The Girls Own Paper, Vol. VIII. No. 361

THE BROOK AND ITS BANKS. — CHAPTER III.

By the Rev. J. G. WOOD, M.A., Author of “The Handy Natural History.”

Enemies of the water-vole—The heron—The death-stroke—Ways of the heron—Watching for fish—A hint to naturalists—Observers in the New Forest—Return to wild habits—The fox, the cow, and the owl—The heron and the eel—The cormorant and the conger—The heron’s power of wing—How the heron settles—Its resting-place—Power of the heron’s beak—Heronry in Wanstead Park.

The water-vole has but few enemies whom it need fear, and one of them is now so scarce that the animal enjoys a practical immunity from it. This is the heron (Ardea cinerea), which has suffered great diminution of its numbers since the spread of agriculture.

Even now, however, when the brook is far away from the habitations of man, the heron may be detected by a sharp eye standing motionless in the stream, and looking out for prey. Being as still as if cut out of stone, neither fish nor water-vole sees it, and if the latter should happen to approach within striking distance, it will be instantly killed by a sharp stroke on the back of the head.

The throat of the heron looks too small to allow the bird to swallow any animal larger than a very small mouse; but it is so dilatable that the largest water-vole can be swallowed with perfect ease.

The bird, in fact, is not at all fastidious about its food, and will eat fish, frogs, toads, or water-voles with perfect impartiality. It has even been known to devour young waterhens, swimming out to their nest, and snatching up the unsuspecting brood. In fact, all is fish that comes to its beak.

If the reader should be fortunate enough to espy a heron while watching for prey, let him make the most of the opportunity.

Although the heron is a large bird, it is not easily seen. In the first place, there are few birds which present so many different aspects. When it stalks over the ground with erect bearing and alert gestures it seems as conspicuous a bird as can well be imagined. Still more conspicuous does it appear when flying, the ample wings spread, the head and neck stretched forwards, and the long legs extending backwards by way of balance.

But when it is on the look-out for the easily-startled fish it must remain absolutely still. So it stands as motionless as a stuffed bird, its long neck sunk and hidden among the feathers of the shoulders, and nothing but the glancing eye denoting that it is alive.

This quiescence must be imitated by the observer, should he wish to watch the proceedings of the bird, as the least movement will startle it. The reason why so many persons fail to observe the habits of animals, and then disbelieve those who have been more successful, is that they have never mastered the key to all observation, i.e., refraining from the slightest motion. A movement of the hand or foot, or even a turn of the head is certain to give alarm; while many creatures are so wary that when watching them it is as well to droop the eyelids as much as possible, and not even to turn the eyes quickly, lest the reflection of the light from their surface should attract the attention of the watchful creature.

One of the worst results of detection is that when any animal is startled it conveys the alarm to all others that happen to be within sight or hearing. It is evident that all animals of the same species have a language of their own which they perfectly understand, though it is not likely that an animal belonging to one species can understand the language of another.

But there seems to be a sort of universal or lingua-franca language which is common to all the animals, whether they be beasts or birds, and one of the best known phrases is the cry of alarm, which is understood by all alike.

I need hardly say that it is almost absolutely necessary to be alone, as there is no object in two observers going together unless they can communicate with each other, and there is nothing which is so alarming to the beasts and birds as the sound of the human voice.

Yet there is a mode by which two persons who have learned to act in concert with each other can manage to observe in company. It was shown to me by an old African hunter, when I was staying with him in the New Forest.

In the forest, although even the snapping of a dry twig will give the alarm, neither bird nor beast seems to be disturbed by a whistle. We therefore drew up a code of whistles, and practised ourselves thoroughly in them.

Then, we went as quietly as we could to the chosen spot, and sat down facing each other, so that no creature could pass behind one of us without being detected by the other. We were both dressed in dark grey, and took the precaution of sitting with our backs against a tree or a bank, or any object which could perform the double duty of giving us something to lean against, and of breaking the outlines of the human form.

Our whistled code was as low as was possible consistent with being audible, and I do not think that during our many experiments we gave the alarm to a single creature.

When the observer is remaining without movement, scarcely an animal will notice him.

I remember that on one occasion my friend and I were sitting opposite each other, one on either side of a narrow forest path. The sun had set, but at that time of the year there is scarcely any real night, and objects could be easily seen in the half light.

Presently a fox came stealthily along the path. Now the cunning of the fox is proverbial, and neither of us thought that he would pass between us without detecting our presence. Yet, he did so, passing so close, that we could have touched him with a stick.

Shortly afterwards, a cow came along the same path, walking almost as noiselessly as the fox had done. It is a remarkable fact that domesticated animals, when allowed to wander at liberty in the New Forest, soon revert to the habits of their wild ancestors.

As the cow came along the path, neither of us could conjecture the owner of the stealthy footstep. We feared lest it might be that of poachers, in which case things would have gone hard with us, the poachers of the New Forest being a truculent and dangerous set of men, always provided with firearms and bludgeons, having scarcely the very slightest regard for the law, and almost out of reach of the police.

They would certainly have considered us as spies upon them, and as certainly would have attacked and half, if not quite killed us, we being unarmed.

But to our amusement as well as relief, the step was only that of a solitary cow, the animal lifting each foot high from the ground before she made her step, and putting it down as cautiously as she had raised it.

Then, a barn owl came drifting silently between us, looking in the dusk as large and white as if it had been the snowy owl itself. Yet, neither the fox, nor the cow, nor the owl detected us, although passing within a few feet of us.

In the daytime the observer, however careful he may be, is always liable to detection by a stray magpie or crow.

The bird comes flying along overhead, its keen eyes directed downwards, on the look-out for the eggs of other birds. At first he may not notice the motionless and silent observer, but sooner or later he is sure to do so.

If it were not exasperating to have all one’s precautions frustrated, the shriek of terrified astonishment with which the bird announces the unexpected presence of a human being would be exceedingly ludicrous. As it is, a feeling of wrath rather prevails over that of amusement, for at least an hour will elapse before the startled animals will have recovered from the magpie’s alarm cry.

Supposing that we are stationed on the banks of the brook on a fine summer evening, while the long twilight endures, and have been fortunate enough to escape the notice of the magpie or other feathered spy, we may have the opportunity of watching the heron capture its prey.

The stroke of the beak is like lightning, and in a moment the bird is holding a fish transversely in its beak. The long, narrow bill scarcely seems capable of retaining the slippery prey; but if a heron’s beak be examined carefully, it will be seen to possess a number of slight serrations upon the edges, which enable it to take a firm grasp of the fish.

Very little time is allowed the fish for struggling, for almost as soon as captured it is flung in the air, caught dexterously with its head downwards, and swallowed.

It is astonishing how large a fish will pass down the slender throat of a heron. As has been already mentioned, the water-vole is swallowed without difficulty. Now the water-vole measures between eight and nine inches in length from the nose to the root of the tail, and is a very thickset animal, so that it forms a large and inconvenient morsel.

It is seldom that the heron has, like the kingfisher, to beat its prey against a stone or any hard object before swallowing it, though when it catches a rather large eel it is obliged to avail itself of this device before it can get the wriggling and active fish into a suitable attitude. The eel has the strongest objection to going down the heron’s throat, and has no idea of allowing its head to pass into the heron’s beak. The eel, therefore, must be rendered insensible before it can be swallowed.

Generally it is enough to carry the refractory prey to the bank, hold it down with the foot, and peck it from one end to the other until it is motionless. Should the eel be too large to be held by the feet, it is rapidly battered against a stone, just as a large snail is treated by a thrush, and so rendered senseless.

If the feet of the heron be examined, a remarkable comb-like appendage may be seen on the inside of the claw of the hind foot.

What may be the precise office of this comb is not satisfactorily decided. Some ornithologists think that it is utilised in preening the plumage, I cannot, however, believe that it performs such an office. I have enjoyed exceptional opportunities for watching the proceedings of the heron when at liberty, as well as in captivity, but never saw it preen its feathers with its foot, nor have I heard of anyone who has actually witnessed the proceeding.

IN WANSTEAD PARK.

It is not always fair to judge from a dead bird what the living bird might have been able to do. But I have tried to comb the plumage of a dead heron with its foot-comb, and have not succeeded.

Another suggestion is that the bird may use it when it holds prey under its feet, as has just been narrated. These suggestions, however, are nothing more than conjectures, but, as they have been the subject of much argument, I have thought it best to mention them.

Sometimes it has happened that the heron has miscalculated its powers, and seized a fish which was too large and powerful to be mastered. Anglers frequently capture fish which bear the marks of the heron’s beak upon their bodies, and in such cases neither the fish nor the heron is any the worse for the struggle.

