by Creyghton. In each of these cases a major key has been selected and the gloomy colouring of the earliest school entirely discarded. When King tried his hand at counterpoint he generally made a sad mess of it, hence his Service in C and his Service in F (especially the Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis) are those which were most liked, and to them was principally due the initiation of the later simple harmonic style. To this school Dr. Cooke, organist of Westminster Abbey (b. 1734) contributed a most useful service in the key of G. The Te Deum of the deservedly popular Service in F by Henry Smart proves how much breadth and dignity can be thrown into the 'late simple harmonic' style by the hand of genius; other portions of the sefvice, especially the Benedictus and Nicene Creed belong to the modern dramatic school.
One of the finest, if not the finest setting of the Te Deum and Jubilate to which the English Church can point, is that by Croft, in A. It combines a suitable variety of sentiment with a dignified unity as a whole; and while in turn it is plaintive, penitential, or joyous, it bursts at the close of the Gloria to the Jubilate into a rich fugato highly artistic and effective.
It has been asserted that our modern church-composers have had placed before them the same problem which confronted Palestrina, and are solving it in the wrong way. This is not the case. The real question is broadly this—Should church-music be a level unvarying vehicle for supporting the sacred words, or should it strive to illustrate them? Or, in other words—Should it be a passive receptacle, a mere unobjectionable frame to which the words are to be fitted, or should the music be an active and appropriate comment on the text? The question is not one which can be answered off-hand; all that we can do here is to chronicle the fact that our modern composers have adopted the latter view, and are striving to do for sacred music what the 'romantic' school did for the secular branch. If modern writers of services can be sometimes charged with sentimentality, they can retort that they at least do not exhibit primitive dreariness. Palestrina had to choose between the frivolous artificialities which had then burdened church-music, and the classical style of his own adoption; not between a classical style and a romantic style not then dreamed of. A careful balancing of the various merits of different characters of services will, it is to be hoped, lead our modern writers to form an eclectic school which shall avoid weak sentimentality on the one side, and orthodox dryness on the other. But controversy on this subject has for the last few years been running very high, and opposing parties are not in that temper of mind which can contemplate eclecticism as desirable.
The use of the full orchestra in our cathedrals and churches, which has become common during the last few years, has called into existence a considerable number of festival settings of the Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis; these are distinctly modern in character of course, but are for the most part admirable specimens of their kind.
It rarely happens that any foreigner attempts to enter the mysterious boundaries of English service-music; yet Mendelssohn ventured upon the step. His Te Deum and Jubilate in A, Magnificat in B♭ and Nunc Dimittis in E♭, are evident attempts to follow a style to which he had no doubt been attracted by his occasional visits to St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey. Of these four canticles, the Te Deum is unquestionably the finest, the last portion reaching a high standard of beauty and pathos. The contrapuntal writing of the Magnificat is exceedingly clever, especially the fugue to the words 'as he promised'; the Nunc Dimittis is rather spoilt than improved by the reintroduction of the prayer 'Lord now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace,' after the triumphal burst 'To be a light to lighten the Gentiles.' But the whole work is published in octavo form and takes its place amongst the services on the music-lists of our principal cathedrals, a strong evidence of its appreciation by our conservative church musicians.
Those who desire to study the literature of services will find ample materials in Barnard's Collection (imperfect and rare); Boyce's Collection of Cathedral Music, 3 vols.; Arnold's Collection, 3 vols.; Rimbault's Collection of Services, 1 vol.; Ouseley's Collection of Services, 1 vol.; various manuscripts in our cathedrals. Full information as to Barnard's Collection will be found under the head Barnard, vol. i. p. 140 of this Dictionary; to each of the succeeding collections above named interesting biographical notices are attached, for the most part extremely correct. Ouseley has given a notice of Richard Farrant as the composer of an 'early simple harmonic' Service in D minor; this however was composed by a 'Mr. Farrant of Salisbury,' not by Richard Farrant; they were probably near relatives.
The rapid growth of music which has taken place in all our parish churches during the last few years has called into existence a new class of 'congregational' settings of the Canticles, under the name of Chant-services. The need of them was felt a century ago, when 'Jackson in F,' their true forerunner, first appeared; no wonder that worshippers were glad on the one hand to escape from the 'reading' of the Te Deum by parson and clerk, and on the other hand from the cathedral service in which they could take no part. And it must be admitted also that the weakest chant-service is an improvement on the system of singing the canticles to single or double chants. It would not be fair to criticise modern chant-services; their authors have produced them as works of utility, not of art; and their need is still so pressing that composers of ability who are willing to lay aside their own artistic aims and don the strait-jacket of a congregation's limited requirements and powers deserve all encouragement and gratitude.
Instead of finding the terms 'chorus' and
