[Illustration]
Mr. FREDERIC H. COWEN'S dramatic Oratorio, _Ruth_, was produced last
Thursday at St. James's Hall, and the verdict on the entire work from
"bar one" to bar last was emphatically favourable. The Composer has
nothing to regret on this score. The workmanship throughout is
thoroughly good, and in some instances admirable, though the First Part
is not distinguished by any very striking originality.
In the Second Part, which begins appropriately with Harvest or "Half-est
time," Mr. BOAZ LLOYD gave a very trying _scena_ magnificently. But why
does he pronounce "excellent" as "ex_cee_lent?" Perhaps he has
ascertained on undeniable authority that this is the way _Boaz_ would
have pronounced it. _A propos_ of this eminent tenor, on one occasion,
not this, there was very nearly being a duel about his identity. An
Irish gentleman, turning to his friend, informed him, "That's SIMS
REEVES," whereupon his better informed companion returned, "He! LLOYD!"
which, but for a toimely explanation, begorra, would have led
to a challenge!
To resume. The "Dance of Reapers and Gleaners" must have sounded rather
out of place in Worcester Cathedral, where _Ruth_ was first produced. In
the Chorus of the Reapers and Gleaners, who were not in the least out of
breath with their dance--but perhaps these had only been delighted
spectators--full justice was done to the finest number in the
Oratorio--at least, so it appeared to the humble individual who had the
honour of representing you on this occasion. Then in the duet,
LLOYD and ALBANI
As _Boaz_ and _Ruth_,
Were perfect, no blarney,
I'm telling the truth.
The applause was enthusiastic: indeed, not only in this instance, but
throughout the performance, these two sang magnificently. _Boaz_ must
have been a very kind man; at all events, as _Boaz_ and _Ruth_ are
invariably heard of together, it is clear that he could never be accused
of being Ruthless.
Now, just one question: the Book of Words with musical phrases, is sold
in the room, and on the title-page we read that "the words are
selected,"--most judiciously too--by Mr. JOSEPH BENNETT, and "the Book
of Words" is fitted "with analytical notes by JOSEPH BENNETT,"--though
we should have thought that Mr. COWEN'S notes were sufficient by
themselves. Then we find the analytical Noter saying at the end of Part
I., "_The assertion may safely be made, that no poetical situation in
dramatic Oratorio, has been treated more successfully than the
foregoing._" Now, suppose this were a book of a new Opera, would it be
right and proper for the librettist who had adapted the subject from
SHAKSPEARE, for example, to give his opinion on the work of his
_collaborateur_? Wouldn't this be taking an unfair advantage of his
position? It doesn't matter in this case, as I perfectly agree with him,
but it is the principle, whatever it may be, for which I contend, and
sign myself,
Your Musical Representative, PETER PIPER.
* * * * *