But when the unmanageable fish has been an eel, the result has, more than once, been disastrous for the bird. In Yarrell’s work on the British birds, a case is recorded where a heron and eel were both found dead, the partially swallowed eel having twisted itself round the neck of the heron in its struggles.

A very similar incident occurred off the coast of Devonshire, the victim in this case being a cormorant. The bird had attacked a conger-eel, and had struck its hooked upper mandible completely through the lower jaw of the fish, the horny beak having entered under the chin of the eel.

The bird could not shake the fish off its beak, and the result was that both were found lying dead on the shore, the powerful conger-eel having coiled itself round the neck of the cormorant and strangled it. The stuffed skins of the bird and eel may be seen in the Truro Museum, preserved in the position in which they were found.

Having procured a sufficiency of prey, the heron will take flight for its home, which will probably be at a considerable distance from its fishing ground. Twenty or thirty miles are but an easy journey for the bird, which measures more than five feet across the expanded wings, and yet barely weighs three pounds. Indeed, in proportion to its bulk, it is believed to be the lightest bird known. The Rev. C. A. Johns states that he has seen the heron fishing at a spot fully fifty miles from any heronry.

The peculiar flight of the heron is graphically described in a letter published in the Standard newspaper, Sept. 25th, 1883.

“One summer evening I was under a wood by the Exe. The sun had set, and from over the wooded hill above bars of golden and rosy cloud stretched out across the sky. The rooks came slowly home to roost, disappearing over the wood, and at the same time the herons approached in exactly the opposite direction, flying from Devon into Somerset, and starting out to feed as the rooks returned home.

“The first heron sailed on steadily at a great height, uttering a loud “caak, caak” at intervals. In a few minutes a second followed, and “caak, caak” sounded again over the river valley.

“The third was flying at a less height, and as he came into sight over the line of the wood, he suddenly wheeled round, and holding his immense wings extended, dived, as a rook will, downwards through the air. He twisted from side to side like anything spun round by the finger and thumb as he came down, rushing through the air head first.

“The sound of his great vanes pressing and dividing the air was distinctly audible. He looked unable to manage his descent, but at the right moment he recovered his balance, and rose a little up into a tree on the summit, drawing his long legs into the branches behind him.

“The fourth heron fetched a wide circle, and so descended into the wood. Two more passed on over the valley—altogether six herons in about a quarter of an hour. They intended, no doubt, to wait in the trees till it was dusky, and then to go down and fish in the wood. Herons are here called cranes, and heronries are craneries. (This confusion between the heron and the crane exists in most parts of Ireland.)

“A determined sportsman who used to eat every heron he could shoot, in revenge for their ravages among the trout, at last became suspicious, and, examining one, found in it the remains of a rat and of a toad, after which he did not eat any more herons. Another sportsman found a heron in the very act of gulping down a good sized trout, which stuck in the gullet. He shot the heron and got the trout, which was not at all injured, only marked at each side where the beak had cut it. The fish was secured and eaten.”

I can corroborate the accuracy as well as the graphic wording of the above description.

When I was living at Belvedere, in Kent, I used nearly every evening to see herons flying northwards. I think that they were making for the Essex marshes. They always flew at a very great height, and might have escaped observation but for the loud, harsh croak which they uttered at intervals, and which has been so well described by the monosyllable “caak.”

As to their mode of settling on a tree, I have often watched the herons of Walton Hall, where they were so tame that they would allow themselves to be approached quite closely. When settling, they lower themselves gently until their feet are upon the branch. They then keep up a slight flapping of the wings until they are fairly settled.

An idea is prevalent in many parts of England that when the heron sits on its nest, its long legs hang down on either side. Nothing can be more absurd. The heron can double up its legs as is usual among birds, and sits on its nest as easily as if it were a rook, or any other short-legged bird.

In many respects the heron much resembles the rook in its manner of nesting. The nest is placed in the topmost branches of a lofty tree, and is little more than a mere platform of small sticks. Being a larger bird than the rook, the heron requires a larger nest, and on an average the diameter of a nest is about three feet.

Like the rook, the heron is gregarious in its nesting, a solitary heron’s nest being unknown. In their modes of feeding, however, the two birds utterly differ from each other, the heron seeking its food alone, while the rook feeds in company, always placing a sentinel on some elevated spot for the purpose of giving alarm at the approach of danger.

The heron is curiously fastidious in its choice of a nesting-place, and, like the rook, prefers the neighbourhood of man, knowing instinctively when it will be protected by its human neighbours. Fortunately for the bird, the possession of a heronry is a matter of pride among landowners; so that even if the owner of a trout-stream happened also to possess a heronry, he would not think of destroying the herons because they ate his trout.

In captivity the heron can be tamed; but it is not to be recommended as a pet. It is apt to bestow all its affections on one individual, and to consider the rest of the human race as enemies, whose eyes ought to be pecked out.

I was for some time acquainted with such a bird, but took care to keep well out of reach of its terrible beak, which it would dart to an unexpected distance through the bars of its cage.

It formerly ran loose in a garden, and was almost slavishly affectionate to the gardener, rubbing itself against his legs like a pet cat, and trying in every way to attract his attention. He had even taught it a few simple tricks, and I have seen it take his hat off his head, and then offer it to him.

But just in proportion as it became friendly with the gardener it became cross-grained with the rest of the world, attacking everyone who came into the garden, and darting its beak at their eyes. Its last performance caused it to be placed in confinement.

An elderly gentleman had entered the garden on business, when the bird instantly assailed him. Knowing the habits of the heron, he very wisely flung himself on his face for the purpose of preserving his eyes, and shouted for help.

Meanwhile the heron, wishing to make the most of its opportunity, mounted upon his prostrate victim, and succeeded in inflicting several severe pecks upon his body and limbs before the gardener could come to the rescue.

The peck of a heron’s beak is no trifle, the mandibles being closed, and the blow delivered with the full power of the long neck, so that each blow from the beak is something like the stab of a bayonet, and so strong and sharp is the beak that in some foreign lands it is converted into an effective spearhead.

Few people seem to be aware that a large and populous heronry exists in Wanstead Park, on the very outskirts of London.

At the end of summer, when the young birds are fledged, the heronry is nearly deserted, but during the early days of spring the heronry is well worth a visit. The great birds are all in full activity, as is demanded by the many wants of the young, and on the ground beneath may be seen fragments of the pale-blue eggs. On an average there are three young ones in each nest, so that the scene is very lively and interesting, until the foliage becomes so thick that it hides the birds and their nests.

(To be continued.)

THE ROMANCE OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND; OR, THE OLD LADY OF THREADNEEDLE STREET. — CHAPTER II.

By EMMA BREWER.

Just for a little time I must leave my personal history to inquire how England managed to do without me so long, and what the circumstances were which at length rendered my existence imperative.

In the days following the Norman Conquest, the Jews, whose one pursuit in life was the commerce of money, were the compulsory bankers of the country.

They were subject to much cruelty and persecution, as you may see for yourselves in your histories of the Kings of England. It is not to be denied that their demands for interest on money lent by them were most extravagant. In 1264 the rate of interest exceeded 40 per cent., and I believe that 500 Jews were slain by our London citizens because one of them would have forced a Christian to pay more than twopence for the usury of 20s.[1] for one week, which sum they were allowed by the king to take from the Oxford students.

They were ill-treated and robbed from the time they came over with the Conqueror until the reign of Edward I., who distinguished himself by robbing 15,000 Jews of their wealth, and then banishing the whole of them from the kingdom; and thus, as much sinned against as sinning, the compulsory bankers of the period departed.

There was no time to feel their loss, for immediately after their expulsion the Lombards (Longobards), or merchants of Genoa, Florence, Lucca and Venice, came over to England and established themselves in the street which still bears their name.

There was no doubt as to their purpose, for it was a well-known fact that in whatever country or town they settled they engrossed its trade and became masters of its cash, and certainly they did not intend to make an exception in favour of London.

I am not going to deny that they introduced into our midst many of the arts and skill of trade with which we in England were previously unacquainted; and it is to these Lombards or goldsmiths we owe the introduction of bills of exchange, a wonderful invention, and one which has served to connect the whole world into one, as you will see when the proper place arrives for their explanation.

These Lombards, immediately after their arrival in London, may have been seen regularly twice a day parading Lombard-street with their wares, exposing for sale the most attractive articles; and in a short time became so successful that they were able to take shops in which to carry on their business as goldsmiths.

These shops were not confined to the one street which bears their name, but were continued along the south row of Cheapside, extending from the street called Old Change into Bucklersbury, where they remained until after the Great Fire, when they removed to Lombard-street. There seems to be no street in the world where a business of one special character has been carried on so continuously as in Lombard-street. In the time of Queen Elizabeth it was the handsomest street in London. In addition to the art of the goldsmith, they added the business of money-changing, the importance of which occupation you will be able to estimate when we come to the subject of the coins of the realm.

