spontaneous melodies in a purely vocal style. There are not more than one or two airs by him, exceptional among his vocal solos, which fix themselves in the ear and heart, as so many of the songs of Handel and Mozart do. Their style is mannered to a degree, and the manner is not a good one, from a vocal point of view; for it is obviously derived from the organ and harpsichord style of ornament and expression. In those keyed instruments, which were incapable of any expression from diminishing or swelling, or in any way modulating the force of a sustained note (for the contrivance called the swell' in a modern organ had no existence then), special expression was sought for by breaking up a note into a group of little detached notes, in the shape of trills and twitterings; and this unsatisfactory and often unmeaning method, arising out of the effort to make organ and harpsichord express what they were unfitted to express, is duly transferred by Bach to his vocal solos, which are full of this aimless twittering, to the exclusion of the nobler and more expressive forms of pure and flowing vocal melody. In studying this portion of Bach's music, in fact, one cannot help thinking of Veit Bach and his cithara, and detecting the lingering trace of rusticity, of bourgeois feeling, in the work of his great descendant. There is a want of elevation of feeling, of dignity of style, in his songs. There is not one example to be found of such dignified, and, if one may use the expression, high-minded pathos as we find in such airs as Return, O God,' and 'Ye sons of Israel,' in 'Samson.' Bach's pathos, in his songs of prayer and repentance, is of a weak, sentimental, sometimes, we might even say, of a querulous order. In his songs taken en masse, we recognise no doubt a seriousness of intention, and a carefulness of finish in the style adopted, more equable than that which pervaded the songs of Handel, who frequently threw himself away, and wrote currente calamo for this or that singer. But if there is a more general level maintained, it is a much more dead level. We seem to come to the same kind of passages over and over again; the melodies want distinctive character and unity; the constant use of the minor seventh of the scale becomes at last an almost irritating mannerism. The accompaniments are, no doubt, much fuller and more elaborate in design than those of Handel, alınost invariably presenting a different and contrasting design from that of the voice part, or forming a counterpoint to it. But we can seldom get rid of the feeling of a want of buoyancy in the music, as if its wings were clogged. The accompaniments are scientifically

interesting, musically complete, but where is there anything like the fire and picturesqueness of that wonderful accompaniment to Thou shalt break them,' in the Messiah,' not to mention others? Anyone who could seriously regard the songs in the 'Passion' or the 'Christinas Oratorio comparable to those in the 'Messiah' and other oratorios of Handel's, must have taken leave of his critical faculty, or never come into it.

as

The comparison between the two great contemporary composers is almost inevitable; and Dr. Spitta himself furnishes the excuse for it, if any be needed, for he frequently touches on the subject, more especially in one very characteristic passage which is worth quoting. Handel, he observes, 'with a genius which, if more comprehensive, was far less profoundly laborious, never stood in so intimate a connexion with the organ music of his time, that essentially German branch of his art; and the way in which he afterwards made it subserve his grand and pregnant artistic ideal, the oratorio, demanded not so much profound treatment as breadth and brilliancy. The outward circumstances answer to this. Handel arrives at Hamburg in the bright midsummer days, in the gay society of Mattheson, and in obedience to an invitation from the President of the Council; he enjoys an affable welcome and festivities in his honour. Bach comes on foot in the dull autumn weather from Thuringia, following his own instinct, and perhaps not knowing one single soul that might look for his arriving.'

This contrast certainly typifies, curiously enough, the contrast between their genius and their work in the field of art. The one was the strong and successful man, living before the world

'The very child of over-joyousness,'

taking all life as his province; the other was the sober, conscientious, and laborious student, working for his own ideal alone, in a more restrained though more complete method. But, however we may feel more reverence, in a sense, for the latter, is not art mainly for the joy of life, and is it not the strong and joyous poet, seeing, like Shakespeare, all sides of human feeling, who gives the greater gift to the world?

To sum up: it may be said that a comprehensive and impartial survey of Bach's genius and works favours the conclusion that the old view of him, as essentially a great instrumental composer, was not so far wrong as it has recently been thought to be. It is in this realm that he is supreme, and that the contrast with his great compeer is almost entirely in his favour. While a great deal of Handel's instrumental music is now faded and passé in

style, the smallest minuet by Bach contains matter for study, and exhibits qualities of construction and expression which can never lose their value to musicians or to intelligent hearers; the exception being only, as already noted, in some of those chorale preludes which are connected with a form of religious expression in music which is now obsolete. As a vocal composer, his works remain a monument of astonishing power, of rock-like stability, of sometimes poignant expression of religious yearning, but pervaded by a certain monotony of style and character, which is perhaps truly expressive of the one pervading subject, the religious life, which is at the centre of them all. He is the subjective composer; Handel the objective artist. He is the musician of the student; Handel the poet of the people. Neither can be spared, nor perhaps is it to much purpose after all, to dispute which of the two be most valuable in the world of art-a matter in regard to which even individual feeling will vary with individual mood or circumstance. What is important is that each should be correctly appreciated, and placed on his own honoured pedestal in the musical Pantheon.

