his conduct and valour; adding, that happy was the fon who could boaft of fuch a father!" P. 388.

Having prefented our readers with these ample extracts, their judgment will beft enable them to decide how far the work may have a claim to their fupport. In his ftyle, Mr. M. though ftill fpirited, is lefs redundant than formerly, and he keeps clofe to the thread of hiftory; purfuing this line, he can fcarcely fail of ultimate fuccefs. But to the complete termination of his labours, there ftill remains a long and dangerous journey over ground extremely delicate and difficult: there fill remains to be accomplished a tafk of Herculean labour; and it requires no common fhare of refolution to undertake the one, and of skill to execute the other.

ART. V. A. F. C. Kollmann's Vindication of a Paffage in his Practical Guide to Thorough Bafs, against an Advertifement of Mr. P. King. 1s. 6d. Printed for the Author, Friary-ftreet, St. James's Palace. 1801.

WE are induced, in confequence of our former promifest, to notice this fmall tract in a very particular manner. Never fince the time of Salmon and Matthew Locke, in 1672, has England witneffed a mufical controverfy carried on with fo much warmth; and, although more than a century has elapfed fince the former difpute, the prefent antagonists have not quite loft the abusive spirit of their predecefforst.

Mr. Kollmann originally published two Eflays, the chief object of which was, to introduce the fyftem of the German theorift, Kirnberger, to the notice of English muficians. This fyftem, we have obferved, is founded on very fimple principles; and worthy, in many refpects, of univerfal adop

*« Fadlallah apud Le Croix, p. 319; and Herbelot, article Gelaleddin."

+ See our volumes, xvii. 526; xviii. 159, 389, 399.

Mr. Salmon propofed a reduction of all clefs to one; which was to be G on the lowest line (fimilar to our prefent bafs clef) and the different octaves were to be diftinguished by the letters B, M, T, prefixed to the staff for bafs, mean (or tenor) and treble. See Sir J. Hawkins, vol. iv. p. 419; Dr. Burney, vol. iii. p. 473.

61. Effay on Mufical Harmony (fee vol. xvi. p. 169, 393.) II. Effay on Practical Compofition (fee vol. xvii. 399.)

tion. When Mr. King brought out his "General Treatife," he not only affumed, as true, the oppofite fyftem of Marpurg, but very ftrangely reprinted the notions of Kirnberger, which Mr. Kollmann means to prove in his prefent "Vindication." As a fpecimen of the ftyle ufed by both thefe gentlemen, we think proper to print Mr. Kollmann's first page of the

Vindication.

"1. I have been aftonished to fee a fevere Advertisement, dated April 18th, 1801, which Mr. M. P. King has published, and added to his General Treatife of Mufic, in oppofition to fome remarks, made by me, at § 5 of the Preface to my Practical Guide to Tho rough Bafs.

2. The faid remarks are as follows: "I should have deemed it unneceffary to make the above obfervations (viz. on the fyftem on which that work depends) had not two mufical authors recently revived the most confused and obfolete fyftems, without even fo much attention to the public, as to mention, whether they are acquainted with the defcribed fyftem, or have a fingle argument to oppofe to it. One of these authors, I am forry to add, has taken great parts of his General Treatife from my Effay on Harmony, without doing me the juftice of acknowledging it, as is ufual; but it appears, that he did not perfectly comprehend what he borrowed; as he has moft faithfully tranfcribed a term, and a whole period, which ought to have been mentioned in a table of errata to the whole Essay."

"3. Concerning the above paffage, Mr. King fays, in the Advertisement, that one of the two authors alluded to is unquestionably himfelf; because he thinks his General Treatife to be one of the two only works on the fubject of harmony, published by Englishmen, for a great length of time. How correct he is in the latter, I will not examine; but, fince he will have it fo, I readily admit the former, viz. that he is one of the two authors in queftion; and, in particular, that author of whom I fpeak towards the end of the remarks.

4. The Advertisement itfelf begins with mentioning "the very flattering manner in which Mr. King's work has been received." This I do not envy him.

