Organs Built for the Royal Palace of Whitehall (Concluded) Author(s): Andrew Freeman Source: The Musical Times, Vol. 52, No. 825 (Nov. 1, 1911), pp. 720-721 Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/906454 Accessed: 22-12-2015 19:48 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Musical Times Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Musical Times.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 155.247.166.234 on Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:48:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 720 THE MUSICAL TIMES.-NOVEMBER I, I9II.

ORGANS BUILT FOR THE ROYAL PALACE exactly with the style of the loft. For all this it blends OF WHITEHALL. excellently with the main case, the two cases with the to form a most admirable ANDREW FREEMAN. gallery combining BY composition. (Concludedy rom SeftlemberNo., A. 587.) The smaller case does not appear to have contained Two other organs remain to be mentioned, since any speaking pipes since it has been at Stanford. On they are connected by traditionwith the Palace-one, this point more anon. it will be seen, quite erroneously. The mouths of the pipes in the three towers of the Rimbault says3' that the Harris organ in the church main case are rounded and somewhat deeply recessed. of St. Michael's, Paternoster Royal, E.C., came from All the rest of the pipes (including the dummies) have St. Anne's, Soho, to which church it was presented by leaf-shaped mouths. William III. So far this is correct,but Rimbault is The interiorof the organ is a grievous wreck. The wrong in adding that 'it was formerlyin one of the keyboard, with its black naturals and white sharps, is royal apartments at Whitehall.' It was never at dismantled. Some of the stop-knobs are broken off Whitehall, but at the Queen's Chapel, St. James's and the front boards of the wind-chest are lacking, Palace (now generally known as Marlborough House leaving the pallets exposed to view. (Pallet-springs Chapel), and the date of its removal was not 1691, but and leather are in surprisinglygood condition.) Of 1699.32 The instrumentwas destroyed in 1893. the interiorpipes only one now remains in its place-a The other organ, that at the churchof St. Nicholas, mournful-looking'Bass Trumpet,' mitred over so as Stanford-on-Avon,Northamptonshire, deserves some- not to project above the top of the case. In 19o8 I what fullertreatment, in spite of the fact that, so far found a large number of pipes scattered over the as is at present known, there is no documentary gallery floor, most of the metal ones having been evidence to connect it with Whitehall. The indirect trodden flat, but by 191o these had been gathered evidence is, however, quite strong, and the traditions together into heaps, some of the smaller 'oddments' are not only persistentbut date back quite a hundred findingrefuge in boxes. years. The method of blowing the organ is (or rather was) Before speculating upon its historyit will be as well peculiar. The bellows lever, placed vertically, is to describe the organ as I found it in August, 19o8, hinged at its lower extremity near the floor, the and in August, 1910. The church is an interesting handle being at the upper end. Just below the place 14th century building which has fortunatelyescaped where it is grasped by the hand, this lever is con- the perils of' Restoration.' Amongst its treasures are nected with another one which is attached to the some old oak fittingsin the chancel, some ancient and feeders, and works horizontally. The action of the remarkable stained glass, and the unique and beautiful hand in blowing is thus to and fro instead of up organ-case. The last-named stands in a loft at the and down. west end of the church, in front of the tower arch. There is but one manual, whose compass is fromone The loft,which rests upon two simple stone columns, note below CC (that is, in all probability,from GG) to and the organ-case harmonize so well that they seem E, fifty-fournotes. There are no pedals. The names to dominate the interiorwith calm and stately dignity. of the stops-some of themcuriously spelt-are written The effectmust have been really splendid when the on paper labels pasted on the stop jambs. The list organ appeared in the fullglory of its original colouring follows : -some of which has lasted to the present time. The case is of deal and is a double one, but the Left. Right. portion in front of the gallery is merely a screen to OP : DIAPASON FIFTENTH the player. O BS TEIRCE The main case consists of three towers of pipes and two intermediateflats. The central tower(three sides B TRUMPET ST DIAPASON of an octagon) contains nine pipes, the other two TR TRUMPET TWELFTH (semi-circular) fivepipes each, while the intermediate CORNET PRINCIPEL flatsused to hold thirteen pipes each, but a few are now missing. Many of these pipes are embossed with various patterns,and most of them are embellished Over the keyboards is to be seen the following with gilt, whilst the few plain ones amongst them have pencilled inscription-' Jeremiah Daniel painting the mouths. Each side gilded of the towers is supported church June Ioth 1766.' This seems to point to the by a cherub, and the centre tower by two. Above organ having been out of use even at that date, for the central tower is a cushion,painted red, with gilded surelyhad therebeen an organist this 'unholy scribble' ribbons hanging down on eitherside. On this cushion would have been obliterated,even supposing that the rests a mitre,coloured blue and picked out with gold, said Jeremiahwould have dared to perpetrateit. It is whilst above this is a gilt crown, the inner side of certainly a matter to be devoutly thankful for that which is red. The side towers are each surmounted neither the gentleman with the doubly prophetic name by a quaint littleangel blowing a trumpet. The carving nor any one else was appointed to furbishup the case. of the friezesand pipe-shades is extremelygood, and Rimbault33 has this to say as to its history:- the panelling at the sides is bold and effective. 'Nichols, in his " History of Leicestershire,"tells us The lower case consists of three compartments of that Stamford(sic) Church is decorated with a hand- wooden dummy pipes-a central flat of eleven pipes, some organ, that formerlybelonged to the banqueting and two flat towerscontaining three-seventeen in all. room, Whitehall, which by order of Cromwell was Nearly all of these pipes are decorated in keeping taken down and sold. It was intended, he says, to be with the embossed pipes in the main case, while the placed in the Chapel of Magdalen College, Oxford, pipe-shades are covered with a cream-coloured sten- but, being too small, was purchased by the Cave cilled pattern which shows up well, and makes up for family. Dr. Bloxam"4 suggests that it was offeredin the absence of carving. It is quite obvious that this exchange for the Magdalen organ, which seems more smaller case was not part of the original scheme, and than probable.' that when it was added it was designed to harmonize

