An affair of honour: 'Tudor Church Music,' the ousting of Richard Terry, and a trust vindicated.
The original editor of [CM was Richard Runciman Terry, whose very appointment provoked some barbed responses. Subsequently he was assisted by an editorial committee consisting of Percy Buck, E. H. Fellowes, Alick Ramsbotham and Sylvia Townsend Warner.(2) Much has been written about how Terry came to be removed as editor as soon as [CM began to appear in print: such writings have tended to be sympathetic to Terry.(3) However, correspondence preserved among the TCM files reveals the dramatic train of events that led to Terry's resignation as editor, and its aftermath. What the files do not reveal is the fact that the Carnegie Trust's original faith in the project was eventually vindicated, albeit after several decades.
TCM was first formally mooted in a paper circulated to members of the Carnegie Trust's Music Sub-Committee(4) for discussion at a meeting of the Trust's Executive Committee on 26 February 1916. This paper, `Publication of Music Manuscripts in British Museum', was discussed by the Carnegie Executive, which in turn produced a report of the meeting entitled `Publication of Tudor and Elizabethan Music in the British Museum'. The gist of both documents is summed up in `The Trustees' Preface' to each volume of TCM, where in the second paragraph they state that they were informed that a number of well-known students of music had begun the great task of recovering from the archives of Cathedral and other libraries the sacred music which was composed during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and they agreed that it would be in accordance with their policy to give financial assistance towards the recovery and wide publication of this unique store of musical treasure.
In approving the scheme in principle, the Trustees mentioned Taverner, Merbecke, Sheppard, Tye, Whyte, Parsons, Farrant, Tallis and Byrd as composers whose music should appear in the series, and they suggested Terry as editor. (A letter dated 12 April 1916 from A. L. Hetherington, Secretary to the Trust, to W. H. Hadow, as a leading member of the musical community,(5) suggests that Hadow had already sounded out Terry.) The Clarendon Press was proposed as publisher, with a guarantee against loss of 500[pounds] per annum for five years. An octavo series of popular offprints would be established to offset anticipated losses on the library edition. Terry was to be offered 500[pounds] for five years' work.
The final copy of this report was circulated to members of the Music SubCommittee on 19 April 1916, who were invited to put forward constructive proposals. Opinions were sought from the likes of H. C. Colles, music editor of The Times, and C. S. Terry, the Bach scholar and Professor of History at the University of Aberdeen (and no relation of Richard). The Sub-Committee's proposals were circulated for the Executive meeting on 30 May 1916. The formal offer of the editorship was made to Richard Terry on 17 June 1916, and he accepted on the 25th. His half-yearly report for June-December 1916, dated 13 February 1917, mentions a series of twenty volumes (in the event, there were ten) to be published within five years. The decision to support the project was formally ratified by the Executive on 24 February.(6) Meanwhile, in a letter to Terry of the 15th, Hetherington stated that the Clarendon Press was now formally to be approached.(7) In the end, the volumes appeared under the imprint of Oxford University Press itself rather than of its scholarly and usually monographic imprint, the Clarendon Press.
Word of the new initiative had penetrated the wartime world of early music, and there was much lobbying for participation in the project. File 224 alone is given over to the desperate epistolary attempts of S. Royle Shore to gain a foothold in TCM, and to the tactics employed in seeing him off.(8) He first wrote expressing interest on 1 March 1917, sending copies of his own editions of early music and enclosing prospectuses. Hetherington wrote to Hadow on 20 April 1917 saying that Shore `would add little or nothing to the work, and moreover was not an altogether desirable person to enlist'. A subsequent missive of eleven pages from Shore on 28 April referred to a feud with Terry, and this provoked much derision from Hetherington, Hadow and Terry himself.
