Books › Musical Courier 1913-12-10: Vol 67 Iss 24, 1913 › scan 31
Scan 31
Musical Courier 1913-12-10: Vol 67 Iss 24, 1913
102 lines. Read by computer on 25 September 2026. Printed page 32. See the scan on archive.org.
1mune of Bergen, and accord it both the protection of this Museum and the opportunity of proper exhibition.
3"Pray rest assured that every possible provision shall be made for the safety of this rare and precious object, and that we are fully sensible of the great responsibility resting upon us for its care and exhibition.
5"BERGEN'S VESTL. KUNSTIN. MUSEUM DIRECTORS.
6(Signed)
7"SCHAK BULL.
8"HRAAR OLSEN.
9"SIGURD MICHELSEN.
10"RASMUS MEYER
11"P. A. EYDE.
12"JOHAN BOGH.
14"October 19, 1902.
15(Translated from the Norwegian.)
17"Copies of this record and conditions of gift shall be placed with the libraries of Bergen, Christiania, and such other cities of Norway as are selected by the guardians, and with the Boston and Cambridge Libraries in Massachusetts, U. S. A."
19In this connection I wish also to call the reader's attention to a statement contained in a book entitled "Violins and Violin Makers," by Joseph Pearce, Jun., Esq., published in London by Longman & Co. in the year 1866. On page 74 the following statement appears:
21"Ole Bull has a very celebrated violin of Gaspar's make. In the first place it was sculptured with caryatides, by the great Florentine artist, Benvenuto Cellini, at the special command of another eminent person, Cardinal Aldobrandini, who presented it to the museum of Innspruck in the Tyrol. In 1809 that city was assaulted by the French, the museum was plundered, and this violin carried to Vienna, where it became the property of another notable person, the Councillor Hehazek, who was famous for his collection of ancient musical instruments. He left it by will to another still more celebrated person, Ole Bull, the distinguished Norwegian violinist, by whom it was exhibited in London in 1862, and with whom it still remains. To our description of Gaspar's instruments we should add that his tenors and double basses are of a rather broader form than his violins."
23I have not been able to discover that the genuineness of this instrument has been questioned since the death of Ole Bull, which occurred August 17, 1880, other than through your recent publication. Upon the death of Ole Bull's widow, the late Sara Bull, which occurred January 18, 1911, I was appointed administrator of her estate and, as such administrator, came into the possession of several of Ole Bull's violins, including his "Amati," concerning which Mr. Pearce in his book, entitled "Violins and Violin Makers," above referred to, writes:
25"We have before mentioned the celebrated Nicholas Amati violin dated 1679, formerly the property of the same distinguished collector, Sir W. Curtis, and which has since been sold by Mr. Hart to the great violinist, Ole Bull. This is considered the finest specimen of the Amati skill and was thus described in the catalogue of the sale: 'This is justly considered as one of the most beautiful and finest instruments in the whole world.'"
27I am not a connoisseur of violins, yet I have many times seen Ole Bull's Gaspar da Salo in the Bergen Museum, and have discussed the instrument with many people who had an intimate knowledge of its history.
29In view of my official connection with the estate of the late Mrs. Ole Bull, I feel that I should not permit your article to pass without comment, for I submit all the circumstances surrounding this instrument and its gift to the Bergen Museum furnish irrefutable proof that the instrument now exhibited in the Bergen Museum is Ole Bull's famous Gaspar da Salo.
31Very respectfully yours,
33RALPH S. BARTLETT.
35The question of the identity of a violin sometimes is a very intricate one; in fact, it is exceedingly difficult at times to prove the authenticity of an instrument which is in doubt. Violin makers and violin players generally disagree on this subject. Many a violinist has been told by a maker that his violin is not what the player considers it. Disputes as to identity have been frequent between player and maker or repairer. After all, it seems a pity that famous instruments should be bequeathed to museums; instead they should be fulfilling their mission and be a source of gratification to the public and of infinite assistance to the player.
37Opera is not a matter of civics, or education, of excellent intentions or of a highflown and loudly proclaimed desire to elevate the community. We do not go to the opera to be educated or to indulge our civic pride. We go to enjoy ourselves, and unless the artists have voices and dramatic sensibility we cannot do so.—New York Telegraph.
39CAPGRAVE'S CHRONICLES.
41John Capgrave was an English author who was born April 21, 1393. In his greatest work, "The Chronicle of England," he has some entertaining remarks to make about music from time to time. Like most of the ancient historians, he begins with the creation of the world and rapidly sketches a brief account of what happened before his own particular country became historically important. In the year of the world 300—that is to say 3874 B. C.—our author tells us that the following events took place.
43"In this tyme begunne men sore to multiplie. And Cayn, at thoo daies, because he ded mech wrong, and meytneyed hem that ded wrong, mad a cyte, and named it Enok after his son. This Enok was fader to Yrad; and Yrad fader to Mammoel; Mammoel fader to Matusael; Matusael fader to Lamech; wherch Lamech weddid to wyves. On of hem hite Ada, the othir hite Sella. Ada sche broute forth Jabel. He was the first fynder of tentis, in which schepherdis restid in for to kepe hre scheep. And his brothir, be the same woman, hite Jubal: he was fader to alle hem that singe in the orgoun, or in the crowde. Sella, his othir wif, sche broute forth Tubal-Cayn. He wroute first with hambir and stith in alle thoo werkis that longyn to yrun or bras.