31 and 33 Hopkins and Rimbault, p. 96. Hopkins Rimbault, p. 129. 34 ' 32 'The King's Musick,' p. 433. In his Registers of Magdalen College, Oxford.'

This content downloaded from 155.247.166.234 on Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:48:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE MUSICAL TIMES.-NOVEMBER I, 1911. 721

To this Mr. Sandon, the late Vicar of Stanford,in a seems to have been added just previous to the year pamphlet, adds 'that it was built to the order of 1636. It would, therefore,be the more easily discon- Charles I., and that the date of its removal to Stanford nected and discarded when it passed intoprivate hands, was 1649 or 1650.' (See the second volume of Mr. the remainder still being a complete one-manual A. G. Hill's splendid work on 'Organ Cases.') instrument; whilst at the Restoration, when an instru- According to another tradition it was given to Sir ment was urgentlyneeded, and a new one was out of Thomas Cave, of Stanford,by Charles II., but neither the question at so short a notice, the fact that it then of these traditions is backed up by documentary contained only a single manual would not stand in the evidence. (Nichols's 'History' dates fromc. 1815.) way of its being set up in the Chapel and used till a So much forlegend. Let us turn once more to the more efficientinstrument could be constructed to take organ itself. its place. Attention is first drawn to the crown and mitre There remains one thing more to be said before which surmount the central tower. There are many leaving this question of the Choir organ. It will be organs scattered up and down the countrywhere these remembered that a new loftwas ordered forthe Chapel symbols of temporal and spiritual power are to be in 1663. What is more likely than that the old one found side by side, but I have never yet seen or heard went to Stanford withthe organ ? If this were so it of one where the supremacy of the crown is so openly explains not only why the Choir case and gallery proclaimed-one might almost say flaunted-as here. match each other so exactly while they harmonize so Surely it had a political significance, and we are well with the main case, but also why the whole justified in inferring(I) that the organ undoubtedly composition which formssuch a splendid featureof the belonged to an English monarch, and (2) that it dates interiorat Stanford is quite unlike any of the other froma period when the royal claim to supremacy over internal fittingsof the church. In addition, it fixes the church was of paramount importance. the date of the Choir case, or screen, at just previous A comparison with other pre-Restoration organs to 1636. gives very little help towards fixing this date, because On the whole I believe that the balance of evidence only some eight or ten of these are now in existence: is strongly in favour of the view that the Stanford moreover,they differwidely in design and detail, and organ and gallery came fromWhitehall Chapel in the in only about three of them is their date established year 1663, or very shortly after. beyond controversy. All that can be said on this As to why the organ should have gone to Stanford, point, then, is that Mr. Hill's statement that 'the it should be said that the friendshipbetween Charles whole dates fromabout the year 1625 ' can be accepted II. and Sir Thomas Cave is not the only link between with the reservations that the main case is older than Stanfordand Whitehall. Archbishop Laud was for a the smaller case, and that there is nothing in its time Vicar of the parish, and if this fact had been design or details which is inconsistentwith a date as recalled by the King and Sir Thomas, it must have early as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, while the struck both of them that no more fittingmemorial presence of crown and mitregive at leastsome