At this point, Percy Buck took it upon himself to wade in. His letter to Hetherington of 11 May 1917 should be read carefully in view of subsequent events not so many years later involving Terry:
it has come to my knowledge ... that a Mr Royle Shore has been trying hard
to stir up opposition to the connection of Dr Terry with the work ... So I am
making bold, at the risk of being thought officious, to write and beg you to
ignore Mr Shore and all his works ... Shore ... has been written off by his
enemies and friends alike as entirely a bore and more than half a charlatan
... One of his chief guns is a Mr Collins(9)--a poor little Grubstreet
man quite without value ... Another is Mr Barclay Squire,(10) known to all
who have worked at the period as a quack, and as rather a shameless one to
boot ... Shore ... mustn't be allowed to undermine ... the confidence of the
Trustees in Dr Terry ... there is no one alive at the moment who, for the
actual and practical purpose now in hand, is within measurable distance of
Nearly a year later Shore was still agitating for details of [CM so that it would not overlap with his own Cathedral Series and to avoid `public controversy' (13 February 1918). Hetherington, the recipient of this latest letter, showed it to Terry, who in a reply of 19 February advised against giving Shore any specific details. Terry continued damningly:
The man is out for mischief. He is entirely unscrupulous, and his pretended
zeal for the welfare of Tudor music is only camouflage to cover the chagrin
of a disappointed candidate for a job ... He represents his "Cathedral Series"
as a going concern which will be damaged by our Edition. The fact is that it
has not been a success:--that the MSS of two of the longest of these were lent
him for a specific purpose by Ramsbotham and myself:--that without our
knowledge or consent he has published them as his own work.
Hetherington replied blandly to Shore on 27 February 1918, and Shore finally admitted defeat in a letter of 2 March.
At the same time, none other than Charles Villiers Stanford became involved, writing to support the maligned William Barclay Squire for the editorship of TCM on 22 May 1917. Hetherington's dead-bat response on the 24th provoked an irritable reply from Stanford the following day, but it is questionable whether Stanford's heart was really in the controversy, since Hetherington's emollient letter of the 28th drew no further reply. These were not the only examples of individuals lobbying for editorial appointments.
Already, the straws of Terry's removal from TCM were in the wind. Unwittingly, he initiated his own downfall by suggesting an informal editorial committee under his control, to consist of Charles Wood, Godfrey Arkwright, Fellowes, Ramsbotham, Warner, Buck and Sir John Stainer's daughter Cecilia (they were later joined by Herbert Howells).(11) This was reported by Hadow in a letter to Hetherington, who responded on 20 April 1917 with anxieties about Terry's business sense. From here until the end of 1918, much correspondence was expended upon the remuneration of the editors and upon Terry's expenses. By 1919 (file 226) Hetherington was fretting about Terry's credibility as editor-in-chief and was thrashing around for a figurehead general editor such as Squire or Stanford, although nothing came of these exertions.
Throughout 1921 (file 231), dissatisfaction was expressed about Terry's `distance' from his fellow editors. Indeed, on 6 May 1920 Buck, Fellowes, Ramsbotham and Warner had formally become the Editorial Committee ('conceivably Terry will not like this', wrote the Trust's new Secretary, J. M. Mitchell, to H. T. Gerrans on 11 May 1920). Moreover, there was dissatisfaction with Terry's erratic accounting. Mitchell also wrote to Hadow on 21 September 1921 complaining that Byrd's motets `Aye verum corpus' and `Sacerdotes Domini', which were desired for the octavo [CM, had already been published (sixteen years previously) by the firm of Cary in Terry's own series Downside Motets.
File 236 reveals how the situation came to the boil. The crucial and most astonishing letter is from Buck to Terry dated 2June 1922, but, extraordinarily, it is misdated and was in fact written in 1921. Nevertheless it is appropriately placed in this file as a necessary prelude to the removal of Terry as editor of [CM during 1922. Though long, it is essential to give Buck's letter in full. It is explicitly eloquent concerning Terry's editorial method or lack of it, but, read in conjunction with Buck's letter in file 224 about Shore, it is implicitly eloquent about Buck himself.
My dear Terry,
I am sure you will remember how, just a year ago, we sat under the trees in the park, and I tried to save a strained situation by telling you that we four thought your unbusinesslike ways were letting us all down. A few days later I wrote you a letter--the straightest I have ever written to anyone--saying plainly that your "reputation" was perilously near zero, that you were hazarding that of your colleagues, and that you must pull yourself together. You answered that letter saying how you "appreciated my frankness" and how all things were to be explained by the fact that everybody was in a conspiracy against you. When we met, and again at the next Committee, you said you realized that "legends die hard", but that you had a whole year for your Taverner Volume and you would show by that how you could "nail a lie to the door".
I am really sorry to have to write another frank letter. After a year you hand in to the Committee a bunch of MS as your Final Text of the Taverner Volume, and you insist that, though the text may be "checked" it is not to be "criticized", and is to go out as your volume. I must point out a few things about this MS--supposed to be ready (after checking) for the printer.
