« PreviousContinue »
however, that there came soon thereafter that monumental work on music, the second edition of which is now in process of publication.
The progress made within this important field of musical enterprise, as already stated, may be easily measured by generations; and nearly twenty-seven years have now elapsed since the publication of the first volume of Sir George Grove's epoch-making first edition. It was immediately hailed, particularly in English-speaking countries, as an invaluable work to the investigator and as a most interesting and entertaining one to the layman. To maintain this high standard in the second edition was no easy task. Though by no means as rich in great composers and interpreters as were the preceding decades of the nineteenth century, the period since 1878 has been characterized by extraordinary activity, while a general knowledge of music has become very widely diffused. The most difficult problem which confronted the editors of the new edition was, therefore, the careful selection of material.
Brahms was forty-eight years old when the first volume of Grove's "Dictionary" appeared, and from that time until his death in 1897 nearly twenty years had elapsed years of ripe creative activity, during which public opinion in regard to Brahms became more and more favorable. It is the change in public opinion and of the general estimate of critics which often necessitates the complete recasting of an article. This certainly holds true of Brahms, whose lifework is admirably discussed in an article of ten pages by the editor. In undertaking analytical work such as this, a writer is very apt to venture on the expression of personal conceptions which should have no place in an encyclopædic work dealing with facts only -an error carefully avoided here, as will be evident from the following interesting passage dealing solely with Brahms's workmanship:
It may be not altogether vain to attempt to sum up a few of Brahms's more notable characteristics, those qualities which make his music what it is and which distinguish him most conspicuously from others. That he was fond of conflicting rhythms and themes akin in style to folk-songs or national dance tunes is obvious to the most superficial hearer; in the first peculiarity he had to some extent been anticipated by Schumann and others, and in the second by Schubert. One of his most individual qualities is seen in his manner of handling his themes, for, while adhering to the classical structure far more closely than any of the great composers since Beethoven, he gave it new life by the ingenuity with which he presents his material in new aspects, and in particular by the kind of modulations he prefers. Instead of moving by gradual and definite steps to a remote key, he often leaves out one or even more of the sequence of steps by which the distant key would naturally be reached. . . . In general, his treatment of his subject is so instructive to the student and so delightful to the intelligent hearer that Brahms must be considered supreme among the great masters in this respect.
In the treatment of composers considerable latitude has been afforded in certain respects, Arrigo Boito coming in for a discussion of more than four pages of a somewhat gossipy nature. Yet no one can deny that the sketch is engaging; that it throws interesting side-lights on the musical life of Italy during the sixties; and that, after all, it deals with a brilliant man, concerning whom, as the author judiciously remarks, an ex cathedra opinion cannot yet be expressed. The article was evidently written in Italian; and, in the translation, one occasionally finds an unfortunate little slip, such as, "while he was waiting for the autumn to go back to Paris and try his fortune again" a sentiment which many New Yorkers will undoubtedly appreciate when they reflect upon the long visit of our late friend, the winter of 1905. These trifling lapses, however, are very infrequent throughout the work, which, by reason of the difficulties involved, has been carefully edited.
In view of the variety of information presented, the dictionary easily stands alone. We have full and very attractive biographies of the distinguished modern composers of Russia, many of whom have long been appreciated in England. Mr. Richard Aldrich has contributed sketches of prominent Americans, and it is gratifying to record that ample space has been accorded throughout to musicians of our own nationality. Particularly interesting is the article on Boston musical societies. Here we have another feature of much interest: a history of great musical centres, such as Bologna in Italy, and of celebrated musical societies of Europe and America. Mr. H. E. Krehbiel entertains us with an excellent account of the Cincinnati Musical Festival, giving not only its history, but also a list of the principal choral works performed since 1873. The foremost manufacturers of musical instruments find a place here, as do likewise the chief music publishers of the world, whether they be located in Germany, Russia, Italy, England, France, or America. Musical copyright, at present a widely discussed subject, degrees in music, and many kindred topics of increasing importance are likewise treated in a thoroughly up-to-date manner. In brief, the variety of topics presented, the attractive form of discussion, and the accurate presentation of data will serve to make this new edition of Grove's standard work indispensable to the investigator, instructive to the student, and entertaining to the layman.
THE EDUCATIONAL OUTLOOK.
ON Sunday, February 19, New York City completed the first century of its trial of the free school experiment. The occasion was celebrated on the following day with appropriate exercises in all the municipal schools, concluding with formal ceremonies at Carnegie Hall in the evening. The development of the metropolitan public school system in these one hundred years is full of intensely interesting lessons to students of sociology. The initial objects of the founders were wholly different from those upon which New England built its common schools. John Murray, Jr., and his public-spirited friends, in organizing the Free School Society of New York, obviously had in mind only the deliverance of the children of the poor from the slavery of crass ignorance and the checking of their contamination with vice and crime by the antidote of a virtuous education.
