Part 7

At the early age of twenty-one, in 1669, he became Organist of Westminster Abbey, and the appointment, apparently, was not enough for his ambition (or, more probably, for his needs!), for in 1674 he succeeded Humfrey as Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal, becoming Organist also (while still holding Westminster Abbey) in 1676. As regards his degree of Mus. Doc. I have (on the authority of the late Dr Southgate) to make a little correction of former statements. It has generally been said the degree was conferred upon Blow by Archbishop Sancroft, but {111} Dr Southgate told me in a note, when I was about to lecture on Blow, some years ago, that the degree was granted by Bancroft's _representative_ the Dean of Canterbury--the Archbishop being dead. It is marked in the Lambeth Register "_Sede vacante_": it was thus bestowed when the "See was vacant." It is a curious fact that Blow gave up his Abbey post in 1680, being succeeded by Purcell; and on Purcell's death, in 1695, he was again appointed organist of the Abbey, and held that post until his death.

But I have to record yet another important Cathedral appointment which our indefatigable musician held. He was Almoner and Master of the Choristers in St Paul's Cathedral, holding those offices for six years, from 1687 to 1693. Again he seems to have resigned in favour of a pupil, Mr Jeremiah Clarke. It is a remarkable testimony to the esteem in which he was held that he should have filled posts at the Chapel Royal, St Paul's Cathedral, and Westminster Abbey, all at the same time. Bishops, in the old days, often presided over a Diocese, filled a Canonry or directed a College and occupied a "Living" or two, simultaneously; but Blow seems to me to have been the greatest Organist pluralist on record!

But this is a testimony to his worth, and in {112} following up our investigation of his contributions to music I will not dwell longer upon his Church music, except to mention that he wrote an Anthem _I was glad_, for the opening of St Paul's Cathedral in 1697, and to tell the story of the composition of the Anthem which I mentioned in the early part of my lecture, _I beheld and Lo_! When it was performed in the Chapel Royal, the King (who had asked him to compose it) sent Father Petre to say he was greatly pleased with it; "but (added Petre) I myself think it too long!" "That (answered Blow) is the opinion of but one fool--I heed it not." The Priest was greatly incensed at this remark, and it is said that, had not James II lost his place by his sudden flight to France, Dr Blow would have lost _his_!

Among the Anthems of this composer may be mentioned two which he wrote for the Coronation of James II, and he also took part in the funeral of William III in the Abbey, receiving, according to an Abbey record, the very large fee of 7s. 10d. for the latter. He does not seem to have directed the music at the Coronation, but took part in the choir. On the death of his pupil, Purcell, he wrote an ode, the words by Dryden, beginning _Mark how the lark and linnet sing_.

I must not omit to mention that he and Purcell were the Organists selected by Father Smith to {113} display the organ of the Temple Church at the memorable competition between Smith and Harris, the two rival organ-builders. Smith won the day, and showed his wisdom in getting the best men to preside at his instrument. It was the custom for many years to have an _Ode for St Cecilia's Day_ composed for and performed in Stationers Hall on the Saint's Day. Blow wrote the second of these _Odes_ in 1684--the year of the Temple Church competition. He published, in 1700, a great collection of his secular vocal music, under the title of _Amphion Anglicus_, and in his dedication to the Princess Anne of Denmark he announces that he is preparing "as fast as I can a second musical Present, my Church Services and Divine composition." He gives his sentiments with regard to Sacred composition in the same dedication, which are worth repeating:

To those in truth I have ever more especially consecrated the thoughts of my whole life. All the rest I consider but the blossoms or rather the leaves those I only esteem as the Fruits of all my labours in this kind. With them I began my first Raptures in this Art, with them I hope calmly and comfortably to finish my days.

The composer did not carry out his design, though he lived about eight years after this.