From money-changers they became money-lenders and money-borrowers—money was the commodity in which they dealt, and 20 per cent. the modest interest they asked and obtained for their money.

Of course they gave receipts for the money lodged with them, and these circulated and were known by the name of “goldsmiths’ notes,” and were, in fact, the first kind of bank-notes issued in England.

The Lombards were a most industrious class of people, and left no stone unturned by which they could obtain wealth; and in an incredibly short time we find them not only wealthy, but powerful, and occupying a very prominent position; and you may be quite sure that under these circumstances they did not escape persecution.

Under the pretext that the goldsmiths were extortioners, Edward III. seized their property and estates. Even this seemed but slightly to affect them; for in the fifteenth century we find them advancing large sums of money for the service of the State on the security of the Customs.

In the latter days, and, indeed, up to the time of my birth, the banking was entirely in the hands of the goldsmiths, but carried on in a very rapacious spirit, as is frequently the case when unrestrained by rivals.

I dare say you have all noticed the three golden balls on the outside of pawnbrokers’ shops. Originally these were three pills, the emblem of the Medici (physician) family; but in some way they became associated with St. Dunstan, the patron saint of the goldsmiths, under the name of the three golden balls—an emblem which the Lombards have retained.

Are you curious to know how the sign has so degenerated as to be the inseparable companion of the pawnbrokers of the land? Well, listen.

Pawnbrokers’ shops, or loan banks, were established from motives of charity in the fifteenth century. Their object was to lend money to the poor upon pledges and without interest. Originally they were supported by voluntary contributions, but as these proved insufficient to pay expenses, it became necessary to charge interest for the money lent. These banks were first distinguished by the name of montes pietatis. The word mont at this period was applied to any pecuniary fund, and it is probable that pietatis was added by the promoters of the scheme, to give it an air of religion, and thus procure larger subscriptions.

Well, these banks were not only called mounts of piety, but were known also as Lombards,[2] from the name of the original bankers or money-lenders. Now you see how it is pawnbrokers bear the sign of the goldsmiths.

You who know so well where to place your money, both for interest and security, when you have any to spare, can scarcely understand the trouble and annoyance which our merchants and wealthy people experienced at having no place of security wherein they could deposit their money. At one time they sent it to the Mint in the Tower of London, which became a sort of bank, where merchants left their money when they had no need of it, and drew it out only as they wanted it; but this soon ceased to be a place of security. In 1640 Charles I., without leave asked or granted, took possession of £200,000 of the money lodged there. Great was the wrath of the merchants, who were compelled, after this unkingly act, to keep their surplus money at home, guarded by their apprentices and servants. Even here the money was not safe, for on the breaking out of the war between Charles and his Parliament, it was no uncommon occurrence for the apprentices to rob their masters and run away and join the army.

When the merchants found that neither the public authorities nor their own servants were to be trusted, they employed bankers, and these bankers were goldsmiths.

Many a tale, however, has reached me of the shifts and contrivances of people to secure their savings and surplus money—people whose experience had taught them to distrust both authorities and places, and who would not, under the new state of things, have anything to do with the bankers. One I will relate to you.

A man whose life had been one of hard work and self-denial, and who had two or three times lost his all through the untrustworthiness of the people with whom he had lodged it, determined to be their dupe no more. Money began once more to accumulate, and all things prospered with him; but no one could imagine what he did with it; as far as his household could tell, he did not deposit it with anyone outside the house, neither could they discover any place within where it was possible to stow it away. No persuasion could move the man to speak one word concerning it.

At length he died, without having time or consciousness to mention the whereabouts of his money. Search was made in all directions, but without success.

While living he had been a regular attendant at one of our City churches, and, occupying always the same corner in the old-fashioned square pew, was well known to the clergy and servants.

A few weeks after his death the pew-opener told the rector, in a frightened voice, that she could no longer keep the matter from him, for as surely as she stood there, the ghost of the man who died a week or two ago haunted the church by night and by day.

Instead of ridiculing her for her foolish fancy, the rector allowed her to tell her story quietly, seeing that she was superstitious and very nervous.

She related that several times during the past weeks, when quite alone in the church for the purpose of sweeping and dusting, she had heard a peculiar noise proceeding from the pew where the old man used to sit, and it sounded to her exactly as though he were counting out money, and she would be very glad if he would look to it and verify her statement.

Accordingly the rector and his curate accompanied the woman to the pew. At first all was quiet, but as they listened, assuredly the sound came exactly as described; they felt round about the pew, and at length discovered a movable panel near the flooring. It was the work of a moment to remove it, and there, in a good sized cavity, lay heaps of money wrapped up in paper, which last had attracted the mice, and it was their little pattering feet among the coins which had caught the woman’s ear. The man had evidently dropped in his week’s savings on Sundays, believing that it would be safer in the church than elsewhere.

It seems that after the restoration of Charles II., he being greatly in want of money, the goldsmiths lent it, demanding ten per cent. for the loan. Often, however, they obtained thirty per cent. from him, and this induced the goldsmiths to lend more and more to the king, so that really the whole revenue passed through their hands.

In 1672 a sad calamity befel the bankers, and put a check on their prodigal lending. King Charles, who owed them £1,328,526, which he had borrowed at eight per cent., utterly refused to pay either principal or interest, and he remained firm to his resolution.

The way in which bankers transacted their loans with the king, was in this manner:—As soon as the Parliament had voted to the king certain sums of money out of special taxes, the goldsmith-bankers at once supplied the king with the whole sum so voted, and were repaid in weekly payments at the Exchequer[3] as the taxes were received.

---

DRESS: IN SEASON AND IN REASON.

By A LADY DRESSMAKER.

We have had such a mild and delightful autumn, that all kinds of winter garments have been delayed in making an appearance. This is especially the case with mantles and the heavier class of jackets. However, there is enough to show us that no great novelty has been introduced. Mantles are all small and short, and the majority have ends in front more or less long. Black plush seems a very favourite material, and is much overladen with trimming. Plain plush is also used for paletôts, and for large cloaks; but there is a new-patterned plush, with ribs in layers, that is much used also. Beaded shoulder-straps and epaulettes are worn as well as ornaments at the back, and sometimes beaded braces round the join of the sleeve in the small mantles, and a strip of the same may be used to outline the seam at the back. These hints may help some of my readers to do up a last year’s mantle with some of the moderate priced bead trimmings now in vogue. Paletôts or cloaks are made both long and medium in length. They are made in plush, cloth, and rough cloths, but are not seen in the finer fancy stuffs which are made use of for mantles and jackets. These fancy cloths have an appearance as if braid were sewn on to the surface. The cloak paletôts, when long, close in front to the feet, and the fronts are trimmed with a border of fur, which is shaped on the shoulders like a pointed old-fashioned “Victorine.” No fur is placed at the lower edge of the cloak; the cuffs are deep. Fur trimmings on jackets that are tight-fitting follow the same rule, and have no trimming of fur at the edge. Fur boas are very decidedly the fashion this winter, and there seems no end to their popularity. Some of them are flat at the neck, like a collarette; and others are attached to the mantle. The newest boas are rather shorter, and some are nothing more than fur collars that clasp round the throat; and these collars, or “tippets,” will probably take the place of the fur capes that have been worn so long. Grey furs are more in fashion than brown ones—such as chinchilla, grey fox, squirrel-lock, and opossum, and I see that quantities of American raccoon are also being prepared. Of course, the best kind of furs, like sable, marten-tail, mink, or blue fox, are not within the ordinary range of purchasers, and few people care to spend so much money on dress as their acquirement entails. There is also a new feeling to be taken into account; the same feeling that makes thinking women and girls decline to wear birds, and their heads and wings, i.e., the feeling that the seal fishery as hitherto conducted is cruel; and that one may wear furs that are too costly in other ways. I often think if mighty hunters—instead of hunting down the buffalo, and the other animals useful to the Indian in the North West—would go to India and hunt the tigers that so cruelly prey on the natives there, we should wear those skins with much pleasure as well as advantage. But the account of the slaying of a mother-seal ought to be enough for a tender-hearted woman. I have never cordially liked sealskins since I read of the devotion of one poor mother-seal in particular to her young; and I have never had a sealskin jacket since.

AT THE ENGLISH LAKES.—AUTUMN AND WINTER GOWNS.

There are numbers of jackets in every style, but all are made of woollen materials, not of silk nor of velvet. Most of them are tight-fitting, and are smart looking and stylish. Both single and double-breasted ones are seen. Hoods are much worn, but are by no means general. Coloured linings are used to pale-coloured or checked cloth jackets, but not to black or brown ones. Small mantles and cloaks are tied at the neck by a quantity of ribbons to match the colour of the cloth or plush. One of the new ideas for mantles is that of a semi-fitting jacket over a long close-fitting cloak.