45"The first son, Jabel, departed the flokkis of sch'ep fro the flokkis of goot: and aftir her qualite, thei that were of o colourbe be hem selve, and thei that were of too or dyvers be hem selve: and aftir here age yeringis he hem selve, and elder be hem selve.
47"Jubal, his brothir, he was fynder of musik, not of the very instrumentis which be used now, for thei were founde long aftir; but this man fond certeyn soundis accordyng, and to this entent that the grete laboure in schepkepyng schuld have sum solace of musik. And that this craft schuld not perch, he ded write it in to pileres, on of marbil, a nothir of tyl, for fe-r, and for watir.
49"The othir man, Tubal-Cayn, that fond first smythis craft, he mad first wepenes of batayle, both invasif, and defensif; and he began first graving in metallis, to plesauns of the sith. And, as it is sed, the forseid Jubal proporcioned his musik aftir the sound of Tubal hambirs; for he ded make hem of dyvers proporciones, some hevyere, sum liter, aftir his delectacion."
51We have quoted one page from the great book of nearly 500 pages which was printed in London in 1858 from the original MSS. of five hundred years ago. Nothing but the punctuation has been added by the Oxford scholars.
53We think it is hardly necessary to translate in modern English the antique spelling of the old historian, but we may remark that the crowde referred to in the sentence, he was father to all them that sing in the organ, or the crowd, means an obsolete instrument of the string family. It was a bowed instrument like the violin which it preceded. It is usually given in its Welsh form, Crwth (crooth), which, so far as we can discover, is the oldest stringed instrument played with a bow.
55We will not attempt to describe the "orgoun," or organ, of which John Capgrave speaks, but we are certain he did not refer to the grand ecclesiastical instrument with which modern musicians associate the word organ.
57SIX AUTHORS.
59The following letter appeared under the above caption on Sunday, November 23, in the New York Sun:
61To the Editor of the Sun—Sir: In the last several weeks numerous despatches from Washington have told of communications to the Postmaster General from a Mrs. Elizabth Grannis, a Miss Jane Stead and other women, apparently acting in concert, which complain against certain recent books, short stories, poems, magazine articles and published plays dealing frankly with matters of sex and questions of sex hygiene. The complainants ask the postal authorities to bar these publications from the mails. As authors of some of the sorts of literary material complained of we desire to enter a counter protest.
63We are thoroughly well aware of a recent symptom displayed by certain periodicals and publishing firms of lesser worth. These have published matter that has neither an artistic nor a moral motive. Clumsily constructed, badly written and uninformed by character or characters, this matter is intended for only one purpose: it is intended for the same purpose for which were intended those obscene pamphlets that used secretly to be peddled to schoolboys at the risk of imprisonment. It is no nearer to literature than the pamphlets, but it is illustrated by "artists" in perfect harmony with the authors of the text. It is published by the magazines that we have referred to, and in book form is sold on the open market for $1.50 the volume.
65Such stuff is not, however, what is objected to by Mrs. Grannis. It is skilful in synonyms, if in nothing else, and hides itself behind a pretty mask. What is objected to is art that depicts life in the terms of reality and legitimate propaganda that assumes the language of art in order to reach the largest audience. We do not suggest that Mrs. Grannis and her friends are in league with those twin forces of suppression that so long made American literature sterile and artificial and so long fostered evil by keeping silence about it, but we do assert that, whatever be the worth or fate of our own work, the reactionary policy advocated by these curiously misguided women will if successful turn back the clock in national morals and national art.
67JACK LONDON,
68REGINALD WRIGHT KAUFFMAN,
69UPTON SINCLAIR,
70DANIEL CARSON GOODMAN,
71JAMES OPPENHEIM,
72T. EVERETT HARRE.
74New York, November 21.
76This letter is so pertinent at this time because of the attempt on the part of certain ladies who are supporting musical enterprise in this country to reform the operatic stage, that we have quoted it in full. It will be seen from this letter that the opinion of the writers is that the whole matter turns upon the question of whether a work is inspired by a genuine art feeling or not. That should always be the question in all matters pertaining to art. It must be so also in opera. It might almost be said, without being too sweeping that a work that is highly artistic, and which was genuinely inspired by artistic feeling, can never be, strictly speaking, immoral.
78The idea that certain operas should be round improper for the American stage on the plea of immorality is offensive to every true art lover, and it may be added that it is still more offensive to have the suggestion made that operas by American composers must be built along Puritanical lines if they are to be found acceptable. It is to be hoped that common sense and genuine art inspiration will prevail in this matter before any further harm is done.
80Two Songs.
82One day I wrought a little song,
83For honor and for gain;
84I labored on it ever long
85With care and skill and pain.
87But when within the market-place
88To sing it I made bold,
89It brought me not one gladdened face,
90Nor any fame nor gold.
92Another day I wrought a song,
93For love of singing sweet,
94And oh, the quickly hastening throng'
95And oh, the dancing feet!
97And oh, the praises loud and strong,
98The gold I needs must take,
99For that blithe song, that careless song
100I sang for singing's sake!
101—Reina Melcher Marquis in Waterbury American.
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.