Josephus's statement, that the strings of the Asor were touched or struck near the upper end, like those of the lute, and not near the bottom, like the harp.

c. Nabel (Nebel or Nevel), the psaltery or lute. This ancient stringed instrument was introduced into the temple by David, and soon became one of the most favourite accompanying instruments of the Levites. It was called Nebel (a bottle), because, like the ancient lute of the Greeks, it resembled in shape the hollow belly of a flattened bottle. It was made of wood, and had usually three strings, which were played with the fingers, like those of a guitar, each string producing four different notes by being stopped at different places. There was also a Nabel of ten strings, which had great resemblance to the Asor, and was frequently used, together with the smaller psaltery to which it served as a kind of bass (1 Chron. xvi. 5).

d. Minnim (or Minim).—This word occurs only once in the Bible, viz., in Ps. cl. 4, where the English translators have rendered it "stringed instrument." That it was a stringed instrument is, indeed, all we know about it, all opinions hazarded about its construction, and the manner in which it was played upon, being conjectures supported by no evidence or show of

reason.

e. Michol (or Mahol), another stringed instrument, of which we know little or nothing. Most writers on Hebrew music appear, however, to be of opinion that it was played with a bow like the old Viola da Gamba (English viol), as it is represented on different ancient sculptures and wood-carvings.

B. WIND INSTRUMENTS (Ughab). Of these, six different kinds are mentioned, viz. :

a. Chalil and Nekabhim, or flutes.It is certain that the Chalil was a small flute, similar in size and shape to the bombyx of the Greek, or the common flute à bec, which is now only seen in the hands of children, having been superseded in our orchestras by the German flute. On the nature and construction of the Nekabhim the opinions are divided, some supposing it to have been a larger species of chatil, whilst others seem to think that it was intoned by means of a mouthpiece, consisting of two vibrating reeds. If the latter opinion be correct, the instrument was

not a real flute, but a kind of hoboy or clarionet. Both species of instruments were made of a peculiar kind of hollow cane, the best of which grew near Orchomenon, where flute-making constituted an important branch of industry.

b. Keren (or horns). These were made of the horns of rams or oxen, resembled in shape and size the old cornett, and produced only two or three exceedingly loud and penetrating sounds, for which reason they were usually employed to announce the commencement of the service.

The

c. Shophar (or Takoa).-In the English and other versions this instrument has frequently been confounded with the next (Chatzotzeroth), and called a trumpet (Exod. xxix. 10; Jos. vi. 5, 6). It was, however, not a trumpet, but the most ancient kind of trombone; the difference between these two instruments consisting in this, that the tube of the ancient trumpet, as that of the one now in use, was throughout of the same width, whilst the tube of the shophar or trombone grew gradually wider towards the lower end. This difference of shape caused a corresponding difference of tone, that of the trombone being grand and majestic, whilst the sounds of the trumpet were more shrill and piercing. shophar was either straight or bent; both the Jews and Egyptians generally preferred the latter shape, for which reason the Greek translators call it kerotine, or bent horn. The division of this instrument into two separate parts is a comparatively modern invention. The ancient shophar consisted only of one piece; and, therefore, could produce only a limited number of sounds-viz., one fundamental natural sound (the lowest) and four or five harmonies (octave, fifth, third, and minor seventh). The Jews held the Shophar in high veneration, and used it only on occasions of great solemnity. It was to the sound of this instrument that God spoke the words of the first covenant on the top of Mount Sinai. At the sound of the trombones the walls of Jericho "fell down flat," and trombones are always mentioned as the instruments that shall waken those that sleep in their graves, and call them before the judgment-seat of the Eternal. (See Exod. xxix. 13; Joshua, vi. 4, 5; Lev. xxv. 9-16; Ps. xlvii. 5, and lxxxi. 4; also 2 Chron. xv. 14).

d. Chatzotzeroth (or Chatzootzeroh).-According to the description of Josephus, this instrument, which was a real trumpet, had a straight and narrow tube, not quite two feet long, with a small round mouthpiece at one end, and a wide bell at the other. In the Greek translation of the LXX. it is called salpinxas, and Pollux (lib. iv. cap. 9) asserts, that it was made of copper and iron. This, however, is evidently an error, for in Exodus, xxv. 36, it is distinctly stated that it was to be made of "one piece of silver." In the temple service, trumpets were only blown by priests of Aaron's family, and not by Levites.