UNDER NORTHERN SKIES.—A STUDY OF COMFORT IN DRESS.

The new bonnets and hats are much smaller and prettier now, and there are in consequence many of these quieter hats to be seen worn by well-dressed girls in the streets of London. Formerly no girl who wished to be thought somebody ever wore anything but a bonnet in London.

The velvet trimmings of bonnets are put on gathered, doubled and pleated, sometimes with as many as three frills at the edge. Many of the bonnets are without strings, and have pointed fronts, and there is much jet trimming used even on coloured velvet bonnets. I am sorry to say that our fashionable caterers continue to prey upon the feathered creation all over the world. This winter the owl has evidently fallen a victim, and there are besides the tern, kingfisher, and the heron. How I wish this wicked and cruel bird slaughter could be prevented, and that my numberless girl-readers would try to avoid giving it the least encouragement. While we have the beautiful ostrich feathers, we cannot need these other poor victims offered up on the altar of feminine vanity and unthinking cruelty.

Some of the felt hats for the season are very pretty. They have high and sloping crowns, the brims are often only bound with ribbon, but if wide and turned up at the back, they are lined with velvet, or rather only partly lined, as half of the brim at least is left unlined. Many of them have brims turned up all round, like one of the old turban hats.

The ribbons in use at present are of all kinds, satin and velvet reversible, as well as moiré and velvet, or satin and moiré. These have an edge of lacet, or one with tufts of silk, in colour. Velvet ribbons with corded stripes have one edge purled and the other fringed; and the strings of bonnets are of narrow picot-edged ribbon.

The number of white gowns that have been worn during the past season and up to the present moment has been remarkable, and has quite justified the name of a “white season.” Even as the weather became colder, a charming mixture of materials was introduced, viz., white corduroy, and some soft woollen stuff, like serge or flannel. For the winter white will be the special fashion for young people for the evening, and any colour can be given by trimming. It seems likely that perfectly smooth cloths, of the nature of habit-cloths, will be used for winter day dresses, trimmed with bands of short dark-hued fur, or with velvet to match the colour of the cloth. The colours that will be worn in these will be myrtle, a new shade of blue, a tint like heliotrope, and a reddish violet.

Fancy materials in mixed colours abound, the mixtures being green and ruby, brown and red, sage and vermilion, and others of the same unæsthetic nature. The new browns are called Carmelite, chestnut, rosewood, hair, and earth; the new reds are, Bordeaux, Indian, currant, and clove. A new green is called verdigris. Grey does not seem to be popular, and brown and red violet are the special colours of the season.

In the making of dresses there is but little change. The skirts are still short, and the draperies still long; while there is a fancy for over-trimming bodices of all kinds. This will be a blessing for the possessors of half-worn and very ancient bodices. Bracers are one of the novelties as a form of trimming for the latter. They are also trimmed in imitation of a Zouave jacket. Polonaises seem to be returning to favour, and will be worn later on over lace skirts for evening dress. Serge seems to me to be the most favoured material this winter, and it forms the ground work of half the fancy cloths and mixtures. Stripes and crossbars are in the highest favour, and both alpaca and foulard are used, and with poplin, chuddah cloth, velvet, and silk rep, form the generality of the new dresses. There are numbers of hairy-looking woollen materials, but I should not think they would wear as well as a good serge, which is always a useful purchase.

The new petticoat materials in winceys are very gay and pretty, and the pattern is usually of stripes; but the materials are various, being sometimes all wool, or wool and silk mixed, and in the weaving there is usually a rough or knotted stripe. Some of the new petticoats have a few steels in them, and the addition makes the dress hold out from the heels a little. A small steel-wire dress-improver is, however, quite enough for most people, and very little crinolette is now worn—nothing ungraceful nor immoderate in size. Other petticoats of better quality are made of plain silk or satin, and one of the new fashions is to line them with chamois leather, so as to make them warmer.

NEW WINTER JACKET BODICE.

Shoes are more worn in London than boots, and laced shoes more than buttoned ones. The same is the case with boots, which are considered to fit better, and to look more stylish when laced than buttoned. I have been very glad to see that sensibly-shaped boots and shoes are on the increase, having wider toes and lower, broader heels. At the present moment many of the best shops have them in their windows, and have found it best and wisest to keep them for their customers; in fact, the knowledge of hygienic necessities, and of all kinds of proper clothing, is being so much extended and impressed on the public mind on all sides, that I should not wonder if we all became quite reformed characters, and wore, ate, and drank only such things as were good for us.

I must not forget to mention gloves and their styles. Most people usually wear Swede or kid gloves during the winter months; but this year there are some such delightfully warm and pretty gloves in wool and silk to be seen in the shops, that many will no doubt be tempted to purchase them. If the dress be of a quiet colour, the gloves should match it; but if red, or of a decided colour of any kind, the proper gloves to wear would be tan-colour. These latter are also used in the evening, except when the dress is black, or black and white, when the gloves should be of grey Swede.

Our illustrations for the month are full of suggestions for making new gowns and for altering old ones. It will be seen that the gowns are both simple and elegant, with long flowing lines, and little or no fulness of drapery. The prevailing fancy for jackets is shown, and the newest model of a cape-like sleeve is given in our large front picture of a seashore, “Under Northern Skies.” Much braiding is used, and it is shown in two ways—laid on in flat bands, and also in a pattern on the mantle. The new shapes of hats are much more moderate, and most of the new shapes are illustrated. Our paper pattern for the month is represented as worn by a lady in the centre of the smaller picture, “At the English Lakes;” the centre figure shows its pretty and jaunty outlines. It may be worn with either a plain waistcoat or a full silk plastron, divided into puffings as shown in our sketch, which may be of a soft Indian silk. It is of the last and new design, and will be found a most useful winter bodice for usual daily wear. The pattern consists of a collar, cuff, front, half of back, side pieces, and two sleeve pieces. About four yards of 30 inch material are required, perhaps less, if very carefully cut. All patterns are of a medium size, viz., 36 inches round the chest, and only one size is prepared for sale. Each of the patterns may be had of “The Lady Dressmaker,” care of Mr. H. G. Davis, 73, Ludgate Hill, E.C., price 1s. each. It is requested that the addresses be clearly given, and that postal notes crossed only to go through a bank may be sent, as so many losses have recently occurred. The patterns already issued may always be obtained, as “The Lady Dressmaker” only issues patterns likely to be of constant use in home dressmaking and altering, and she is particularly careful to give all the new patterns of hygienic underclothing, both for children and young and old ladies, so that her readers may be aware of the best method of dressing.

The following is a list of those already issued, price 1s. each. April—Braided, loose-fronted jacket. May—Velvet bodice. June—Swiss belt and full bodice, with plain sleeves. July—Mantle. August—Norfolk or pleated jacket. September—Housemaid’s or plain skirt. October—Combination garment (underlinen). November—Double-breasted out-of-door jacket. December—Zouave jacket and bodice. January—Princess underdress (underlinen, underbodice, and underskirt combined). February—Polonaise with waterfall back. March—New spring bodice. April—Divided skirt, and Bernhardt mantle with sling sleeves. May—Early English bodice and yoke bodice for summer dress. June—Dressing jacket, princess frock, and Normandy cap for a child of four years. July—Princess of Wales’ jacket-bodice and waistcoat, for tailor-made gown. August—Bodice with guimpe. September—Mantle with stole ends and hood. October—“Pyjama,” or nightdress combination, with full back.—November—New winter bodice.

THE BUILDERS OF THE BRIDGE. — CHAPTER II.

By Mrs. G. LINNÆUS BANKS, Author of “God’s Providence House,” “The Manchester Man,” “More than Coronets,” etc.

So began England’s descriptive poet, Michael Drayton, to sing the praises of the glorious Trent in his “Polyolbion;” but Milton was more terse in his invocation—

Thus much the poets; but in plain prose be it told that the Trent needed no invocation to “arise.” It had, and has, a tendency to arise and flood the meadows in its course most disastrously, as it did no later than last May. The many arches of its bridges tell the tale.

But long before bridges were built or were common, there was need to cross the river, either by ford or ferry, and its treachery must have been known in very ancient days, since Swark—whoever he might be, and whether he found a natural ford or made an artificial one—set up on end an unwrought monolith above the height of a man as a guide for wayfarers to find the crossing-place when the waters happened to be “out”; since there the waste and meadow-land lay low for many a broad mile.