5. Mr. King then notices "the very false and illiberal affer tions which a Mr. Kollmann has lately thrown out, against the estabJifhed principles of the highest authorities, adopted both here, and on the continent, and which have formed the first harmonifts in Europe;" and quotes the remarks fhewn above, at § 2. He next proceeds: "thefe principles, which have never yet ceased to be followed, and which will ftill be the doctrine of the greatest masters, after his (Kollmann's) cobweb fyftem is configned to oblivion, are abfurdly and ignorantly called obfolete; and that which has never been difufed is, with equal correctnefs, faid to be revived:" and, toward the end of the Advertisement, he fays, that my innovating fyftem "not only annihilates all the higher branches of harmony; but, compared with the received principles, which I arrogantly attempt to Overthrow and fupplant, that the crude notions I would fubftitute in

5

theis

their place, are at once puerile, fallacious, and incomplete." The merits of fuch argument, and of fuch language, I leave the reader to determine, without offering a word in confutation of them.

6. But when Mr. King proceeds to answer the charge of his having taken great part of his General Treatife from my Efay on Harmony; he calls it a malicious and unfounded alertion; and adds, "when a charge of this nature, if true, could have been fo eafily fubftantiated by quotation, why did he (Kollmann) not do it? He could not, &c." Such accufations, added to thofe pointed out above, at the beginning of 5, are of too serious a nature to be paffed by unnoticed. I therefore beg leave to lay before the reader fomething in my own defence; and begin with the following Abstracts from my work, as found in Mr. King's Treatife; and, oppofite to them, the original paffages as they ftand in my Essay.

"Abstracts from Kollmann's Effay on Mufical Harmony.

"See King's General Treatife of

Mufic. Chapter xxix. Of SUSPENSION. 1. A chord is fufpended, when one or more parts of a preceding chord are introduced on the bats of one fucceeding.

2. Sufpenfions take place on the accented part of a bar, and are refolved on the unaccented part of the fame.”

"See Kollmann's Effay on Mufical Harmony.

Chapter vii. § 3. OFSUSPENSIONS, Sufpenfions arife, when one or more notes of a preceding chord are carried into a fucceeding one, to which they do not belong.

(Line 8.) They always take place on the accented note, or part of a note, and are refolved on the unaccented part or repetition of the fame."

Mr. Kollmann then prints the musical examples, to which we refer the curious ftudent, and continues thus.

KING. P. 52. $2. O ANTICIPATION. A chord is anticipated, when one or more parts of a fucceeding chord are introduced on the bals of one preceding.

2. Anticipations take place on the accented part of a bar, and their refolutions of the unaccented part of the fame."

KOLLMANN. P. 49. "§ 13. Of ANTICIPATIONS.

Anticipation is, when one or more notes of a fucceeding chord are introduced in the preceding

one.

They always appear on the accented part of the bar or note, and are refolved on the unaccented part of the fame fundamen tal bafs."

Some of the following mufical examples relate to the fucceffion or fequence of fixths (afcending) which are fupposed to be derived from the doctrine of anticipation.

But the next article is the most important, as will appear in the fequel of our remarks,

KING.

KING. P. 53.

3. Of TRANSITIONS. 1. If, in paffing from any chord to another, one or more intermediate notes are introduced, which do not belong to the fundamental harmony: fuch introduced notes are called Tranfitions."

KOLLMANN. P. 50.

14. Of TRANSITIONS, Tranfient chords arife, when, in paffing from one chord to another, fome intermediate notes are introduced, which do not be. long to the fundamental harmony."

The remaining fections of the parallel give the examples of both authors, which really appear to have been taken by Mr. King, with fome trifling alterations, from Mr. Kollman's Effay.

Mr. Kollmann continues his remarks in the following man

ner:

7. The above quotations will as I hope convince the reader, that at least one whole chapter of Mr. King's work (being there no lefs than four pages in folio) is entirely taken from my work and in a fimilar manner great parts of other chapters appear to be transcribed from my work, which I alfo could have fhewn by quotations had I thought the reader would defire it. I therefore may now proceed to that paffage in my remarks, where I fay, it appears that he did not perfectly comprehend what he borrowed, as he has faithfully tranfcribed a term and a whole period, which ought to have been mentioned in a table of errata to the quoted Effay (on Harmony).

