Julius Cæsar Scaliger, who died in 1558, in the first Book of his "Pöetices," chapter 48, says, that the original of the "Monochord" was the simmicum, an instrument of thirty-five strings, supposed to have been invented by Simmicus, (the ancient Greek musician ;) and in the same passage, which, as it does not appear to have been noticed by Burney, Hawkins, Martini, or any of our common authorities, we here subjoin, the connexion between this instrument and the "clavicymbalum," "harpsichord," and "spinet," is distinctly traced. "Fuit et simia commentum illud, quod ab eo simicum appellatum, quinque et triginta constabat chordis, à quibus eorum origo, quos nunc monochordos vulgus vocat. In quibus, ordine digesta, plectra subsilientia reddunt sonos. Additæ dein plectris corvinarum pennarum cuspides ex æreis filis expressiorem eliciunt harmoniam, me puero, clavicymbalum et harpichordum, nunc ab illis mucronibus, spinetam nominant."

It is to be observed, that Du Cange, in his Glossary, confounds the "monochord" with the "manichordion"-an instrument of more recent invention, and very little different in construction from the harpsichord.b Farther, he describes both of them as being instruments of "one string;" and Carpentier, although, in his Supplement, he notices the former error, seems to have no idea of the distinction between the monochord of the ancients, and that of the fifteenth century.

From what has been already observed, it is obvious that "monycordis" was a corruption of "monochord." It is certainly very extraordinary that the latter term (like lucus a non lucendo) should come to signify something so very opposite from what is implied in the word itself, but there can be no doubt of the fact. The idea of Scaliger that the simmicum, a species of lyre, was the prototype of these keyed instruments, may probably have had no other foundation than the circumstance of its having been furnished with a greater number of strings than any other instrument of antiquity; we should rather look for the history of this and

This word seems to be a mistake for "simmici."
Mersennus, de Instr. Harm. lib. i. prop. 42.

1

our other keyed instruments, in that of the instrument to which the name of "monochord" was formerly applied.

It may perhaps be doubted whether the instrument of this name, the study of which was recommended by Guido in the eleventh century,a as the best method of teaching beginners their musical intervals, and which probably remained in use for many years after his time, was the identical Pythagorean monochord which we have described. We find it impossible to procure any distinct information upon this point. If it were the same, Dr Burneyb thinks that "it probably" had "a neck, and was fretted; as bridges like those on a common monochord could not without much. practice have been moved quickly enough" to answer the purposes of the teacher. Whether this may not have gradually led to the introduction of a "polychord," is a question well worthy of the consideration of the musical antiquary. For ourselves, we are by no means satisfied that it did; for, admitting that the inconvenience alluded to had been the occasion of furnishing this instrument with a neck and frets, and that it may have extended to a "polychord," there would still have been a wide step between this and the mechanical adjustments of a keyed instrument; nor does it appear very obvious that the one would have suggested the other. Notwithstanding the fact, therefore, which is certainly a very remarkable one, that the most ancient form of construction of these keyed instruments went under the name of "monochords;" the commonly received notion appears to us to be still the most plausible, that they originated simply in the idea of subjecting the harp, or some such instrument, to the sort of mechanical process by which they are regulated.

There is just one circumstance which we would suggest as explanatory of the reason why these "polychord" instruments were called

"As the harp came from the cithara, so the harpsichord had its origin from the harp, being nothing more than a horizontal harp, as every one who examines its figure with that idea must see." Burney's Hist. vol. iii. p. 173.

"monochords." From being an instrument employed to represent the scale, and the succession of intervals used in music, the name of "monochord" naturally came to signify the scale or system of sounds itself. We see it expressly used in this sense in the following passage of Joannes de Muris' Tractatus de Musica, written in 1323:-" Guido monachus qui compositor erat gammatis qui monochordum dicitur, vocas, lineis et spaciis dividebat." We observe that Dr Burney, in his history,a applies this word in the very same way; and La Borde says, after describing the monochord, "ce qu'on appele systeme, est la monochorde divisé; et comme il est possible de le diviser de plusieurs manieres, c'est ce qui fait la multiplicité des systêmes." It is unnecessary to go farther. What could be more natural than that an instrument, the strings and keys of which were arranged according to the series of intervals into which the gamut or monochord was divided, should be called a "monochord ?" Indeed, we rather think, with reference to the passage which we have above cited from "Prætorius," where he observes that "the clavichord was invented and disposed after the model of the monochord," that this must have been his real meaning, and not that the clavichord which, from all that we have had occasion to observe, appears to have been the same instrument with the monochord, ever since the invention of the former, had been constructed after the pattern of another and a different instrument under the name of the latter.