measure could have been devised than the erection in his old of probabilityto the theorythatitwas built forWhitehall Church of this organ, to whose tones he had so often in the days of the Virgin Queen. listened at Whitehall. One can picture,in imagination, Moreover this same device points with some degree the shade of the Primate pacing the flags of his of certaintyto the Chapel rather than the Banqueting deserted church, his head bowed as if in thought, Room as the building in which it was firstplaced, pausing now andagain to gazeup at the familiarfeatures though it may have been removed to the latter place to ofthe organ whichhe had knownso well when the voices make room for a new instrumentin the Chapel. If it of both were upliftedto the praise and gloryof God in had been in the Banqueting Room in the time of the Chapel of the King's Palace at Whitehall. Charles I. it would have been taken down in the early years of the Commonwealth,for we may be quite sure that no organ would have been allowed to remain in Cburcbanb Organ flutic. that building which, we know, was used for the A NEW BOOK ON THE ORGAN.* preachingservices of the Parliament. Ontheotherhand, ALCOCK. if it had remained in the Chapel till the death of the BY W. G. King it would be the organ which was 'embezled' Most of us rememberwith gratitude Rinck's 'Organ during the Commonwealth,and restored to the Chapel School,' which has been the beginning of many a through the instrumentalityof John Playford at the successful organist's career. Best's 'Art of Organ beginning of the reign of Charles II. In this event it Playing,' Archer's 'Organ School,' Stainer's admirable could not have been set up at Stanford until the year Primer, and the lately published work by Professor 1662 or 1663, when its place at Whitehall was filled,as Buck, all have as their common object the advance- we have seen, by a new organ built by Father Smith. ment of the fascinatingart. Turning to the practical One weak place in the argument must be side of organ building we find the monumental work pointed out. It will be rememberedthat the Whitehall by Hopkins and Rimbault, and the splendid volumes Chapel organ contained a 'Chaire' organ in 1636, published in America by Audsley; after which may which the Stanford organ lacks, but when we recall be mentioned such works as that lately issued the vicissitudes throughwhich the organ passed-that by Messrs. Lewis, Robertson's 'Practical treatise it was removed fromits loftand taken,in all probability, on organ building,' and that valuable little book 'A to a private house, where the Choir organ and its case Dictionary of organ stops,' by J. I. Wedgwood. It mighthave been discarded35 (how many privatehouses would seem as though the subject must be practically of the period could have found room for the complete exhausted by such a list. But the result of much fine double organ case ?) or, what is more likely,that the teaching has lead to a demand fora clearer enunciation of the instrument Choir case was kept merelyas a screen forthe player-- of the rules by which alone mastery it will probably be admitted that the 'double organ' may be secured. The secret of true organ touch difficultyis not an insuperable one, nor sufficientto with all its subtleties was known to comparativelyfew, overthrowthe theory. but the little leaven has been working and quietly Moreover, as has been already pointed out when spreading, and we are now, with modern refinements dealing with the Chapel instrument,the Choir organ * 'Organ Playing: its Technique and Expression,' by A. Eaglefield 35 In which event thefseudo Choir case would date from166o. Hull, Mus. Doc. Oxon., F.R C.O. Augener, Ltd., London.

This content downloaded from 155.247.166.234 on Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:48:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions