of a piece the time is quickened, bringing the accents closer together. Thus the title might be, and sometimes is, applied to the last prestissimo of the Choral Symphony. It is sometimes used, but quite wrongly, as a direction equivalent to accelerando, instead of in its proper sense of più mosso.
[ F. C. ]
STRICT COUNTERPOINT (Lat. Contrapunctus proprius, vel severus; Ital. Contrappunto severo, Contrappunto alla Capella; Germ. Strenger Satz, Kapellstyl; Fr. Contrepoint'sévère). The art of writing, in Parts, for two or more Voices, without the employment of unprepared Discords.
The term is not very well chosen. The laws of Free Part-writing are quite as severe as those of the so-called Strict Style. But, the conventional application of the term 'strict' to the method which forbids the direct percussion of a Fundamental Dissonance, and 'free,' to that which permits it, has so long been generally accepted, that it would be impossible, now, to introduce a more exact form of terminology.
The laws of Strict Counterpoint are not open, like those of Harmony, to scientific discussion; for, Counterpoint is not a Science, but an Art. It is true that its most important rules, when tested by the principles of Natural Science, are found to coincide with them, in all essential particulars; and to this circumstance alone are they indebted for their unassailable position, and promise of future security. Their mathematical accuracy fails, however, to account for their universal acceptance as a code of artistic regulations. Their authority for this rests solely upon the praxis of the Great Masters of the Polyphonic Schools; which praxis was, from first to last, purely empirical. The refined taste, and true musical instinct, of Josquin des Prés, Willaert, Byrd, Tallis, Palestrina, and their contemporaries, rebelled against the hideous combinations demanded by the rules of Diaphonia, and Organum,[1] and substituted for them the purest and most harmonious progressions that Art, aided by a cultivated ear, could produce; but, in their search for these, they were guided by no acoustic theory. They simply wrote what they felt: and because the instincts of true genius can never err, that which they felt was uniformly good and true and logical, and based unconsciously upon a foundation firm enough to stand the test of modern mathematical analysis. The leaders of the Monodic School[2] rejected the teaching of these Great Masters; and, in their insane desire for progress, invented new forms of cacophony not a whit less rude than those practised by the Diaphonists of the 13th century. All Italy followed their baneful example; and, for a time, relapsed into chaos. But German Musicians, unwilling to destroy the old land-marks, retained, in their full force, the time-honoured laws relating to the use of Perfect and Imperfect Concords, Syncopations, and Notes of Regular and Irregular Transition, while they extended the system by promulgating new regulations for the government of Fundamental Discords introduced without the customary forms of Preparation; and, because such Discords had never before been sanctioned, this new method of Part-writing was called 'free,' though its rules were really more numerous than those of the older one.
It was not until some considerable time after the invention of printing, that the laws of Strict Counterpoint were given to the world in the form of a systematic code. Franchinus Gafurius, in his 'Practica Musica,' published at Milan in 1496, gave a tolerably intelligible epitome of certain rules, which, at that period, were supposed to embody all the information that it was necessary for the student to acquire. The 'Musice active Micrologus' of Ornitoparchus, printed at Leipzig in 1517, set forth the same laws in clearer language. The 'Dodecachordon' of Glareanus, and the 'Toscanello in Musica' of Pietro Aron, both printed at Venice in 1529, were illustrated by examples of great value to the tyro, whose labours were still farther assisted by the appearance of Zarlino's 'Institutioni armoniche' in 1558, and Zacconi's 'Prattica di Musica' in 1596. In 1597, Thomas Morley published his 'Plaine and easie introduction to Practicall Musicke' the earliest treatise of importance in the English language; and, in 1609, John Douland printed an English paraphrase of the 'Micrologus' of Ornitoparchus. These works set forth, with gradually increasing clearness, the regulations which, in the 15th century, had been transmitted from teacher to pupil by tradition only. The Compositions of the Great Polyphonic Masters formed a living commentary upon the collective rules; and, with an endless succession of such works within his reach, the student of the period ran little risk of being led astray. But when the line of Polyphonic Composers came to an end, the verbal treatises, no longer illustrated by living examples, lost so much of their value, that the rules were in danger of serious misconstruction, and would probably have been to a great extent forgotten, had not Fux, in his 'Gradus ad Parnassum,' published at Vienna in 1725, set them forth with a systematic clearness, which, exhausting the subject, left nothing more to be desired. This invaluable treatise, founded entirely on the practice of the Great Masters, played so important a part in the education of the three greatest Composers of the School of Vienna, Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, that it is impossible to over-estimate its influence upon their method of Part-writing. So clear are its examples, and so reasonable its arguments, that it has formed the basis of all the best treatises of later date, of which two only—Albrechtsberger's 'Gründliche Anweisung zur Composition' (Leipzig, 1790), and Cherubim's 'Cours de Contrepoint et de la Fugue' (Paris, 1835), are of any real importance. These two, however, are especially valuable; not, indeed, as substitutes for the 'Gradus,' but as commentaries upon it. For Fux treats only of Strict Counterpoint, and writes all his
- ↑ See Organum; Polyphonia.
- ↑ See Monodia