We trust that we need no farther apology for dwelling at some length on the history of the "monochord," than its importance as the parent of that instrument, which, in modern times, is not only the delight of every fashionable circle, but extends its influence throughout many of the humbler grades of society; and this, too, not in our country alone, but over

a Vol. ii. p. 86.

b Vol. i. p. 244.

• This sort of metonymy is very common in the history of our language, and in music more particularly. The dance or tune "hornpipe" is so called from the instrument upon which it was played. Jigg" is another example, being a sprightly tune well adapted to the violin. It received its name from "geig," the German name of that instrument.

46

the whole face of the civilized globe. We should add the fact, that it has somehow or other been mistaken, or overlooked, by all the musical historians to whose works we have had it in our power to obtain access. We shall endeavour, however, to make amends for our prolixity in this instance, by touching more briefly on what farther remains.of this subject;—and we have the less hesitation in so doing, as we have reason to believe, that by the time these pages meet the eye of the public, our deficiencies will be much more than supplied from the pen of a distinguished antiquary, to whom his country is largely indebted for the accuracy, the usefulness, and the extent of his historical researches. The brief Tract which Sir John Graham Dalyell proposes to devote to the illustration of the ancient musical instruments of Scotland, will, we understand, be accompanied with engraved delineations of most of them ;-not only a valuable addition to the interest of every work of this nature, but one which is perhaps indispensable to their proper elucidation, as no written description can furnish more than a vague and imperfect idea of their form and construction.

There is one description of keyed instrument, of great antiquity, not embraced within the class to which we have alluded, and in regard to which we have hitherto said nothing;-this is the organ. This instrument, (by which we mean the pneumatic organ, not the hydraulicon of the ancients,) as it was known in Italy in the seventh,-in France in the eighth,—and in England (during the time of St Swithin and St Dunstan) in the tenth century, was probably introduced into Scotland 150 or 200 years after the last mentioned era; at least, it is not easy to imagine that a monarch like David I., who did so much towards the erection of churches and monasteries, should have omitted to furnish some of the former with what must have been, at the time, accounted the most important adjunct to the solemn magnificence of the Catholic ritual.

So far as we are aware, the earliest mention of the organ in any of our historians is by Fordun, who, upon the occasion of the removal of the body of Queen Margaret from the outer church at Dunfermline for reinterment beside the high altar, in 1250, describes the procession of priests and abbots, by whom the ceremony was conducted, as accompanied by the sounds of the organ, as well as the chanting of the

choir. And we may suppose, that from about that time,-Scotland, which is described by Dempster as, (under the able superintendence of Simon Taylor, a Dominican monk,) in 1230, emulating the splendour of Rome herself in the excellence of her ecclesiastical music,—which, from the constant intercourse of her clergy with those of the Continent, must have always kept pace with the improvements of the age, and which unquestionably adopted the same style of sacred music with that which prevailed in Italy, France, and England,-was not likely to have been much behind the last mentioned country, in this particular department. Mr P. F. Tytler, to whose observations we refer our readers, has pointed out the error into which his relative, Mr Tytler, the author of the Dissertation on Scotish Music, fell, in representing James I. (of Scotland) as the first introducer of the organ into this country; when all that he actually did, was to introduce organs of an improved construction. Our principal churches and abbeys had most probably been furnished with them more or less from about the era to which we have above referred. The ChapelRoyal at Stirling, founded by James III., to all appearance upon the model of that of Edward IV., was a very complete and richly endowed ecclesiastical establishment for the cultivation of church music; and several entries of sums, laid out by our sovereigns in the upholding of the organs at Stirling and Edinburgh, are to be found in the Treasurer's Books, of which our readers will find some specimens in the extracts printed in the Appendix. There is also a very curious inventory of the "Buikis” of the "Quher" of the Colleges of St Andrews, as old as the middle of the fifteenth century, with a copy of which we at one time intended to have furnished our readers, together with other information of a like nature, of which a great deal may still be recovered from our char

Fordun, a Goodall, vol. ii. p. 83.
History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 374.

"the

Mr P. F. Tytler, in his History, vol. ii. p. 378, has remarked, that the churchmen were great masters in the necessary and ornamental arts; not only the historians and the poets, but the painters, the sculptors, the mechanics, and even the jewellers, goldsmiths, and lapidaries of the times." Thus, one of the entries above alluded to, on 12 Jan. 1507, is as follows:-" Item, To the chanoun of Halyrudhous that mendit the organis in Strivelin and Edinburgh, vij lb."