ter of necessity the cultivation of the art of singing received its highest point of culture under the old system, while under the Wagner régime the orchestral resources have been developed to a degree of perfection such as our old masters never could have attained with their ideas of dramatic music. The question would arise, whether the drama has gained anything by the changes introduced. If we compare characteristic portraiture in Mozart's operas with that in Wagner's, we shall very readily find, that the older master endowed the meager and often very insignificant outlines of his librettos with such pregnant and plastic attributes (even without the help of leading motives or an endless melodic flow) that we can readily believe in their immortality, while the modern master fails in the most essential of dramatic labors, viz: of creating dramatic persons and characters. All the melody, sung by Wotan or any other god in the Tetralogy, will not define the character of any of the ancient German deities, while the orchestral talk is very plain and not seldom of striking characteristics. The banishment of the chorus, or of any more than one performer at a time, is another of the grave mistakes, which Wagner's system tries to enforce. It is true, that no man can be more sincere in his convictions than Wagner is. He is fanatically convinced of their correctness. Every line in the Tetralogy seems to ask : "How can a dramatic character or scene or event be developed without the explaining word, and how can the value of the word come to its highest development except in musical declamation?" Against this may be held the fact that Wagner's declamation could not be understood, while the melody of the old masters aided greatly the enunciation of the text. The forms, which Wagner disregards and in which the classic masters have cast their creations, may and undoubtedly do not suit his talent, but they are the inheritance of all the talent and genius of our musical past, and are as imperishable as the human form, in which the best statues even of our modern times are still cast. We may call his musical leading motives very beautiful. So they are, as a hand, an eye, a head, may be beautiful. But they are only beautiful fragments, and it is only through that form which unites them as a complete whole, that they can become a work of art. Form and matter are supple

Colors may be the

menting each other now as much as ever. most beautiful, but they will never make a painting, until emnployed in a form; melody, musical declamation, acting, scenic representation, and orchestral coloring, each and every one may be excellent when considered alone, but only when brought into their proper relation as parts of a whole (the form of which dictates their use) can they become agents of beauty.

Wagner's failures in musical characteristic portraiture may be ascribed to his disregard of form; his innovations have their source in his idiosyncrasy, not in any particular wants of art.

The achievements which his system has brought into art may be stated under the following heads:

1st. The orchestra has been raised from a large guitar to an intelligent interpreter of the sentiments, feelings, and passions of the dramatic persons.

2d. The text, which formerly furnished simply the basis for brilliant vocalization, has been entrusted with giving the commanding influence, which it undoubtedly ought to give.

3d. The introduction of leading motives has bared the mys teries of the orchestral language.

4th. The endless melodic flow has rent in twain the fetters, by which the dramatic composer was formerly bound.

These improvements will in all probability be adopted for all times to come and will prove a lasting benefit to the art of music. But whatever the fanaticism of its author has cut away from or engrafted upon the inheritance of our old glorious masters, may and probably will live as long as the experimental gardener lives to attend to it, but will wither and die without his fostering hand, because foreign to true art and its healthy development.

The

Wagner, the composer, has been likened to Peter Paul Rubens, the painter, with whom he has a great deal in common. same mastery in handling the material; the same gigantic proportions for even the smallest things; the almost entire absence of Idealism. Right, downright materialism, in both and not seldom in the grossest forms. Wagner has in other respects a great similarity with Victor Hugo. The French poet delights in characters, which we seek in vain among mankind, paints them with virtues and vices of such gross exaggeration, that

they appear as phantoms-frightful to behold-with emotions, passions, and feelings, which in mortal man can find no echo. It is so with Wagner. The tendency of his music is to excite the nerves of his hearers to an unhealthy degree, and then he presents his characters-overdrawn and unreal-to the intoxicated mind. Both Victor Hugo and Richard Wagner go back to the dead bones of antiquity, and pick them of their very substance, flesh and marrow being gone long ago. Both present in masterly portraiture that which is past, the ghost invoked from the grave, the bewitching but unhealthy sentiments of times that never existed but in the imagination of diseased minds. In both the same egotism. Victor Hugo, in his own opinion is the greatest poet, and he has left no stone unturned, to prove it to the French. Wagner is possessed of the same insanity, and woe to him who dares to deny it.