e. Mashrokita (or Mastrachita). When it is stated in our version that Jubal "was the father of all such as handle the harp and the organ," it is plain that this cannot mean that he was the inventor of that most complicated and wonderful instrument, which fills our modern temples with its majestic sound. The Greeks applied the word organon to all kinds of wind instruments; and more particularly to those on which several different sounds could be produced simultaneously. The most simple kind of wind instrument on which this could be effected, was a row of tubes (reeds) of different dimensions, which were made to sound by an artificial current of air. According to Augustinus and other ancient writers, there was an instrument of this kind in the temple as early as in the fourth century before Christ, and it is possible that it had been in use a considerable time before. This instrument evidently owed its origin to that most primitive of all wind instruments, to the sound of which our itinerent athletes are still accustomed to perform their feats of strength and agility-viz., the ordinary Pandean pipes, which are blown by the mouth. It is easily to be comprehended how the perfection of this instrument may gradually have led to the construction of a rude kind of organ. The playing upon a row of Pandean pipes required a constant motion either of the head or hands; as this must in the end become fatiguing, it is probable that some inventive mind, at an early time, hit upon the idea of placing the pipes upon a box, into which the wind was blown through a small tube. Those pipes which were not to sound had then to be stopped with the fingers. As the

number of pipes increased, they could no longer be stopped by means of the fingers alone, nor the breath of man produce a sufficient quantity of wind to make them sound. Hence arose the necessity of inventing artificial contrivances, both for the production of a greater quantity of wind and the regulation of its admission to the pipes. The one led to the use of bellows, and the other to that of slides and valves, opened and closed by means of levers (keys). This was probably the utmost degree of perfection to which the Jews had brought their Mashrokita; for those improvements which led to the construction of hydraulic organs, are, by common consent, ascribed to Ktesibus, of Alexandria, who lived about 120 years B.C. Some writers have, indeed, expressed the opinion, that another instrument which also stood in the temple, and which was called

f. Magrepha (or, better, Migrepha), was a real hydraulic organ; but this supposition is based on no authority. All we know with certainty of this instrument is, that it was employed to summon the Levites to their place on the singing stage. The Talmudists

state, that it stood in a subterranean vault under the temple, and a great many fables are told of the extraordinary powerfulness of its tone. According to some of the later rabbines, whose opinion, however, is not worth much, the Magrepha consisted of an oblong box, ten yards long, the upper side of which had ten holes, in which were placed ten reed pipes of different dimensions.

C. INSTRUMENTS OF PERCUSSION.Of these favourite instruments, the following four kinds were most in use:

a. Maanim, which might be translated ball-drum, consisted of a round or oval cylinder, made either of wood or brass. A string or wire was stretched across one of the open ends, from which depended a number of hollow metal balls, which produced a kind of jingling noise when the instrument was shaken or struck with the hand.

b. Toph or Adufe (timbrel), a very ancient pulsatile instrument, and, like the preceding one, a great favourite with the Hebrew women. It consisted of a circular wooden frame, with a skin or membrane stretched over one of the open ends, as on a tambourine, and rings or small bells placed all round. It had a handle attached to it, by which

it was held with the left hand, and alternately shaken or struck with the right. The Jews received this instrument from the Egyptians, who ascribed to it the power of driving away the evil spirit, whom they called Typho or Topho. From this circumstance it probably derived its name.

c. Theltselim. Common cymbals, consisting of two metal disks, which were struck against each other.

d. Methriloth, consisted of a frame, to which were attached a number of bells, which were either struck singly with a mallet, or caused to sound simultaneously by shaking the frame.

Let us now see what conjectures the above description of the instruments, mostly in use amongst the Hebrews, enables us to form of the nature and character of their music. Here it must strike the reader, as an interesting circumstance, that those instruments were quite capable of forming a combination fully answering the idea of our modern orchestra. There were bow instruments, lutes, small harps, and flutes, to perform melodious passages upon; large harps, and deep-toned horns, to sus tain the bass; sonorous trumpets to impart energy and brilliancy to the music, and loud-sounding instruments of percussion to mark the rhythm. It is, however, a different and more dif ficult question, whether the Hebrews did, indeed, employ their instruments in the way in which we combine them in our orchestra, so as to produce that variety of expression which the difference of tone and character impart to our modern iustrumental music. Several important circumstances appear to make such a supposition improbable.