The New England ideal of common schools, namely, that of a "universal education of the people in common schools free to all," was altogether foreign to the spirit of New York. The Free School Society was actuated by worthy motives of philanthropy, New England by Anglo-Saxon principles of civic duty. In New York schools were regarded as a privilege and the extension of their benefits to the poor as a charity; in New England they were maintained as seminaries for the perpetuation of democratic ideas and the safeguarding of religious liberty and republican institutions. The founders of New England came out of great tribulation determined to secure for themselves and their posterity the fullest measure of civil and personal freedom. New York began as a trade station and was nursed to maturity on commercial considerations. That is why the first free schools of New York were charitable institutions designed for the enlightenment of the poor, while New England began with common schools.
As in other phases of the higher life of the United States, so in public education, New England aspirations have in the course of time become the ruling ideas. In New York the transformation has been
rather slow, owing probably to the resisting force of its Anglo-Dutch heritage of commercialism and the exceptional heterogeneity and redundance of its foreign population. But the attitude toward the recipients of free education has completely changed. Universal education is now regarded more in the light of a wise investment of public moneys that will produce rich interest by promoting the general welfare. The faith of the city in the beneficial effects of the spread of culture is evidenced by the unexampled generosity in financial appropriations for the extension and perfection of the agencies of popular education. Schools, colleges, museums, and libraries have been made accessible to young and old; free lectures, free concerts, free botanical and zoological gardens are maintained at public expense. A conservative estimate places the value of the public school buildings alone at not less than $80,000,000, and President Tifft, of the New York City Board of Education, rightly says that some of these buildings are of great beauty. All this has sprung from the one-room school opened by the Free School Society on May 19, 1805, followed by the erection, under the same auspices, of a $13,000 school building four years later.
Dr. Andrew S. Draper, commissioner of public instruction for the State of New York, did not exaggerate when he said, in his address at the centennial celebration, that in New York City the American system of common schools had had a test more crucial than it had sustained
anywhere else in the land. But he certainly was too complimentary when he expressed the opinion that in the last seven years that is to say, under the educational administration of Superintendent Maxwell — the greater city had made more true progress toward a comprehensive and efficient system of public schools than had any other city of the country. There is no doubt that wonderful progress has been made in this period. The efficient services of the building department, under the management of Superintendent Snyder, are worthy of special notice in this connection; and these are commonly overlooked when the great work of the schools is praised. The beauty of the new buildings is an important factor in nursing the city's pride in its schools.
Of course, the centre of the system, and that to which everything else must be subsidiary, is the administration of the purely educational work. In this the improvement has been nothing short of marvellous. it has been accomplished at the cost of considerations which in an American system of common schools must remain fundamental if permanence of success is to be assured. In constructing and perfecting the existing machinery of public instruction that is the proper phrase
the fatal mistake was made of over-concentrating educational control. A board of school superintendents, dominated by a chief of forceful personality and exceptional administrative ability, managed to constitute itself as a governing body wielding almost absolute authority over the thirteen thousand teachers in the system. This unique condition in American school affairs was watched with keen interest by students of education. Here was a body of professional educators in full charge of the educational work of an immense school system. Here was their opportunity to impress upon the thoughtful people of the country the desirability of leaving the direction of educational endeavor to trained experts.
What are the results? At almost every point where principals or teachers or both were united in recommendations touching their own interests or those of the service, they were thwarted or discouraged by the board of superintendents. It happened that the board of education in most of these instances was plainly in sympathy with the teachers. The final outcome may readily be foreseen. The teachers will turn with their petitions more and more to the board of education, and the cause of professionalism will have a severe set-back in consequence. How far this will re-open the door to party politics in school matters remains to be seen. The board of education is created by the mayor, and the character of it must necessarily depend upon his conception of party loyalty and his attitude toward the schools. At present the city has a splendid board, but there is no telling what it may become under a changed administration.
The chief cause of the overweening sense of importance which has taken possession of the board of superintendents is most probably Dr. Maxwell's oligarchical conception of educational control. He would remove public education as far as possible from parental interference. He does not seem to share the American notion that the family is the basal unit. To him public education is primarily a State affair, and the city in providing for it acts only as agent for the State. He made this declaration unequivocally in a paper read by him before the recent National Educational Convention at Milwaukee. In the account of that convention, which will be found further on, I have included a summary of his remarks on this subject. He is evidently not in sympathy with the conception which regards each common school as the educational centre of a community united for the purpose of meeting the educational responsibilities belonging primarily to the several families. In a democratic metropolis, a man of his tremendous force may for a time wield