(1) It is incomplete. This you admitted, and excused on various grounds: but after what had happened a year ago incompleteness is quite inexcusable. You even admitted that some had actually not yet been scored.
(2) A considerable part of the work is not even copied by you. It is someone else's transcript, full of errors, of another copy which in turn was so inaccurate as to be quite out of court as the basis of a critical edition.
(3) You admitted your own scores were made from copied parts and that you had not been yourself to the originals, yet when the rotographs were sent you make no use of them at all.
(4) So far from being complete the following are a few of the faults to be found--
(a) No words to Creeds in two Masses.
(b) Words to top part only in one Mass and one Gloria.
(c) Three passages in one Mass not even scored, just empty gaps of half a page.
(d) In one [ILLEGIBLE WORD] one part omitted altogether, a 3-part opening being called 2-part. (e) The "musica ficta" is clearly wrong in many elementary cases: e.g. a repeated passage being inconsistent with its predecessors, etc. (f) So many errors in copying that in one movement of a Mass there had to be over 70 corrections. (g) So many divergencies from the original that in one movement over 60 have been noted. (h) My missing tenor parts were done at great speed for you, so as not to hold you up; and at your request had no words. I just tried to spot entries and fill up with adequate notes to be [blank] after criticism. You have merely copied in the stuff as I w rote it, without words, without any elementary adaptation (such as 3, J for O to preserve the vocal line) without any examination-I have found at a cursory glance obvious errors and missed entries.
You must forgive my saying the whole thing is most discreditable. It is your Final Text and would at once be pronounced, by any competent scholar, a disgrace to English scholarship.
You have spoken incessantly of your reputation, and you must realize now that other people's reputations are of some importance. This Taverner volume must be rigorously overhauled by the Committee and must go out as their work; and considering the way you have let things slide I cannot imagine that, in common honesty, you will any longer wish to call yourself Editor-in-Chief. You know, and you know that we know, that from the beginning you have been no Editor in the true sense at all, that all the real work that has been done for this Edition has been done by others, and that your Committee's chief job all along has been to get any honest work out of you at all. To us four this whole publication is an affair of honour; honour to the Trustees, honour to the traditions of clean scholarship (which includes honour to each other) and honour to the great names we have undertaken to resurrect. I believe if you reflect now on your dealings with us from the beginning you will fail to find one single incident which even hints that you have realized that there is any obligation of honour attached to anyone.
You have now several courses open to you. Of moderate courses there is the possibility of your coming into line as an equal among equals, abandoning all claim to any sort of headship. If you think this is risking your reputation, you can attribute this step to over work or ill-health, and none of your colleagues will give you away in public or private. If you prefer extremes, you can, of course, resign, and the work will be completed for the Trustees, with far less labour and unpleasantness, by those who are now doing it all in your name. The only other extreme I can see is that you should demand the resignation of the four of us, in which case the matter does not end, as we cannot afford to let it end, in a clean cut. It would involve a combined protest against, and a full account of your behaviour, to Hadow, to the Trustees, and to the public. Unpleasant as this would be--and, frankly, we want to avoid it--you will realize we should have no other choice in self-defence. We should only have to demand a report from any scholar on any of the MSS you have handed to us as your Final Text for your name to become a by-word amongst scholars for all time.
I do not think I have ever had so unpleasant a task as the writing of this letter. We are very old friends, and it was with very great reluctance that I was so outspoken with you last year; but you promised me then that your methods should completely change, and as an old friend I believed you. It puzzles me past all comprehension how you can allow yourself to fall so low in the estimation of those who, in the face of difficulties I have fully explained to you, have been trying hard for years to save your reputation in spite of yourself.