Now it cannot be denied that Rubens was a great painter, nor that Victor Hugo is a great poet, or Wagner a great musician. But in Rubens' and Victor Hugo's case, the sober judgment of afterthought has failed to put them upon the pedestal of the greatest men. What will posterity do with Wagner? Will it give him a place beside Bach, Händel, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven? It would be presumptuous to forestall it. It certainly will do him justice. Of one thing however we are sure, viz: that he is a genius. Casting aside the fanatical prescriptions, with which he doctored the school of arts, one cannot but acknowledge, that art in general and music in particular will be benefited by his influence. As a materialist, he has developed in the orchestra a power of description of the sensual perception of every-day life, of mythical and historical events. and of the phenomena of nature, such as no older master before him ever has attempted. He may be said in a certain sense to complete Beethoven. This greatest of masters has endowed the orchestra with the power to speak the language of the soul; Wagner has developed its capacity as language of the senses; Beethoven's music is spiritual, Wagner's material; Beethoven always bespeaks in us the better man, Wagner the bad; Beethoven the heavenly, divine, and godlike in human nature, Wagner the earthly, worldly, and demoniac. The orchestra has derived a benefit from both these masters, for both capaci

ties are indispensable qualities of a dramatist. Wagner has also contradicted the doctrines, preached from the art centers by the old Grandpapas of musical criticism, who never allowed any other food, than that with which they had been nursed (a common fact with people in their second childhood). Wagner has destroyed the pernicious influence of those domineering, self-constituted judges, who, no matter how old they grow, never learn anything new. He has done an immense service to every young aspiring artist, by showing him, that there are yet new ways open, where new discoveries may be made and new laurels won.

I have been asked both in Germany and on my return, whether I was satisfied with my visit to Bayreuth. My answer was and is decidedly in the affirmative, for it was a great mind that spoke its inmost thoughts at the performances in the little Bavarian town. No, I was not disappointed, for I found my opinion of Wagner's music fully confirmed at the unexampled representation of the Ring of the Nibelungen. As I have expressed them in this Article, you will, even if you do not agree with me, give me credit for impartiality. I hail with the brightest of pleasures any rational development in our the most beautiful of arts, while I cannot but with sorrow look upon even the most sincere efforts that have a tendency to degrade it.

ARTICLE III-EXPOSITORY PREACHING.*

EXPOSITORY preaching is-expository preaching. That would seem too simple a remark to make, were it not that many think of it as identical with exposition-differing from commentary or paraphrase only in this, that it is spoken to an audience rather than written in a book. The kind of discourse I am to speak of, on the contrary, is homiletical in structure and spirit, having for its aim to persuade as well as to instruct, and containing all the elements of oratory, such as argument, description, metaphor, expostulation, conclusion, and appeal. The pulpit expositor never forgets that he is a preacher, and, both in preparation and delivery, keeps his eye upon his audience as well as upon his text. His discourse, though not possessing as great unity as the topical, may have equal effectiveness; as a volley of shot, for ordinary game, will do as good execution as a rifle ball.

Prof. Shedd says: "It is necessary to select for exposition a passage or paragraph of Scripture that is somewhat complete in itself." That he refers, not to a division of whole chapters into paragraphs of suitable length, but rather to passages taken here and there, is evident when he adds, "It is the duty of the preacher, occasionally, to lay out his best strength, in the production of an elaborate expository sermon, which shall not only do the ordinary work of a sermon, which shall not only instruct, awaken. and move, but which shall also serve as a sort of guide and model, for the teacher of the Sabbath-School and the BibleClass." I quote him simply to say that the preaching I have in mind is in no sense a normal-class exercise but an address for immediate effect; and it is not occasional, but regular and habitual. The preacher does not cull out passages at his pleasure; but he takes some one book, or extended portion of a book, and goes through it (which is the same as thorough it) from beginning to end. He may, if he please, take a series of related

*A paper read before the General Convention of Wisconsin, at Oshkosh, September 29, 1876.

Homiletics, p. 154.

Homiletics, p. 158.