There was scarcely a speck in the blue vault of heaven when Earl Bellamont and his friends, leaving a cloud of dust behind them, crossed the shrunken, snake-like river that mirrored their gleaming armour in its broken, scale-like wavelets, as if it held their images and would fain clasp them. And so the sun had shone for weeks,

until the earth cried out for rain from its parched and cracking lips. Only near the red, marly banks of the river did the grass and herbage retain its vivid tint of green. As the days went by the air seemed to grow hotter; the cooks in the kitchen, piling fresh logs upon the fire, wished the guests gone and the wedding over. The falconer out on the moor in the glare with William Harpur and other squires, or the anglers by the streams, had scarcely the best of it, though Lady Bellamont wearied of her many cares, and censured the languor of her daughters and her maids.

Preparations had not ceased, they had only renewed; and there had been unwonted doles to the villagers of good things that would have spoiled.

At length, when even the weaving of tapestry or the twanging of the lute was a toil, there rose a cloud in the north-western sky. The cattle lowed, the leaves turned themselves over to welcome it, the hawks screamed in the mews. That was the morning of the 14th, when the very hush in the air was significant. The cloud spread, darkened, blackened, but in the distance.

“There is a storm somewhere over our northern hills!” exclaimed the prior, who had been up on the battlements. “The clouds hang black and low over Dovedale.”

“It seemeth such a day as heralded the great storm three years ago,” cried Lady Bellamont, in alarm. “And, ah! what a flash was that!”

The younger ladies gathered together in shrinking groups, as if the fears of the matron were infectious. Only Idonea kept at her word, and scorned to show timidity, whatever she might feel, as the mutterings of thunder rumbled over the hall.

It was high noon, but the sky was darkening overhead. The horn at the great gates was blown. A messenger in hot haste had come spurring from the ford and up the hill, glad to save himself a drenching, for the great drops were pattering on the leaves and leads like hail.

He had come at full speed from Oxford. King Henry had ratified the great charter of English liberty. His master, the earl, and his friends would be home ere nightfall. The bridal must be upon the morrow. He had, moreover, private messages and tokens for the ladies, Idonea and Avice, from their coming bridegrooms.

The messages were not for general ears; the love-tokens were a couple of golden crosses richly wrought and set with gems. Five rubies clustered in the centre of Sir Ralph’s gift to Idonea, five pearls in Sir Gilbert’s to Avice.

They were dainty trinkets, but Avice took hers shrinkingly. “They seem like crosses set with tears and drops of blood,” she whispered, with white lips, to Idonea, who started, and, if she said “Tut, tut! they are precious tokens,” was not altogether unaffected by her sister’s superstitious dread.

In answer to inquiries, the messenger replied that he “thought the Trent was rising. It was higher than when his lord had left Swarkstone.”

It had been still lower at sunrise that day.

Two hours later Friar John blew the horn at the gate. He and his mule were pitiably drenched.

The Dove was swollen when he crossed the bridge near Egginton, he said, though the downpour did not come until he had left it five miles behind.

“Now, heaven forfend there be not such a flood as swept Swark’s Stone away three summers back. The passage of the ford would be perilous to my lord now that is gone,” cried Lady Bellamont, wringing her hands, and it might seem with reason, for now the floodgates of the skies were loosed, and heaven’s artillery waged war with earth.

“Storms and travellers are in Almighty hands, good dame,” said Prior John, soberly. “Tell your beads devoutly, and trust your all to Him.”

Avice and Idonea, with other damsels and dames, were already on their knees in prayer, their hearts beating wildly.

William Harpur, pacing up and down, glanced through the dim glass windows on the scene without, and then from one to other of the shuddering women within.

“I think, Prior John,” he observed, with a slight curl of lip, “it will be a sorry welcome for my noble kinsman and his friends when they come in, wet and weary, if no board be spread, no dry garments ready for their use.”

The taunt seemed to sting the good dame.

“Storm or no storm, Will, my lord shall not find us unprepared. Maidens, attend me.” And she swept from the tapestried reception-room, followed by her daughters and the noble maids who did probationary service under her, and soon her silver whistle might be heard, as one or other did her bidding, and all below-stairs was speed and bustle—and covert fear.

The hours sped. The storm seemed to abate. The board was spread. The time for the evening meal came and went.

There were no arrivals. There were whisperings among hungry guests, for time was flying.

Squire Harpur paced the rush-strewn floor impatiently, biting his nails and cogitating.

The dark came down—the double dark of storm and evening. The great time-candle in its sheltering lanthorn burnt the quarters down, and the hours.

Villagers came scurrying to the hall in dismay. The meads were under water. Their fresh-cut hay was floating down the stream, with many a tree and bush from parts beyond in the west.

The lovely sisters had busked themselves afresh to receive their lovers; dark tresses and fair were coiled in golden nets, and on each bosom shone her token cross of gold.

But as the hours and minutes flew, dress was disregarded, their lips quivered with anxiety.

At length Avice whispered to her mother, “Had we not best set a cresset burning on the watch-tower, and send torch-bearers to light the passage of the ford?”

“I have already given orders, child; I feared to speak my alarm to you.”

But even torches will not keep alight in rain and hurricane. The men, headed by Will Harpur, returned to the hall drenched and discomfited.

“The blazing sky will be their surest guide,” said he; “we cannot keep a torch alight. But do not give way to bootless terror, good aunt, the storm will have kept our friends at Ashby, or, at least, have driven them back. They would never be so mad as to attempt the passage of the ford.” Then, aside to the prior he added, “The land is covered for more than half a mile, and in mid-stream the marly water runs like a torrent, bearing bushes, beams, and haycocks swiftly out of sight. They must have gone back.”

Almost as he spoke there was a rapid thud of hoofs heard advancing up the hill.

There was the strong black charger of Earl Bellamont, and close behind came the bay mare of Sir Gilbert.

They were both riderless!

A moment of speechless horror, then shrieks and wailing filled the air.

Mid the sobbing and lamentations of women, and the clamour of men, fresh torches were kindled, horn lanthorns lighted and affixed to poles. Then, with the prior and Will Harpur at their head, all the men about the place rushed forthwith ropes and shepherds’ crooks, and aught that might save a drowning man.

Alas! it was all too late.

Their bravest and best beloved were gone for aye.

Too rashly impatient, and trusting the leadership of impetuous Earl Bellamont, Sir Ralph and Sir Gilbert had disregarded the remonstrances of more cautious companions, and dashed across the waste of waters, so low at first as barely to cover their horses’ fetlocks.

Alas! some floating bush may have misled the old man, for all at once they seemed to be carried down stream and disappear, as if they had missed the ford, or the current had been too strong for men weighted with armour.

Sir Ralph had mounted his foot page behind him, and the scion of another noble house was lost.

Their esquires, following behind, had been impotent to save, and only by turning sharply round and fighting with the rising waters did they manage to preserve their own lives.

Day by day as the thick waters subsided did the search continue along the devastated banks until the dark Derwent, rolling its great volume of water into the Trent, barred further passage, and made the quest hopeless.

A silken scarf caught in a bush, a broken lance and pennon, a battered casque, a saddle-bow, were all the relics found of father, bridegrooms, page.

Lady Bellamont was borne down by the shock. Avice drooped like a broken lily; only Idonea seemed capable of thought or action.

The subsidence of the flood brought spurring in the more prudent party to comfort their own wives and daughters, along with the downcast esquires to tell the needless tale.

There was no consoling Lady Bellamont. She seemed to take the triple loss to her own heart, and grieve for her daughters as much as for herself.

In vain the prior offered such consolation as his faith afforded. She sat like a stone, rigid and immovable; would take no sustenance whatever.

The tears shed over her by Idonea and Avice seemed to petrify as they fell rather than melt. Their affliction but intensified her own.

“If they had died in battle as brave men should, we might have borne it bravely,” she said, at last; “but to be slain by the cold, cruel, treacherous waters in the height of joy and hope, almost within hail of home, it is too terrible, too terrible, prior; I cannot be resigned. And for my crushed roses—orphaned, widowed, ere they became wives—it is too much; I cannot survive it.”

And before that month was out the twin-sisters were left to weep out their tears in each other’s arms, and bear the fresh blow as best they might, with only the good prior to watch and guard them in their orphanhood, and lead them to bow meekly to the inscrutable decrees of heaven.

There was William Harpur willing to do the co-heiresses suit and service, and leave his own estate, a mile or so away, to the care of his reeve, whilst he administered affairs at the hall, but neither the prior nor the sisters cared for his interference, and when the old retainers, with the seneschal at their head, came in a body at the prior’s summons to swear fealty to the ladies Bellamont, and Idonea accepted their homage for herself and her sweet sister, as one born to command, he turned away to bite his nails in displeasure, and quitted the hall before the sun went down.

But though Idonea could order the household, and the seneschal could keep the retainers in order, and the reeve overlook the villeins and lands, nothing seemed to rouse the drooping Avice, or remove the more rebellious sorrow that mutely burned on the cheeks and in the eyes of Idonea.