8. The wrong term alluded to is tranfition. Concerning this a refpectable reviewer juftly remarked, that" English mufical writers do not use it in the fenfe in which I had taken it, but generally make it fynonymous with modulation, or paffing from one key to another." (See Monthly Review for September, 1796, p. 29) Mr. King therefore as an Englishman, who even lays hold of what he thinks an improper term of mine, "indulged," (though he is also mistaken in it) would not have adopted a term, for which I as a foreigner had been publicly cenfured, had he clearly comprehended what he borrowed.

"The wrong period which he alfo tranfcribed, is that of his chap. 29, 2, No. 2, "anticipations take place on the accented part of a bar, and their refolution on the unaccented." This period (which is nothing but a repetition of what I had faid of fufpenfions) had efcaped me by overfight; and it fhould be exactly the oppofite to what it is. Nothing can therefore be more ftriking, than that Mr. King (who even ventured to alter a few words in this period, and confequently gave it some confideration) did not find the whole to be wrong.

66

9. But Mr. King endeavours to infinuate in the Advertisement, that my whole charge against him, may at last be found dwindled into

Tranfient notes were originally called difcords by fuppofition. See Brofard's Dictionary, and Dr. Pepufch's Treatife on Harmony.

the

the above term and period, I think it therefore neceffary to show how he misunderstood at least his whole quoted chap. 29th; this appears, First, from almoft all the little alterations he has ventured to make in the tranfcribed doctrines or examples, as follows.

Mr. Kollmann then points out thofe paffages which Mr. King has misunderstood, and concludes thus ;

Secondly, Mr. King's not perfectly understanding the whole chap ter in queftion, appears from comparing it with his doctrine of chords. by fuppofition, from chap. 21 to chap. 26. For at the conclufion of chap. 26th, he fays, "here end all the material chords in harmony; others certainly exift, but they are generally very extraneous, and arife from the fufpenfion, anticipation, or tranfition, of the regular chords, as will be fhewn." And where does he fhew this? is the quoted chap. 29th. There his other chords are the very fame ones he has given as fuppofitions; instead of extraneous ones, he exhibits the moit natural ones; and what he means by his material and regular chords, he does not fhew at all.

"But it is more ftrange than all the above, that Mr. King does not perceive the chapter in queftion to be a ftriking confutation of his whole doctrine of chords by fuppofition, and a clear proof in favour of what he terms my "cobweb fyftem," which, as he predicts, thall be configned to oblivion, when his "eftablished principles," which he himself confutes, "will ftill be the doctrine of the greatest noafters." Can there be any greater proofs than all the above, of his not perfectly comprehending what he borrowed?

"§ 10. I believe the numerous provocations in the Advertisernent in question, would now fully juftify me to fhew alfo, that Mr. King feems to comprehend almoft all the other parts of his General T'reatife, as imperfectly as the quoted chap. 29; particularly his doctrine of chords by fuppofition, and his Analyfis of Compofition. But my only intention is to vindicate the remarks quoted above at § 2, and 1 fratter myfelf, that what I have stated will be fufficient to convince the difcerning reader, that the faid remarks contain nothing but just complaints, which it was my duty to the public, as well as myfelf, to make; and that they have been fet down with as much moderation, as doing juftice to my own caufe would permit. I therefore conclude this Vindication, with appealing to the public to decide: whether the remarks in question, as far as they allude to Mr. King, are cerfurable or not? and whether the bitter invectives thrown out by hina in the Advertisement, are applicable to me, or to himself?"

As for the term tranfition, it is authorized by Simp fon (fee our vol. xviii. p. 395) implied by Dr. Pepufch, who calls paffing notes, tranfient notes; and ufed particularly iri Heck's Thorough Bafs, p. 47, 53, 70, exactly fimilar to the doctrines of our mufical controverfialifts. We therefore mut diffent from our brother reviewers, especially as we do not at prefent recollect many English authors who have exprefsly used the

term