In the first place, the instruments of the Hebrews, although possessing all the characteristic features of those which we employ, were almost all still so imperfect in their construction, and so limited in their capabilities, as to make the execution of extensive melodious strains, or interesting harmonious accompaniments, a matter of impossibility. Of most of those instruments, counterparts are still existing, and in use amongst oriental nations; but, although it may be reasonably supposed that they have undergone at least some improvement since the time of David and Solomon, still the descriptions we have of them show that they are altogether unfit for the production of extensive and connected

melodious strain, or any harmonious accompaniment in the modern sense of the word.

In the second place, it appears from different passages in the Bible, and the superscriptions of several psalms, that the Hebrews were guided in their employment of different kinds of instruments, not so much by a consideration of the combined effect which might arise from their simultaneous employment, as rather by a consideration of the individual character of the instru ments employed, some of which seemed to them more suitable for this kind of music, and others for that; whilst all were made subservient to the singing, which formed the chief and predominant part of all their music, and which the instruments were merely intended to support or relieve. It may be reasonably supposed, that where only one class of instruments is mentioned in the superscription of a psalm (e. g., "upon Nehiloth," "on Neginoth," &c.) it was intended, that this psalm should be accompanied upon no other. Of a real orchestral accompaniment, in which different instruments were employed, with a view to their combined effect, no trace is to be found anywhere. When several kinds of instruments are mentioned as being used simultaneously, we always find that they belong to the same class, with the exception of the pulsatile instruments, of which one or the other appears to have been employed in every musical performance.

Of the internal character of the ancient Hebrew music we know, indeed, very little. We sometimes meet with this superscription" A Psalm upon Alamoth and Sheminith," which, as we shall see further on, has refe rence to two different classes of voices. This leads to the question - Was real harmonious part-singing known to, or practised by, the Jews? Certainly not. The "virgin (or boy's) part," which is indicated by the word Alamoth, and which is identical with what we call soprano, or canto, was accompanied by the men, singing the same melody an octave lower (upon Sheminith), and to this kind of accompaniment the instruments, probably, were confined also, perhaps with the occasional intermixture of a fifth or a fourth. The intervals of the third and sixth were not yet known, far less that of a minor seventh. As to the melodies, it is almost certain that they were based exclusively upon

the diatonic scale; for the enharmonic scale is an invention of much later times; whilst the chromatic scale, whose age may, perhaps, reach to the times of David, was prohibited by the Lacedemonians, amongst whom it was invented, soon after it had come into

use.

In order to remove one of the chief obstacles which prevent us from arriving at a more certain and definite knowledge of the nature of the ancient Hebrew music-viz., the absolute want of every trace of a musical notation, it has been supposed that the accents of the written Hebrew language served, at the same time, as musical characters or notes. Thus, it is stated in the above-mentioned work, Shilte Haggibborim, that "these accents were much more convenient for the notation of artificial song than even Guido's system of solmisative, inasmuch as a single Hebrew accent indicated a whole musical phrase."

If this was really the case, it would be a proof rather of the imperfection, than the perfection, of the ancient Hebrew music; for it must be evident, that a language which can be represented by hieroglyphics, to which such a musical notation might be compared, cannot have arrived at such a state of perfection and richness, as another which requires a special character (letter) for every articulate sound. It is, moreover, a question still to be decided, whether the Hebrew accents now in use are not an invention of later times. Many respectable philologists doubt that the ancient Hebrews employed any accents at all, and Nathan (Hist. of Music) distinctly asserts, that the latter were introduced as late as the fifth century after Christ, by a certain Rabbi, Aaron Ben Asher. However this may be, we here give a list of those accents which have been considered as serving in the stead of special musical characters. There are eighteen of them, the signs of which are to be found in every Hebrew grammar, and

which are distinguished by the following names:-1, Silluk, with the SophParuk; 2, Merca Mapachatus, which has a high and low sound, differing at least a semitone; 3, Atnach; 4, Bbhia Gereshatur, which has two acute sounds; 5, Psik Shalsheleb; 6, Sarka Postpositions; 7, Tiphcha, the foremost; 8, Paser; 9, Psik Kadmatum ; 10, Psik Mapachatum; 11, Merka; 12, the lower Munach; 13, the upper Munach; 14, Mabach; 15, Kadma; 16, Tipcha Tonicus; 17, Jerach; 18, Sarka (the "fellow-servant ").