Percy C. Buck
According to minute 22 of the Music Sub-Committee meeting of 4 May 1922 Fellowes was claiming that Terry had not been in touch with his fellow editors for twelve months, that he had done no editorial work, and that his Taverner manuscript had had to be entirely re-edited; furthermore, he urged that Terry's name should not appear on the title-page. Fellowes had been asked to send the Trust's Secretary a letter setting out these problems, but no letter arrived. The Committee telegrammed Fellowes, who appeared later at the meeting with Buck and Ramsbotham. Buck's letter of 2 dune 1921 was read out. It still reflected the situation ten months later, and illness was no excuse, since Terry had been doing plenty of adjudicating. The other members of the Editorial Committee would not have him back. The Music Sub-Committee then decided to cancel Terry's honorarium after the end of June 1922. Mindful that Terry was then severely ill in Ireland with double pneumonia, Mitchell delayed sending the letter of dismissal until 31 May. Mrs Terry replied from Ireland (Tullyglass, Ballymena, County Antrim) to Mitchell in another misdated letter headed `21' June (but it was received by Mitchell on the 5th), stating that Terry was still too ill to receive such a letter so she was withholding it, and protesting that he had almost completed work on a Byrd volume. After a further exchange of correspondence Mrs Terry wrote again on 24 June complaining about `almost a brutal letter' of dismissal but saying that she would advise Terry to resign through ill-health. His letter of resignation was dated 25 June 1922. On the 30th, Mitchell wrote to Mrs Terry asking her to return the letter of dismissal, and to Terry accepting his resignation, which was in turn formally accepted by the Music Sub-Committee on 13 July. Terry had offered to continue to help with editing, but on 3 August Mitchell wrote to say that the work must hasten on, and Terry should recuperate. In the middle of all this, King George V accepted the dedication of [CM, acknowledged by Mitchell on 12 May 1922.
So ended an extraordinary episode, dealt with in a very British way in public as encapsulated in the evasions of `The Trustees' Preface':
The work of rediscovery, trans-notation, and editing, was at first placed
in the hands of Dr R. R. Terry ... Dr Terry later on, finding the work beyond
the scope of one editor, gathered round him an Editorial Committee ...
Pressure of work, resulting in protracted ill-health, and culminating in a
breakdown, necessitated an immediate withdrawal from many of his activities,
and the work passed into the hands of the colleagues whom he had gathered
Only the first three volumes of the ten carried Terry's name: the first volume of Byrd, which, as TCM Vol.2, was hurried out during 1922 to be available for the start of the tercentenary;(12) and Vols. 1 and 2 of Taverner (TCM Vols. 1 and 3, published respectively in 1923 and 1924).
On 23 March 1926 (file 243), Mitchell wrote to Humphrey Milford of Oxford University Press: `Frankly, the Trustees' Music Committee are getting very tired of the whole scheme ... and they are really anxious to see the whole thing complete'. (By this time the Trust was supporting the publication of only ten of the proposed twenty volumes.) Mitchell blamed disappointing sales (157 subscriptions by 31 March 1926) and slow progress by the editors, who in turn blamed the engavers.(13) Two years later, on 2 February 1928, Mitchell wrote to Milford: `It is so important that the Tudor Music Editors should be finished, if possible, this year'. Indeed, Ramsbotham reported in a letter of 15 October 1928 that the final meeting of the Editorial Committee took place `last week', and Vol. 10 was published during 1929. Ramsbotham telegrammed Mitchell on 3 October 1929 to tell him that `we have an offer from financier for further series of Tudor church music', but, as Fellowes reports in his autobiography, the Wall Street Crash put paid to this transatlantic scheme.(14)
Although publishing activities had come to an end, problems over copyright, royalties and disposal of stock continued into the following decade. This provoked another outburst from Mitchell, this time to Hubert Foss at Oxford University Press, on 2 July 1930: `Frankly I shall be glad when this Tudor Music business has come to an end. I have never felt that it was a very suitable activity for the Trust, and it has been dragging on even in my time for well over ten years.' Other correspondence in file 244 reveals that the Trust was willing to hand over copyright to the editors once the octavo series had paid its way. The real sticking-point was royalties. On 20 September 1930, Mitchell was able to tell Ramsbotham that the octavo series had paid its way, but it was never going, as originally envisaged, to pay for the library series, which on 30 June 1929 (file 243) was reported as still being 16,365.[ponds] 5s. 4d. in the red.
During 1931, the editors decided that the Trust should hand copyright over to Oxford University Press and that the editors themselves would receive royalties. The photostats and related documents were to be donated to the University of London Library is (wrongly described on the Music Sub-Committee agenda of 8 May 1931 as the library of University College London, which has never accommodated a department of music; the subsequent minutes are correct). Even these measures were not finally resolved until 8 April 1932.