“My daughters,” said the prior, on the eve of his departure, “duty calls me away to my own flock. The bridge I built over the Dove three years agone, after the great hurricane, has, Friar Paul brings word, been shaken sorely. I must needs see to its repair. The safety of many lives depends on its stability. Yet I would fain see you more submissive to the divine will ere I depart. Think how many sufferers there have been by the same calamity—how many a hearth has been laid bare, how many cry aloud for sustenance the flood has swept away. Abandon not your hours to selfish lamentations, but go abroad, see how the poor hinds bear their sorrows, and endeavour, by good and charitable deeds, to win the favour of your offended Lord. Look on the crosses that ye wear, and think of His wounds and His tears, and remember that His blood and His tears were shed for others, not for self.”

Idonea’s eyes were fixed on him when he began; they drooped as low as those of Avice ere he ended.

“Father,” said she, “your rebuke is just. We have thought the world was our own—in joy and in sorrow. It shall not be so henceforth. We ask your blessing ere you go.”

The benediction was spoken, and on the morrow he was gone.

They, too, went forth in their mourning-weeds, and saw what sorrow meant for the very poor and for the class above them. Tottering huts, bare fields, where the only crop was dull red mud; mothers in rags weeping over naked and famishing babes; churls looking hopeless on desolation, or seeking wearily to repair a fence or clear a garden. And wherever they went they left hope behind, as well as coin, or food, or raiment from the hall. But some took their gifts and sympathy with sullen thanklessness. They were little better than serfs, and were more inclined to resent the ability to bestow than feel grateful to the willing bestowers.

Seneschal and reeve said they would spoil the peasantry with their frequent alms; and even the prior when he came suggested moderation in doles, which destroyed honest independence and fostered beggary.

But the sisters had found ease in helping others, and ere long sought the prior’s advice over a project to serve the people for generations yet unborn.

They had discovered that sorrow and calamity come to the poor as to the rich, and they proposed to preserve others from losses and heartaches such as theirs.

There was a general lamentation that Swark’s Stone was gone and the ford less readily found.

“Sister,” said Idonea, “had there been a bridge over the Trent like the Monks’ Bridge over the Dove, we had been happy wives, not mourning maidens. Let us up and build one. If we cannot restore our dead, we may preserve life for the living.”

“Right gladly,” assented Avice. “We may so make our sorrow a joy to thousands.”

The prior hailed their project as a divine inspiration, hardly conscious he had struck the keynote. They were rich. They would hear nought of suitors. What better could they do with their wealth?

He drew plans, he found them masons. Stone was not far to seek for quarrying; but, to be of service, the bridge must cover broad lands as well as common current.

“Twenty-nine arches!” cried William Harpur. “The cost will be enormous. It will swallow up your whole possessions! You must be mad; and the prior is worse to sanction such a sacrifice.”

“The sacrifice was made when the river robbed us of our dearest treasures. We must save others a like sacrifice at any cost,” said Avice, now as bold as her sister.

The work began and went on steadily. Honest labour was paid for, and churls, who had lived half on doles and housed like dogs, were paid a penny[5] a day or a peck of meal, and took heart to work with a will. There were always loose stones and wood about, and no one said nay when they began to repair and improve their own dwellings. And so industry came to Swarkstone with the building of the bridge. Heaven, too, seemed to smile upon the undertaking, for never a disaster occurred to mar it.

But, as Squire Harpur had prophesied, the cost was enormous. It was the work of years. Woods were cut down to supply timber for scaffolding; then lands were mortgaged or sold, and who but William Harpur was chief buyer? But still the work proceeded.

“Travellers who can cross the river dry-shod will gladly pay a small toll for the privilege,” said the sisters, as the last of their possessions, the old hall, passed into their cousin’s hands, and they took refuge in a small house in a bye-way, which goes by the name of “No Man’s-Lane” to this day.

It was a glad day for travellers on horse or foot when Swarkstone Bridge, of twenty-nine arches, was declared free for traffic, a bridge which spanned the Trent and its low meads for three-quarters of a mile, and the good Ladies Bellamont, who built it, had a right to expect those who could thus travel safely and dry-shod at all seasons to be grateful for the inestimable boon.

They had no charter to exact a toll to repay the moneys they had expended; but there was at the Swarkstone end a small chapel erected and dedicated to St. James, in which it was fondly hoped the users of the bridge would pause to thank God and drop their small thank-offerings in a box set there to receive them.

At first, when they began to build, people about called the sisters “the twin angels;” but by the time the bridge was built it had ceased to be a new thing. It was used as a matter of course; but the thank-offerings grew fewer and fewer as people ceased to remember the danger and discomfort of the passage by the ford.

They had impoverished themselves for the security of strangers. The offerings of gratitude would not keep life in the good sisters. They began to spin flax for a livelihood. Avice bore her lot meekly. Not so Idonea, into whose soul the sense of ingratitude was eating like a canker. But Avice said gently, “If we gave our wealth to build a bridge expecting a return, what answer can we make to our Lord when we go to Him? Let us be content that our individual losses will be the gain of thousands after us.” And that put an end to Idonea’s rebellion.

At length the aged prior, who had built Monks’ Bridge between the counties of Stafford and Derby for a people as ungrateful, stirred up William Harpur to remember the poor kinswomen on whose lands he was flourishing, and he offered them a home at Ticknall.

The offer came too late to save them. The Ladies Bellamont died as they had lived, together, and were buried with their two symbolic crosses on their breasts. And then, thanks chiefly to the prior, who reverenced them, a marble monument could be erected to their memories with their sleeping effigies upon it. It was inscribed “The Builders of the Bridge.” But the prior would fain have added, “They built unseen another bridge over the troubled waters of life—a bridge from earth to heaven.”

THE END.

HISTORICAL SKETCHES OF MUSICAL FORMS. — Sketch II.—Opera (Secular Musical Drama).

By MYLES B. FOSTER, Organist of the Foundling Hospital.

lthough it is stated that the ancient Greeks intoned their tragedies, and introduced, besides, some form of melody (μέλος), the whole question of the existence of opera at that period of artistic prosperity, when all forms of learning were so powerfully nourished, is a matter for speculation. Their authors certainly give us wonderful accounts of the great effects that this music had, and state that it formed an essential part of their drama, but beyond these records, in all probability much exaggerated, we have no data. Opera we must assume to be a comparatively recent invention. To the end of the sixteenth century, composers had written all their finest work for the Church, and had, very rightly, devoted their best efforts to the praise and worship of the Giver of all musical ideas and beauties.

Even that which was known as secular music, and was intended for social occasions, was written in ecclesiastical forms, and the very folksongs had their freshness rubbed off by contrapuntal developments to which they were not suited, and were dragged in their new and ill-fitting costume into the masses and motetts of the day. The Church possessed most of the art and learning of the age, and, with that, a corresponding power over the ignorant people. Thus music had been, so far, choral music; all the secular forms, villanellas, glees, madrigals, and lieder, being in from three to six parts and more. The expressive solo form (monodia), whether recitativo or arioso, was as yet unknown. As the people attained more knowledge, and with it more freedom, secular music gradually separated itself from the restraints of the Church, and, as in other parallel cases, freedom at length degenerated into licence.

At the end of the great Renaissance period, when, after Suliman had taken Constantinople, the great scholars there fled before the conquering Turks into Italy and other new homes, an impetus was given to the study of Greek literature, and a desire to repossess the Greek drama in all its original beauty and perfection was the ambition of many an Italian student. In Florence the poet Rinuccini, the singer Caccini, Galilei, the father of the astronomer, and, at a rather later date, Jacopo Peri, used to hold meetings in which they not only agreed that the existing musical forms were inadequate for a true musical drama, but they proceeded forthwith to compose pieces for one voice on what they imagined to be the Greek model.

Emilio del Cavalieri is one of the first composers known to have tried to set music to the new form of drama. The poetess Guidiccioni (mentioned in the sketch “Oratorio”) supplied the words. His first efforts were “Il Satiro” and “La Disperazione di Fileno,” and they were performed in Florence in 1590, the poems being set to music throughout.

Peri followed with his “Daphne,” in which aria parlante, a kind of recitation in strict time, first appears. It is well described by Ritter, in his “History of Music,” as “something between well-formed melody and speech.” It appears to have pleased the Greek revivalists immensely, and they quite believed it to be the discovery of the lost art. Peri composed “Euridice” in the year 1600, on the occasion of the marriage of Henry IV. of France with Maria di Medicis, and in his work we have a primitive version of all our operatic forms.

Composers now occasionally used the arioso style; but their Greek beliefs prevented them from introducing a good broad melody form. The principal numbers of “Euridice,” for example, were choruses and declamatory recitatives. The orchestra was hidden behind the scenes, the only purely orchestral piece being a little prelude (called “Zinfonia”) for three flutes.

With such material and upon so simple a basis was opera formed—an art construction which, in its more modern garb, has played a very important part in the history of European society.

Of really great composers who advanced this drama per musica, one of the earliest and most important was Claudio Monteverde. He imbued it with his musicianship and originality, employing particular effects for each scene and for each character, his object being to unite the varying sentiment of the poem with his music. In his operas, the first of which was “Orfeo,” new and less cramped forms of accompaniment, giving singers greater freedom in dramatic action, followed such reforms as a better use of rhythm and more truthful illustration of sentiments, whilst an increased orchestral force was added to other means of expression.

The Italian Church writers began to compose operas, and in the seventeenth century we find the recitation form receiving new vigour and truthfulness of detail at the hands of, amongst others, Cavalli (whose real name was Caletti-Bruni), Cesti, and Alessandro Scarlatti, Carissimi’s greatest pupil. Scarlatti did much for the opera. He is supposed to have invented the short interludes for instruments between the vocal phrases, and he certainly introduced the first complete form of aria, known as the “Scarlatti-form,” which, however, with its tiresomely exact repetitions, seems to us quite artificial, and anything but dramatic. About his time recitativo, as we know it, was separated from the aria parlante.

Succeeding Scarlatti, came the pupils of his Neapolitan school, amongst whom were Durante, Buononcini, Porpora, Jomelli, and others, and with them we reach a period during which the opera-form sadly deteriorated.

Composers had broken away from the ecclesiastical forms—nay, more, the chorus had become of no importance, but, instead, the new aria, which might have taken an advantageous position as a means for occasional soliloquy and meditation, without interference with the dramatic story, now usurped the place of the latter altogether, and an opera meant nothing more than a string of arias in set form, an excuse for showing off the best voices to the greatest advantage, the most successful work being that one which pandered most to the vanity of the singers, who altered and embellished the melodies of their mechanical slave, the composer.

Dramatic significance was fast disappearing, and a reformer was sadly needed, and that reformer appeared early in the eighteenth century in the person of Gluck, a Bohemian, who, after studying in Italy and writing several operas after the traditional Italian models, settled in Vienna, and there worked out his great ideas of regeneration and reform.

His “Orfeo,” produced in 1762, created a great sensation, and in Alceste (1766) we find him, to quote his own preface to it, “avoiding the abuses which have been introduced through the mistaken vanity of singers and the excessive complaisance of composers, and which, from the most splendid and beautiful of all public exhibitions, has reduced the opera to the most tiresome and ridiculous of spectacles.”

He considered that music should second poetry, by strengthening the expression of the sentiments and the interest of the situations, and adds, “I have therefore carefully avoided interrupting a singer in the warmth of dialogue, in order to wait for a tedious ritornel; or stopping him during one of his sentences to display the agility of his voice in a large vocal passage.” He greatly increases the importance of the introduction or overture, making it foreshadow the nature of the coming drama.

Composers were either too hardened or too cowardly to at once follow and imitate his excellent reforms, and great disputings and much rancour ensued, Gluck being opposed by the singers and the old school headed by Piccini.

We will leave this opera seria for a moment, restored to its high position in art, and glance at a lighter form, the opera buffa, or comic opera, which may be traced to the little entr’actes, or intermezzi, given as a sort of relaxation between the acts of plays, as early as the sixteenth century. At first, madrigals, or favourite instrumental solos, were used for this purpose; later on, when operatic forms appeared, you find scenas or duets, in which the chief idea was to raise a laugh, very often at the expense of good taste. Scarlatti’s pupils developed these intermezzi, and gave them such artistic importance that they grew to be rivals to the grand opera, and eventually held their own position as opera buffa. Pergolesi was most successful in this style, and his “La Serva Padrona” (1746), one of the earliest specimens, was a great favourite. The accompaniment was for string quartett only, and there were but two dramatis personæ. His fellow student, Leonardo Vinci, wrote several comic operas, and further on, Nicolo Piccini, whom we have just left opposing Gluck in Paris, made many advances in opera buffa, giving greater contrasts and more elaborate and effective finales than his forerunners. In fact, he was stronger in this sort of composition than in opera seria, to which latter we now return.

We find at the end of the eighteenth century the brilliant and successful works of Paisiello, a rival, at that time, of Mozart. At the same period Sarti, Salieri, Cimarosa, Paër, Righini, and others wrote operas.

The spirit of revolution, which was uprooting all old traditions, good and bad, at the end of the eighteenth century, forced even the Italian composers to see that more was required than they had ever given, to make opera what it should be, and they were compelled to acknowledge that, after Gluck’s reforms and their still lasting effects, and after Mozart’s influence and his noble examples, they must take up higher ground if they would succeed in other than the Italian cities.

They composed, therefore, in a more serious manner for Paris or Vienna, and the Italian opera gained a fresh importance by the slight reforms thus adopted, and through the successful power of Rossini it again held sway in the principal European courts.

Rossini made a great many melodies and much pecuniary profit, and finding the singers ready to return to those abuses against which Gluck had protested so strongly, rather than permit them to play tricks with his music and embellish his melodies, he made the trills and embroideries so fulsome himself that there was nothing left which they could add!

In the present century Mercadante, Bellini, and Donizetti followed in his train; following them comes Verdi, who is still living, and whose later works are very fine, being a happy combination of immense dramatic insight with effective situations and great melodic charm. We find in Boito the most decided attempt to unite Italian traditions and the latest German development. Thus much for the land in which opera was born.

Opera soon spread, and travelled to the various European courts, and became there the amusement of noble and wealthy patrons. Such prestige did it carry with it, that to be successful in England or Germany, a composer had to write in the Italian style.

France, whilst building upon the Italian foundation, created an opera in many ways differing from that form. Real French opera was first written by Lulli at the end of the seventeenth century. He will be ever remembered as the inventor of the overture, which replaced the small introduction of the Italians. Another thing he did which was new: he brought into his scheme the dance or ballet; and a third point was, that in his operas the chorus played a most important part.

Following Lulli, we see Rameau greatly developing all these resources.

When Gluck migrated to Paris he found the supporters of Italian opera backed by such essayists as Rousseau and Baron von Grimm, and named the “Bouffonists,” opposing the “Anti-Bouffonists,” who adhered to Lulli and Rameau. Also there were Philidor, Gretry, and others trying to combine the new and old styles. Gluck cut down the superabundance of melody, adapted his own reforms already referred to, gave the overture its true connection with the poem, and, as it were, out-Rameaued Rameau. With all his works produced in Paris he made great successes, notwithstanding his rival Piccini’s powerful opposition.

We will again leave Gluck elevating, for this time, the French stage also, and glance at opera comique, a term used in France as early as 1712.

I suppose that the equivalent of the Italian intermezzo was the vaudeville. Claude Gilliers appears to have written many about this period.

In the latter half of the century Dauvergne composed “Les Troqueurs,” in imitation of the Italian intermezzi, and in this work the dialogue, which in opera buffa would have been sung, was spoken, a custom still adopted in France. Duni, Philidor (a wonderful chess-player), and Monsigny wrote many operas comiques. Gretry also appeared at this time as one of the superior composers—also Gaveaux, Gossec, and J. J. Rousseau, followed by D’Allayrac.

To return to grand opera, the man most influenced by Gluck and his advances was Mehul, whose “Joseph” and “Le Jeune Henri” are well known, and who possessed undoubted talent. In the present century I may mention Catel, Isouard, Berton, and Boildieu, the latter’s “Calife de Bagdad” and “La Dame Blanche,” and other works having been received at the time with enormous enthusiasm.

Two composers, Italian by birth, Cherubini and Spontini, wrote much in the style and under the influence of the French opera. We all know and like Cherubini’s “Les Deux Journées,” “Medea,” and “Anacreon.”

Spontini is spoken of as “the composer who embodied in his operas the life and spirit of the Empire under the First Napoleon.”

Coming into this century, we notice, as important French opera composers, Hérold, of “Zampa” celebrity, Adolphe Adam, and Auber, who studied under Cherubini, and composed more comic operas than anything else, and whose work always contains light elegant melody and brilliant orchestration. Halévy has earned a good name by such operas as “La Juive” and “La Reine de Chypre.”

An exceptionally great man was Hector Berlioz, who strove in new paths, and in the face of great opposition, to base his efforts upon the study of Gluck, Weber, and Beethoven.

Meyerbeer, though born in Germany, wrote as much for French opera as for any other. He seems to have been a sort of musical turncoat, and every turn brought golden success. He became the greatest of French opera writers; but, in addition, he wrote German opera for Germans, Italian for Italians, and ensured by this system of “all things to all men” the applause which he so highly coveted.