A very interesting work, which has only of late {114} years been made known, is a Masque entitled _Venus and Adonis_. Some years ago I noticed it among the music in the Chapter Library at Westminster. It has since been edited by Mr Arkwright, and, quite lately, produced upon the stage at Glastonbury. It is very interesting, as it shows that Blow, like Purcell, had a leaning to dramatic music and this Masque is specially noticeable as it consists of musical dialogue--not spoken--thus coming very near to a little Opera.

Blow also contributed to some _Choice Lessons for the Harpsichord_, a collection published by Playford, to which also Henry Purcell contributed. There are also interesting specimens of organ music, among which is a curious arrangement of the _Hundredth Psalm Tune_ "as they are played in Churches and Chapels." I have also a copy of a MS. _Lesson on the Hundredth Psalm_. It would now be called a Choral Prelude for the Organ. After a short introduction, the whole tune appears at intervals in the Bass, with very florid upper counterpoint. It is evidence of Blow's knowledge of organ effects and of his ability as a player.

A writer in 1711, three years after Blow's death, tells us "he was reckoned the greatest Master in the world for playing most gravely and {115} serenely in his Voluntaries", and we have Purcell's testimony to him as "one of the greatest masters in the world". With this testimony before him it seems incredible that Dr Burney should have made such a fierce onslaught upon this really excellent man and versatile musician, on account of what he calls his "crudities." He has actually given four pages of music type in his History, full of quotations of Blow's misdeeds. I have examined these carefully, and in many cases the examples are really a remarkable testimony to Blow's advanced ideas, and his feeling for pathetic and expressive harmony. In some specimens there are obvious mis-prints, accidentals omitted, etc., which Burney, had he not been prejudiced, would certainly have perceived. But it is not worth while to follow up this matter, although I am sorry to say Sir Frederick Ouseley took rather the same line when commenting on Blow's music. He really pays Blow a compliment when he says that "he always appears to have been trying experiments in harmony or introducing new combinations and discords". This was what was said of another great musician, Monteverde, to whom we owe so much, and such criticisms only bring discredit upon the writers who failed to see the value behind the novelty. Sir Hubert Parry, in speaking of these {116} "crudities" says "they do Blow, for the most part, great credit, for they show that he adventured beyond the range of the mere conventional, and often with the success that betokens genuine musical insight."

I have already commented upon his greatest Anthems _I beheld and lo!_ and _I was in the Spirit_. They are full of examples of Blow's melodious power, and this also comes out in some of his secular airs. Perhaps one of the best is his beautiful song which is to be found in _Amphion Anglicus_ entitled _The Self Banished_ beginning "It is not that I love you less"; the words are by Waller, and the music is worthy of them.

Blow, as described by Sir John Hawkins, was "a very handsome man in his person, and remarkable for a gravity and decency in his deportment, suited to his station".

This worthy musician died in 1708, aged 60, and is buried in Westminster Abbey, near the old entrance to the organ-loft and in close proximity to Purcell. A fine monument is erected near the spot, and a specimen of his composition, in the form of a _Gloria_ from one of his services is engraved thereupon. This _Gloria_ is said to have been sung at St Peter's at Rome. I remember an interesting matter in connection with this monument. In my early days at the Abbey (during {117} Dean Stanley's time) the Emperor of Brazil paid a visit and was shown round the Abbey by the Dean. The only thing he specially asked to be shown was "Dr. Blow's monument"! The Dean told me His Majesty inspected it very closely and seemed to be reading the music. He probably knew more about Blow's music than Burney's _History_!

[1] There is an account preserved in the Bodleian Library of Blow being paid £40 a year for "keeping and teaching two boys" but this was in 1685. It shows that it was usual for boys whose voices were gone, to be kept on for tuition.

{118}

XII. HENRY PURCELL

1658--1695

In Henry Purcell I reach the last and the greatest of my Twelve Good Musicians. And to attempt to consider and discuss completely his life and work in the short space of a University Lecture, would be an absurd effort. But, as I have before pointed out, my object has been to endeavour to interest the musical student--amateur and professional--in certain prominent masters of music, and in the remarkable progress made in our own country by their aid in the seventeenth century. I can do little more than arouse interest, and I cannot pretend to write a complete history, but I trust the Lectures will have helped to fill up the "blank" which Sir Hubert Parry declared existed in many minds as regards the music of this period.