The TCM documents in the University of London Library consist of 105 boxes of photographs of manuscripts and early prints, and of a set of photographs of John Barnard's First Book of Selected Church Musick (London, 1641) in 37 volumes. There are also twelve boxes of Ramsbotham's TCM manuscripts, with transcriptions of music by Fayrfax, Ludford, John and William Mundy, Robert Parsons, Sheppard, T`-e. Tomkins and Weelkes, plus music from the Old Hall Manuscript. This material gives some idea of what a second TCM series would have contained, and provokes] some consideration of the ramifications for the future of Tudor musical scholarship and performance. There is no index to Ramsbotham's transcriptions, but his catalogue exists for the photostats.
Much of the early documentation in file 246 is given over to the problem of disposing of excess stock. The process began during 1935. Unbound sets were offered to select music colleges and university departments of music. The first offer was not fully taken up, so a second letter was sent offering up to five sets. Even then, 200 sets remained, so offers were made to schools and conservatories. By 14 December 1935, 140 sets remained with the Trustees, of which 110 were to be sent for storage in the National Central Library, London, with Oxford University Press keeping 30. Of the 110, a set apiece was offered to all Anglican cathedrals in England, leaving `25-30' by 28 September 1936. The offer was extended to cathedrals of the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church, selected kirks of the Church of Scotland, and suitable individuals. This left 39 (presumably, nine plus the 30) by 5 February 1937, and on 9 April 1942 Oxford University Press took into stock from the Carnegie Trustees whatever was left in addition to the 30.
From the point of view of publishing history this ending seems to be a whimper. In fact, TCM was a sleeping volcano in respect of its part in the revival of interest in the ecclesiastical performance of Tudor music. It is sad to read in the Carnegie Trust's Sixteenth Annual Report, for 1929, that `There is, as yet, little evidence to justify the belief that the recovered music is likely to take a prominent place in the ordinary church choir repertoires' (p. 58). However, the most recent research has found that Byrd is the composer whose music is by far the most frequently performed in cathedrals and comparable establishments in the British Isles.(16) For anthems, Tallis comes second, and the mainstream Tudor composers show up well. Countless performances are sung from TCM `numbers', the demand for which has necessitated a series of revised editions. Despite their premature pessimism, the Carnegie Trustees' initial commitment to Tudor church music has eventually been vindicated. I am grateful to the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, Paul Andrews (Music Librarian, Bedford Central Library), Ruth Darton (Music Librarian, University of London), Lynda Turbet (Department of English, Robert Cordon's College, Aberdeen) and Peter G. Vasey (Scottish Record Office, Edinburgh) for their help in the preparation of this article. Permission to consult the Tudor Church Music archive in the Scottish Record Office should be sought in the first instance from the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust Dunfermline. (1) The TCM archive is at call-number GD 281/41/224-46. The 23 files are in seven boxes: 224, 225-7, 228-33, 234-8, 239-42, 243-5, 246. The files cover the following dates: 224 (1917-18), 225 (1916-18), 226 (1919), 227-30 (1920), 231 (1920-21), 232-4 (1921), 235 (1921-2), 236-7 (1922), 238 (1922-3), 239 (1923), 240 (1924), 241 (1925), 242 (1926-7), 243 (1926-9), 244 (1930-35), 245 (1932), 246 (1935-74). For a complete listing of all ten volumes in the series, see Anna Harriet Heyer, Historical Sets, Collected Editions, and Monuments of Music: a Guide to their Contents, 3rd edn., Chicago, 1980 pp. 663-4. (2) Brief biographies of Buck, Fellowes and Ramsbotham are given in The New Grove. For Warner, see Claire Harman, Sylvia Townsend Warner: a Biography, London, 1989, which, besides many interesting if poorly indexed references to TCM, provides an account of her long-running affair (from 1913) with Buck. (3) See, for instance, Hilda Andrews, Westminster Retrospect: a Memoir of Sir Richard Terry, London, 1948, pp. 138-45. (4) Lists of the members of the Music Sub-Committee appear annually beginning with the Trust's Fourth Annual Report (for the rear Ending 31st December 1917). (5) For Hadow's activities relating to music about this time, see Arthur W. Chapman, The Story of a Modern university: a History of the University of Sheffield, London, 1955, pp. 301-4. (6) The project was written up in the Trust's Third Annual Report, for 1916, pp. 6-9. The relevant section concludes