ART. IX.-Le Droit International de l'Europe. Par A. G. HEFFTER. Traduit par JULES BERGSON. Quatrième Edition Française. Augmentée et annotée par F. H. GEFFCKEN. 8vo. Berlin and Paris: 1883.

THE

HE present century in the history of International Law is marked by an increasing tendency to mitigate the severities of war and by a greater harmony of opinion on the principles which govern intercourse between States. It would be difficult in these days for one nation to order its relations towards other countries on arbitrary laws of its own. As in each community the individual is compelled to obey the rules which society considers it prudent to establish, so in the vaster commonwealth of nations every State is bound to recognise the rights of others and to concede an agreement to the body of general laws which tradition, public opinion, international engagements, and the force of circumstances have gradually constructed. The necessity of a universal observance of certain settled principles is now of essential importance when the rapid intercommunication between countries and the variety and complexity of their political and commercial relations are annually increasing.

The closer contact into which States are now drawn, and the magnitude of the interests which are involved, have necessarily demanded greater and more solid guarantees for the undisturbed prosecution of international intercourse.

the other hand, when war breaks out the general welfare requires that its area should be limited and its evils rendered temporary. The object of a war should be clearly defined, and the efforts of the contending parties directed solely towards that object. The rights of nations during peace, and the duties of belligerents, both towards each other and in regard to neutral States, are full of complications and difficulties, and the gradual establishment of a system of laws, treaties, and precedents to guide Statesmen through this confused maze has proved of inestimable benefit. There is yet much to be done, but a great and notable advance has been made since the last century.

We have selected the fourth edition of Herr Heffter's work for review on the present occasion because it appears to us to be one of the most compendious and practical treatises on the subject, as well as the most recent. But in justice to other writers it must be said that the law of nations and the important questions arising out of it have been treated with great industry and ability by several contemporary jurists in our own country and in America whose works cannot be passed over in silence. Professor Lorimer, in his 'Institutes of the Law of Nations,' has given us, in a permanent form, the lessons which he has long delivered with marked distinction in the law schools of the University of Edinburgh, and has sought to place the law of nations on principles of philosophy, which might be termed transcendental. Sir Travers Twiss has just published an Essay on Belligerent 'Rights on the High Seas since the Declaration of Paris.' Manning's International Law' has been edited by Mr. Sheldon Amos. Sir Edward Creasy has left us a book of first principles entitled The First Platform of International 'Law.' Mr. Hosack's Rise and Growth of the Law of 'Nations' is rather a history of the subject than a treatise. The work of the American writer Halleck has been re-edited in England by Sir Shenton Baker; and the University of Oxford has given us from the Clarendon Press Mr. William Edward Hale's very valuable and complete treatise entitled 'International Law.' The last English edition of Wheaton's 'Elements of International Law,' edited by Mr. A. C. Boyd, is a work of great merit. Fifty years have almost elapsed since the publication of the first edition in 1836, yet Mr. Wheaton

remains the highest modern authority on these questions; and Mr. Boyd's notes and additions comprise the controversies of an eventful half-century, bringing down the treatise to the present time. We confess our inability to discuss so much learning and so many conflicting opinions in the compass of a single article. We have therefore taken M. Heffter's book as our text; but we shall not lose sight in the course of these observations of the other works we have mentioned. They all prove that no branch of the law is studied with more ability and research. None, in fact, touches interests of equal magnitude, for it concerns the peace and welfare of the world. The application of the law of nations is intermittent, for it is chiefly called forth by war or the causes which may lead to war. When a crisis of this kind arises, the science of International Law is discussed with intense eagerness, for the fate of nations may depend upon it. But the best preparation for such events is the study of its principles and lessons when they can be discussed without prejudice and without passion. We shall endeavour to lay before our readers some of the most recent results of these enquiries.

Amongst the benefactors of mankind we consider that impartial and skilled international jurists should take a high place. There are many writers on the law of nations who have employed their knowledge and their pens to advocate some special theory or to attack some single nation, but who have merely distorted and obscured where they should have unravelled and enlightened. Yet the great authorities who have explained the true nature of international relations, who have compiled from their diligent researches, with the sole desire of establishing justice and truth, laws and regulations which should be universally recognised and made invariable, and who have preached humane and Christian doctrines, deserve all honour and respect.

To the list of these jurists the name of Heffter may be confidently added. Although in many respects he does not rise to the level of the greater luminaries, and though on some points his views are narrow and biassed, yet he is always careful, painstaking, and honest, and evidently seeks to be unprejudiced and impartial. His work lacks the and breadth of view of Wheaton and others; his statements are occasionally not strictly accurate, his deductions not always sound; yet he is entitled to a place in the higher class of modern international jurists. He has been fortunate in his French translator, and has received the

grasp