In the consideration of the various musicians of whom I have already treated I have avoided biographical detail. As a rule information in these matters may be gleaned from the well-known books of reference. But in the case of {119} Purcell I am obliged to enlarge a little on his life, in the hope that I may be able to contribute a few interesting facts with regard to his family that are not generally known.

Let me begin, then, with Purcell's father. It is an extraordinary thing that we know nothing whatever of him until we find his name among distinguished musicians, such as Captain Cooke, Locke, and Lawes, as one of the performers in the _Siege of Rhodes_, in 1656. In the Preface to this publication it is claimed that "The Musick was composed and both the Vocal and Instrumental is exercised by the most transcendent of England in that Art."

What did the elder Purcell do before he attained to such a position? We know absolutely nothing as regards his origin, his training, or his career up to this. I have made diligent search in the archives of Westminster to see if there were anything to be learned there, and have gleaned a few small facts.

The name of Roger Pursell occurs in a bill for bringing timber to the College--in August 1628. The items of the bill include Carriage by land 1s. 6d., for watching 6d., for helping to land ye timber 6d. This would seem to apply to a load of timber brought from a distance for the use of the carpenters of the College. Roger Pursell {120} may have come up with the timber or he may have been one of the carpenters. He was paid 3s. for two days' work. The name appears again in 1659 when we find in a page of accounts "Expended by George Blackborn and Joseph Hobbes for the travelling charges about the Colledge affaires at Offord, in the County of Huntingdon" the following note: "In the Bonds taken from Mr Throgmorton and _Roger Pursell_ there is included £4 towards travelling charges." Then Roger Pursell is spoken of as "the 'Bayliffe' of Mr Giles." It is rather curious that the name of Roger Pursell should occur at such a wide interval, 1628 and again in 1659. One wonders if Roger's connection with the Abbey and its property was the beginning of the musical members of the family coming to Westminster.

There was a Shropshire Purcell family of some standing, and in the _Herald's Visitation of Shropshire_ in 1623 it was given as of Onslow, and Shrewsbury; and there were many distinguished Purcells in Ireland.

We know and hear nothing more of the elder Purcell after the production of the _Siege of Rhodes_ in 1656 until his name appears in a book in the Library at Westminster. This book records the admission of one or two Petty Canons {121} in 1660, and the payment by them of 5s. for the entry. Mr Henry Purcell's name is also entered with the note "instead of 5s. _this book_."

Here, then, we have the great musician's father installed in the Abbey as Master of the Choristers (not organist also) and Copyist. He was also a Gentleman of the Chapel Royal and a Singing Man of Westminster. Later on we find him a member of the Royal Band (1663). All these important appointments testify to his leading musical position.

We have a glimpse of him in Pepys' _Diary_, under date February 21st, 1660.

"After dinner I back to Westminster Hall. Here I met with Mr. Lock and Pursell, Master of Music, and with them to the Coffee House into a room next the Water by ourselves. Here we had variety of brave Italian and Spanish songs and a Canon for eight voices which Mr. Locke had lately made on these words '_Domine Salvum fac Regem_.'"

Another small fact of interest in connection with the elder Purcell is furnished me by my brother of Chester. He finds in the Chirk Castle accounts, by the steward of Sir Thomas Myddelton, an allusion to Mr Purcell, who is, no doubt, our elder Purcell. Dr. Bridge writes as follows:

"In 1661 the family had gone up to London and we find the Steward there and recording

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 Shropshire 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 Æneas_ 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 Basso 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 manuscript 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 Institution, 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 asserting 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 manuscripts, _Essay of Musical Ayre_ (Brit. Museum, _Addit._ MSS., 32, 536, folio 78):

{130}