that the Executive `feel satisfied that the production of this musical wealth is not a mere question of academic interest but a means of enabling the people of Great Britain to enjoy a great national heritage'. At the Executive meeting on 25 February 1920, the Trustees decided to support ten volumes, on which they were prepared to lay out an initial 10,000[pounds] and lose up to f500 per volume (file 227). The series title was not settled until 12July that year (file 228). (7) Oxford University Press had already been sounded out; see Andrews, Westminster Retrospect, p. 139. (8) There is some information about Shore in The New Grove. (9) H. B. Collins was, pace Buck, still being mentioned with respect 60 years later: see, for instance, Joseph Kerman, The Masses and Motets of William Byrd, London, 1981, p. 62 and passim. For objective information about Collins, see especially the fifth edition of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Mvsicians. Most tellingly, on I December 1925 Ramsbotham wrote to J. M. Mitchell (file 241): `Collins knows the difficulty of editing music such as Taverner's and could do it as well or better than we can, and if we were able to put the clock back and start afresh we should probably invite him to work with us ... The reason why he was originally scouted [i.e., rejected with scorn and ridicule1 was that Terry of Westminster [Cathedral] was blindly jealous of Collins of Birmingham [Oratory], probably knowing him to be the better man.' (10) For a corrective to Buck's bile, see The New Grove. (11) For good basic information about Howells, Wood and Arkwright, see The New Grove. For Cecilia Stainer, see ibid., in the article on her father. Howells's involvement with the Carnegie Trust, including TCM, is discussed in Paul Andrews, `A Matter of National Importance: Herbert Howells and the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust', Organists' Review, lxxxi (1995), 32-35. (12) `The Taverner volume (actually Vol. I of the series) was postponed, in order that the first Byrd volume (Vol. 11 of the series) might be ready in good time for the approaching Byrd Festival' (Ninth Annual Report, for 1922, p. 24). The Byrd volume was not the one mentioned by Mrs Terry in her letter of `21' June, which according to a letter of 5 March 1919 in file 226 from Terry to Hetherington, consisted of `Vol. I of Byrd's "Gradualian'. Terry tried to undermine Fellowes by latching on to Peter Warlock, a voluble critic of Fellowes's editorial methods: see 1. A. Copley, The Music of Peter Warlock: a Critical Survey, London, 1979, pp. 18-19. (13) The attitudes of the parties involved are reflected in the Thirteenth Annual Report, for 1926 (p. 45). Here it is noted fourable reception of both series of TCM in particular and growing interest in Tudor music in general `have led the Editors to decide upon the publication of the rest of the material which has been collated', although the trustees `will not accept further responsibility for publication', feeling they had `discharged the obligation they felt able to incur'. Nevertheless they placed all the scores and photographs at the disposal of the editors. Moreover, no less a work than Byrd's Great Serviced `was performed several times by Dr Whittaker's [Newcastle Bach] Choir in 1925, has been rendered by the Leeds Philharmonic Chorus, and is to be performed by the Birmingham Festival Choral Society, under Dr Adrian Boult, early in 1927', while `The smaller works have been frequently performed'. The Trustees describe all this, justifiably, as `gratifying'. File 242 is devoted to matters concerning Boult's performance. (14) Memoirs to an Amateurs Musician London,1946; p. 128; the book also containes Fellowes's fructratingly elliptical account of his involvement with TCM. For further developments see Richard Turbet, Francis Neilson, F. W. Dwelly and the first Complete Edition of Byrd', Bulleten of the John Rylands library of Manchester, lxxvii (1995)53-58. (15) According to the. Nineteenth Annual Report, for 1932 (p. 58), "The stock of photostat reproductions of Tudor music scores has, been presented to the University of London'; see also Richard Turbet, `The Littleton Collection at the University of London Library', International Association of Music libraries, Archives and Documentatzon Centres News-letter, xxvii (1994). 12-14. (16) John Patton & Richard Turbet, `Byrd in British Cathedrals 1986', Musical Opinion, cxi (1988), 52-59; Richard Turbct, Byrd throughout All Generations', Cathedral Muul sic, xxxv (1992). 19-24.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Music & Letters|
|Date:||Nov 1, 1995|
|Previous Article:||'Le Theatre Forain': historical and stylistic connections between 'Parade' and 'Histoire du soldat.'|
|Next Article:||Painting and Illumination in Early Renaissance Florence: 1300-1450.|