To conclude our French list, there is a composer, whose “Faust” will live long; I allude to Charles Gounod, who has written many other operas containing great dramatic beauty, richness of orchestration, and grace of melody. Following him are Bizet, whose “Carmen” has been so popular, Massenet, and Ambroise Thomas.

In England there is but little history to give you.

English music and drama were first connected in a primitive way in the early miracle-plays and mysteries performed at Chester and Coventry and in other towns.

Shakespeare, in his plays, gives several directions for musical interludes, and introduces songs and choruses, more particularly in “As You Like It,” “Twelfth Night,” and “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” In the first half of the seventeenth century William Lawes, and Henry, his brother, wrote music to the masques, in which poetry, music, scenery, and mechanical accessories were combined, producing a decided advance in the direction of real opera; but, notwithstanding the patriotic championship of budding English opera by these gentlemen of the Chapel Royal, and notwithstanding the existence of the great school of madrigal writers, they were never encouraged to attempt dramatic work, as the nobility already demanded Italian opera and Italian composers and singers. During the civil war, and until Charles II.’s restoration, the theatres were closed by the Puritans, and even from 1660 they were only opened for five years with an occasional performance of a masque by Sir William Davenant, the then poet laureate, set to music by Locke, in one of which, “The Siege of Rhodes,” we find the recitative style used, and spoken of as new to England, although well known on the Continent.

After those five years came the Plague, and following it the Great Fire, so that it was not until nearer the end of the century that a fair start was made in opera, and that the powerful and masterly works of Henry Purcell saw the light. His genius was undoubtedly superior to that of Lulli in France or Scarlatti in Italy, and he became a power, not in England only, but throughout Europe. Alas, that he should have died so young! The form of opera settled by him and his followers was similar to the French and German, in that whilst the important parts would be sung, the subordinate dialogue was spoken, and there was no accompanied recitative, excepting in some of Dr. Boyce’s and Dr. Arne’s operas. Arne’s “Artaxerxes” has the dialogue, à l’Italienne, set entirely in recitative form.

But these were exceptions. Dibdin, Dr. Arnold, William Jackson (of Exeter), Shield, Storace, Attwood, Sir Henry Bishop, and many others adhered to the spoken dialogue. It should be quite understood that their music, when it occurred, formed an integral portion of the whole work, and, therefore, differed from interpolated pieces, which could be withdrawn without breaking a sequence.

In 1834 John Barnett produced his “Mountain Sylph,” the first important English opera in the strictly modern style of that age, and one which introduced the school typified by Balfe, Wallace, and Macfarren. Italian influence was evident, and has only lately been supplanted by the power of Germany, and, in one or two noteworthy instances, by the graceful delicacy of the French school. But the time for English opera is ripe; we have watched the dangers into which other schools have fallen; we have seen their heroes extricate them from those dangers; we have learnt what reforms are needful; the generous support and encouragement which has assisted the Italian, French, and German schools should now place all mercenary consideration on one side, and extend itself freely to those native artists who, in a spirit of true patriotism, are striving for the reputation and artistic honour of our country.

To Handel we owe the final settlement of Italian opera in London, for which end he composed over forty operas, none of which are remembered, but from whose pages the good numbers were extracted and transferred to his oratorios!

Comic opera, originating in Italy and developing in France, had, and still has, some footing in England. A very successful specimen was “The Beggar’s Opera,” performed in 1728 at Rich’s Theatre, in Lincoln’s Inn, with a libretto by Gay. So enormous was its success, that people said, “It made Gay rich, and Rich gay!” From this and following successes arose the ballad opera, a form of comic opera taken up by the best composers. “The Duenna,” music by Linley, words by Sheridan (Linley’s son-in-law), may be quoted as an excellent specimen. Finally the wealth of England has been able to procure and import the finest foreign works and artists, and its riches have assisted in impoverishing what little native art we possessed.

For the last part of my sketch I have reserved German opera.

Although Italian opera soon worked its way into Germany, in fact, as early as the year 1627, when we reach the end of our story, we shall find the Germans in possession of the most advanced form of modern drama.

Heinrich Schütz set the first opera to music. It was Rinuccini’s “Daphne,” already set by Peri in Florence.

Italian style and Italian vocalists reigned supreme until the time of Gluck, with such exceptions as the Hamburg operas of Keiser and Handel, which contained German characteristics, and also the attempts on the part of Hasse, Graun, and Naumann to combine Italian and German qualities.

With Gluck came the great reforms in Vienna, as elsewhere, and there, too, party feeling ran high, Gluck being warmly opposed by Hasse and his party. In Ritter’s admirable “History of Music,” already largely quoted from, whilst blaming the German princes for obtaining Italian operas at extravagant cost, he asks us to remember that these same princes “prepared the road, however unconsciously, for a Gluck, a Haydn, and a Mozart; for all these masters’ early efforts were rooted in the Italian school of music.”

Germany all this time had no national opera, the Hamburg attempt failing for want of encouragement.

As we have previously done in dealing with the other countries, so now we will glance at the lighter form of opera for a moment.

The German operette, or singspiel, was brought into notice by Johann Adam Hiller about the middle of the eighteenth century. He produced numbers of these, full of charming original melodies, and with spoken dialogue, as in opera comique.

Amongst several writers of these light works we may number Schweitzer, André, and Benda, who introduced the melodrama, in which dialogue is spoken during an undercurrent of expressive and illustrative music. There is also Johann Friedrich Reichardt, composing, at the end of the seventeenth century, a sort of vaudeville known as the “Liederspiel.”

Contemporary with these stand Dittersdorf and Haydn, and, in Southern Germany, Klauer, Schenk, and Müller.

These small operas at first rather imitated the French school; but at the time of the above composers the national life and sentiment, in however insignificant a manner, had crept in, and the germ of a national type existed.

At such a critical moment came the great genius who was to develop the elements of both serious and comic opera, and raise them to a lofty pedestal, and that genius was Mozart.

Whilst accepting the forms of his day, he gave to them new life and meaning, and his illustration of each character, together with his masterly ensembles and finales, in which, whilst each singer maintains his individuality, clearness is still pre-eminent, will ever abide as marvellous examples of dramatic scholarship and musical beauty. Besides understanding exactly what the human voice was capable of doing, he raised the orchestral accompaniment to a very high position.

Whilst Gluck attacked Italian opera, Mozart moulded it in such a fashion that the old stiff traditions were no longer possible in Germany.

At the commencement of this century, I must add to the list such names as Winter, Hummel the pianist, Weigl, Himmel, and, last and greatest, Beethoven, whose one opera, “Fidelio,” will endure in its pure nobility as long as music endures.

The romantic school of poetry now finding its way into Germany, was soon aided by appropriate musical settings by Spohr, Marschner, and Weber—the greatest of them all. Of his operas, “Der Freischütz” is the finest, the most popular, and the most thoroughly German.

Schumann wrote one opera, “Genoveva,” and Mendelssohn, ever searching for a libretto, commenced setting Geibel’s “Loreley,” but death came before he could finish it.

Meyerbeer, a Berliner by birth, and sometimes German in work, we have already noticed in connection with his French operas.

Richard Wagner, by his theories and his great compositions, has caused opera once more to become the field for dispute, research, and speculative thought.

He maintains, to put it briefly, that the real character and meaning of opera has been all this time misunderstood. He carries into practice what Gluck preached, viz., that music should second poetry, in order to be in its proper place. He says, “The error of the operatic art-form consists in the fact that music, which is really only a means of expression, is turned into an aim; while the real aim of expression, viz., the drama, is made a mere means.”

It seemed to him that the chief hindrance to the free action of drama was the concert aria, so he drops it altogether, using a melodious recitation in lieu of it, and calls his works dramas, not operas. His orchestra illustrates the emotions and thoughts of each character, and the peculiar timbre of each instrument supplies the individuality of the person represented—a practice suggested first by Monteverde; and he further binds together the various episodes and scenes in the story, by using short motovos or phrases which shall recall to the audience previous situations and events—a device used by Gluck, amongst others. Wagner very happily combines in himself the poet and musician. He rightly claims that his music should not be heard apart from its companions of equal value—the poem, the scenery, and the action. He has met with as much opposition as did Gluck, but the time has come when his works receive due recognition, and an appreciation increasing yearly in proportion to our unbiassed study of them.

However excessive we may feel the reformer’s zeal to have been, these masterly art-forms supply wholesome food for meditation, and numberless suggestions for action, to every earnest and unbigoted student of this and coming generations.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. — MISCELLANEOUS.

OUR NEW CHRISTMAS PART,
IS NOW PUBLISHED.

Feathery Flakes.

[Transcriber’s note—the following changes have been made to this text.

Page 132: swalowed to swallowed—“swallowed with perfect ease.”]