OBATORIO "MESSIAH"

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 92, 19 April 1930, Page 6

OBATORIO "MESSIAH"

HISTOBICALPOINTS' • '■ (To the Editor.) Sir, —My sole purpose in .writing1 ■ the"! article you were good enough to publish on Wednesday last was to endeavour to attract some attention to the approaching performance of the oratorio "Messiah." As that object has now been achieved ,so far as it can be achieved, I have no intension of engaging in a newspaper controversy on what are mainly minor points, which I can scarcely hope to rescue from dispute. As, however, circumstances prevented me from replying to Mr. L. D. Austin's previous lettex-, it might appear as though there was no answer, to his criticisms, or that I was guilty of deliberate discourtesy- to him, were I to ignore his contribution to your columns in ' Thursday's issue. There is, I believe; a perfectly* good answer to his propositions, and nothing could be further from my feelings than' to be ■:, discourteous to one whose musical abilities']!, hold in such high esteem. I will, therefore," briefly run through his. points, and. let it go at that. As to the spelling of Handel's name, I would never be disposed to quarrel with Mr. Austin if he chose always to adopt the original German form Hendel or Haendel. All that I can plead in justification of my own course, and I feel tha^ it is sufficient justification, is that although German born, Handel subsequently became a naturalised British subject, and adopted Handel as the British style of spelling his name. As I was writing for British readers I preferred not to appear pedantic by adopting a foreign mode of spelling the composer's name when there was a British one at hand. ,' ■On the question as to whether Handel re-wrote "Messiah" after he returned to England, Mr.'Austin must forgive me if I am still sceptical. TJiat'the singing of the oratorio in Dublin showed the composer where changes would be advisable is quite ■' possible, and it is equally so that readjustments were made. . This was constantly Handel's practice to meet changing circumstances. Only a few weeks ago we had Mr. John Bishop telling us—and telling us very truly—that some of.Handel's music was most difficult to sing. No one experienced this difficulty more than Handel himself, and there was need for frequent alterations to meet the varying capacity of the singers available to him, but that alterations such as these amounted to what could be i fairly called re-writing, I doubt. These changes have sometimes been regarded as evidence of Handel's indecision and the uncertainty of his mind. To me they convey no such. impression, but rather supply proof of his masterful versatility. It is an imdispnted fact that the music of "Messiah" was composed in 24 days. This has always been hailed as a remarkable feat in composition. No one has evei* disputed that, and Handel has always been given, full credit for it. Now,; however, if Mr. Austin is to have. his way, this great achievement is to lose aH; its merit; and sink to the mere'level of f a case of "the more haste the less speed," for of what value was it, and how much credit is due to the composer, if at the end of a fe. ■ months ,the work was discovered to be so faulty that it had all to be done over again? . I%m sorry that' my description of Handel's financial position at the period when he composed "Messiah" hardly pleases Mr. Austin, but I am not prepared to admit that I have been guilty of historical ■ inaccuracy. It is an indisputable fact that Handel's fortunes fluctuated greatly. He was more than once a'rich man, and more than once a poor man. Mr. Austin quotes figures to show "that at some stages of his life Handel had a revenue amounting to comparative opulence, but he says .nothing about his expenditure, his losses on his theatrical ventures, or the debts he contracted. This style of argument ignores a fundamental ' economic principle, that no man becomes rich on what he earns; he grows rich on what he does not spend. The difference between income and expenditure was once lucidly expounded to Dayid Copperfield by the optimistic Mr. Micawber. . That gentleman's summation of the position still ' stands, and might be ■ applied, to Handel's case as, pointedly as to the case of anyone else. It -is true Handel died worth £20,000, but between the composition of "Messiah" and that date his circumstances had- ■ completely changed; his ; fortunes had completely mended. These are, however, as 'Mr.. Austin states, not matters of any vast importance. The one point in his letter to which I do attach importance is his criticism of my insistence upon calling the oratorio "Messiah," rather than "The Messiah." My principal ground for this is that the term "The Messiah" has, and can have, one, and only one, application, namely to the Saviour himself. He is the Blessiah, and there can\be no other. Therefore to adopt for something mundane, however beautiful, a title which is rightly Divine, to me savours of exactly that irreverence, of which Mr. Austin complains. My point is not based upon a quibble, but upon a difference with a very great distinction, which involves no less a principle than the proper use of terms. The weight of that argument, may, however, depend for its value upon the individual construction placed upon words. An argument which does not so depend is this: Who, in the first instance, had the right to determine the title of the oratorio? Clearly Charles Jennens, the compiler of the libretto. This title is quite definitely fixed by him in the letter, part of which I quoted: "I shall show you a collection I gave Handel called 'Messiah." Again: "He retained his overture obstinately, in which there are some passages far unworthy of Handel, but much more unworthy of 'Messiah." Here there is no suggestion of the prefix, which has unfortunately become incorporated in

the title as the result of looseness on the part of irresponsible persons. Jennena never referred to the oratorio as anything but "Messiah." Handel almost invariably did the same, but, to be quite fair, I understand two of his letters can be quoted in which he did apply the prefix. It must, however, be remembered that Handel was not an educated Englishman as Jennens was, and would not always be seized of the fine points of our language. This is amply demonstrated by the intense surprise he expressed when told that "billow" was an English equivalent for "wave." It was ou this Saturday, 171 years ago, that Handel died. On 20th April, 1759, three thousand mourners gathered in Westminster Abbey to see him interred in that historic structure which resounded with the strains of Dr. Croft's "Funeral Anthem," sung by the three greatest choirs in England. In these circumstances lam disposed to adopt the spirit of Thackeray's benediction on George 111. and say: "Hush! Strife and Quarrel, over the solemn grave! Sound trumpets, a mournful march. Fall dark curtain, and enfold at once his tribulations and his triumph." —I am., etc., "•. ' . , T. LINDSAY BUICK. 19/4/30. •■■'•■