Coronation in which Purcell took part had a rather serious turn. It was that of William and Mary, and Purcell admitted persons to the organ-loft to see the Ceremony, for which they evidently paid pretty well. Purcell thought it was a "perquisite" (I do not suppose he was paid for his extra work on the occasion); but the Dean and Chapter claimed the money and pa.s.sed the following Chapter Order:

April 18, 1689. It is ordered that Mr. Purcell, organist to ye Dean and Chapter of Westminster, do pay to the hand of Mr. John Needham, Receiver of the College, all such moneys as was received by him for places in the Organ Loft at ye Coronation of King William and Queen Mary, by or before Sat.u.r.day next, being ye 20th day of this instant {132} Aprill. And in default thereof his place is ordered to be null and void. And it is further ordered that his stipend or salary due at our Lady Day past be detayned in the hands of the Treasurer until further order.

(_Entry in Chapter Book_)

Poor Purcell paid up, as an entry in the Treasurer's book states:

"Received of Mr. Purcell (his poundage and charges being deducted) 78 4s. 6d."

The visitors to the organ-loft could not have been many, as it was but small, so they paid pretty well for their seats, and Purcell seems to have had some sort of commission in the way of "poundage and other charges."

The Opera of _Dido and aeneas_ has often been quoted as a marvellous effort of Purcell's early days. Being a complete Opera without spoken Dialogue, it is a most interesting example of Purcell's advanced views, and, had he written it in 1675 (when only seventeen years of age), it would indeed have been a marvel. But I feel sure Mr Barclay Squire is right in putting it much later--in 1689. Although a splendid piece of work it is that of a man of experience and not of a youth.

One of the composer's best Operas is _Dioclesian_, an adaption from Beaumont and Fletcher by {133} Betterton. It is scored for strings, flutes, hautboys (3), ba.s.soons and trumpets. It is very interesting music, and there is a "Masque" included in it, containing some of the host of Purcell's operatic work. Purcell corrected the copies of the first issue by his own hand.

I possess one of these scarce books. He tells us a little of his troubles with the printer in an advertis.e.m.e.nt at the end of the book.

"In order to the speedier publication of the Book I employed two several printers, but one of them falling into some trouble and the volume swelling to a bulk beyond my expectations have been the occasion of this delay." The music to _Dioclesian_ and to _Amphitryon_ (a play by Dryden), added greatly to Purcell's fame; and Dryden who at one time thought Grabu, the French master of the King's Music, to be far superior to any English composer, now mentions Purcell as one "in whose Person we have at length found an Englishman equal with the best abroad. At least my opinion of him has been such since his happy and judicious performances in the last Opera." (Dryden's.)

Dryden wrote another Opera in 1691, _King Arthur_, which Purcell set to music. This is, I think, the best (excepting _Dido and aeneas_) of Purcell's dramatic works, containing as it does the {134} celebrated Air _Come if you dare_ and the Frost Scene.

I cannot dwell longer on Purcell's dramatic music, but will turn for a moment to the music for _St Cecilia's Day_ in 1692. This was performed, as usual, in Stationers Hall (the Hall still stands at the bottom of Paternoster Row), and _The Gentleman's Magazine_ of the time mentions the performance and tells us the interesting fact that the second stanza was sung with incredible graces by Mr. Purcell himself.

So it seems that Purcell had an alto voice; and it is pleasant to go into the very Hall, with the Musicians Company of the present day, and think of the old building echoing, years ago, to the strains of Purcell's voice.

And now I must turn to one of the finest of Purcell's contributions to the Services of the Church. In 1694 he wrote an elaborate _Te Deum_ and _Jubilate_ with orchestral accompaniment: this is the first of its kind by an English composer. It was written for the festival of _St Cecilia's Day_, 1694, but was not published until after the composer's death. The _Te Deum_ was performed in St Paul's at the Annual Festival Service of the Sons of the Clergy until 1713, when Handel's _Te Deum_, composed for the Peace of Utrecht, took its place. From that time for some years the {135} two rival _Te Deums_ were performed alternately.

There are some points of resemblance. Handel must have heard Purcell's setting, but the version of it which, until lately, was known--and sometimes performed--was a sad corruption of the original. Boyce, with the intention no doubt of helping Purcell's _Te Deum_ to compete with Handel's, broke it up into various movements, made some alterations in the harmony, and added many dull symphonies. The original Purcell score consisted of 325 bars and Boyce added 149 more! The result was disastrous and practically killed the Purcell setting. A performance of it was given in 1829, again at the Festival of the Sons of the Clergy. A very interesting letter from M. Fetis, the great French writer, is preserved in a musical paper of June 1829, which I will quote:

I must confess that my curiosity was considerable to hear the music of Purcell, whom the English proudly cite as being worthy of being placed in the same rank with the greatest composers of Germany and Italy. I was in a perfectly admiring disposition of mind when the Te Deum of this giant began; but what was my disappointment upon hearing, instead of the masterpiece which they had promised me, a long succession of insignificant phrases, ill-connected modulations and incorrect, albeit pretending harmonies. At first I imagined myself deceived, and that I ought to doubt my judgment on a style of music to which I was unaccustomed {136} but M. Felix Mendelssohn, a young and highly distinguished German composer, who stood beside me, received precisely the same impressions. Such indeed was the inconvenience felt by him that he would not prolong it, but escaped, leaving me to encounter Purcell alone during the performance of the Jubilate[3], which appeared to me no way superior.

It was a great anxiety to me to know what to do about introducing this _Te Deum_ in the music of the Abbey Purcell Celebration. I consulted Sir Hubert Parry, who said it was "long-winded and dull"!

And so I had always found it, and the result was I gave up the idea. But--most providentially--the MS. score of this work was brought to me one day in the Cloisters of the Abbey; the announcement of the coming celebration had called the owner's attention to it. He sold it to me--and when I looked it over I found out what was the real reason of its failure. It was Boyce's edition and not Purcell's music. A new edition was prepared and the _Te Deum_ again restored to life!

In another direction Purcell showed his remarkable versatility. He corrected and amended Playford's Introduction to the Skill of Musick, a book of great interest. Purcell's observations on Canon are particularly good and valuable.