In the Musurgia Universalis of the learned, but credulous, Father Kircher, explanations are given of the manner in which this supposed musical notation of the Hebrews is to be deciphered; but up to this day, no Jew has been able to sing a psalm according to Kircher's directions; and almost all deeper thinkers on this subject are agreed, that if those accents really had a musical signification, it was not to indicate the exact pitch and duration of sounds, but merely to facilitate an expressive and harmonious declamation, for which purpose, in modern languages also, accents and other characters are frequently employed. Only one writer goes still further than Father Kircher; this is the French historian, Pierre Bonnet, who asserts, that the ancient Hebrews actually used a special kind of musical characters resembling those which we employ. He states this on the authority of a certain Abbé Fleury, who told him that he had himself seen ancient Hebrew manuscripts containing fragments of melodies noted in such characters, and possessing considerable musical merit. It is only too probable that the Abbé made a great mistake as to the age of those manuscripts he spoke of; or, like Father Kircher, allowed himself to be persuaded by some enthusiastic rabbi, whose exaggerated ideas of the incomparable beauty and perfection of the music of their forefathers, no argument is able to moderate.

GEORGE VILLIERS, the first Duke of Buckingham, was born on the 28th of August, 1592. His mother, a person of great ability and knowledge of the world, afforded him the first rudiments of education. He was afterwards sent to school till he was thirteen years of age. At this period his attention was chiefly directed to music and the French language. At eighteen he was sent to France, but displayed little ability, and even less desire for improvement. On his return he again was domesticated with his mother. She probably never omitted the inculcation of those lessons of worldly pru. dence in which his extraordinary and rapid elevation may have had their chief origin. He himself soon perceived that his future advancement was more likely to be obtained by the grace and beauty of his person than the cultivation of his mind. For this reason it has been quaintly said of him, "He did not addict himself to morose and sullen bookishness, but his chief exercises were dancing, fencing, and vaulting." He was early brought under the notice of James I., at a theatrical exhibition at Apthorpe, near Cambridge. The King was perfectly fascinated by him, and instructed his friend, Sir John Graham, to adopt scveral plans to render as attractive as possible the graces with which nature had endowed him. It has been observed, "that no reason for the King's choice appeared, but handsomeness; for the love the King showed was as amorously conveyed as if he had mistaken the sex and thought him a lady." Indeed all authorities written at the time, and subsequently, agree, that to his personal beauty alone he was indebted for the impression he made upon the King, and which ultimately, but with great rapidity, led to the surprising position he was permitted to attain.

The Queen had perceived the favourable impression that Buckingham

had made upon the King. She well knew that, under any circumstances, his mind and habits required a close connexion with some favoured subject. She had long disliked the Earl of Somerset, who had hitherto swayed the monarch's acts. Under the guidance of Archbishop Abbot, she adopted the means that were deemed necessary to supply the place of one favourite by the attractions of another. No representation of the power that Buckingham rapidly exercised over the King, could sufliciently display the debasing acts which one party practised, or the humiliating childishness of the other. The correspondence that passed between them can alone reveal the prostration of position and mind to which James humbled himself. And except for the indulgence of the most debasing propensities, it is hard to understand that any mind, however mean, could grovel so low as Buckingham to attain advancement, even the highest which kings could profligately bestow.

This correspondence is full of the most obscene language; and surely there cannot be conceived any inconsistency more disgusting than between such compositions and those devotional tracts which the King published for national edification—indeed for the improvement of Europe, for, by the order of James, they were translated into Latin and French. We cannot defile these pages with any extracts.

Dr. Welwood has well described these letters. He says, the King, for the most part, called Buckingham his "dear child and gossip," and his "dear child and gossip Steiny," and subscribing himself his "dear dad and gossip ;" sometimes his "dear dad and Stuart;" and once, when he sends him partridges, his "dear dad and purveyor;" and when Buckingham replies, the termination of his letter is, "Your Majesty's most humble slave and dog, Steiny." In one of James's letters he tells the

* Sir A. Wotton's Court of James I. † Osborne's Memoirs of James I. p. 534.