188
NOTES. AND QUERIES. [9* s. vm. AUG. 31, 1901.
in order to graft them on another, which, in
nine cases out of ten, has no possible claim
to them. This has been seen in the cases of
- God save the King,' Handel's (so-called ' Har-
monious Blacksmith ') air in the Fifth Suite, &c. In the present case the evidence on the plaintiffs side, poor Rouget de 1'Isle being the defendant, seems most unsatisfactory.
I assume that the old masses, from which the defendant is said to have stolen, were never printed at the time of their supposed composition. The plaintiff therefore must produce them, or prove satisfactorily their existence and contents. When I say prove, I mean prove in the technical sense, so as to bear examination of the evidence. He ought further to prove that Rouget had ever seen or heard these alleged compositions, or one of them. The evidence of Fetis cannot be held to be convincing, prejudiced as he was against all things French. If his son had evidence in his possession, it is a pity he did not produce it. The same may be said of M. Albert Legrand. Mr. Schreiber's state- ment is unfortunate for the plaintiff. "Such a mass," he says, "may at one time have been
there [at Meersburg], but it was possibly
put out of the library with compositions which are in a defective state and no longer used." Could anything be more unlucky for the plaintiff, who relied on this as one of his chief pieces of evidence 1
As to Castil-Blaze, I do not think he needs an answer. When, however, we are told that " that refurbished old German mass in Swabia was recognized by a soldier who had fought in the revolutionary and Napoleonic warsas being in the main the tune of the ' Marseillaise,' " I am amazed indeed. How a mass could be mainly " the tune of the ' Marseillaise,' " or of any other song, I fail to perceive ; and we know that " you should not tell us what the soldier or any other man said ; it 's not evi- dence," as the little judge observed in 'Pick- wick.' Evidence of less cogency it is, indeed, almost impossible to imagine. The skeleton appearance of the first copies of the real song is easily accounted for, to those who know its history, by the manner of its print- ing, by a travelling hand-press following the troops on march. This is evidence for the defendant, I think, again, rather than on the other side. When better evidence on the side of the plaintiff comes to light, I shall be ready to receive it with respect, and to bow to the decision of competent musicians.
JULIAN MARSHALL.
MR. KARL BLIND says he has been through a mass of manuscripts dealing with the origin and supposed origin of this song. Before I
issued my work 'Stories of Famous Songs'
to the public, 1 worked at the subject of the
origin and history of songs for fifteen years
at home and abroad. If MR. KARL BLIND will
consult my book he will find that there is no
need for him to investigate the matter any
further. I have considered and weighed all
claims. I have given honour where it is due.
Grisons's claim is absurd. The melody was
composed and published a year at least before
his (Grisons's) oratorio was written. As a
matter of fact Grisons "borrowed" the melody
in 1793 for his ' Esther.' Rouget de 1'Isle's
' Marseillaise ' was sung and published in
1792. Has MR. BLIND consulted 4 La Verite
sur la Paternite de la Marseillaise,' by A.
Rouget de 1'Isle, published in 1865 ? The first
title of the "hymn" was, of course, the
'Chant de Guerre pour FArmee du Rhin.'
The Meersburg legend is a legend arid nothing
more. Has MR. BLIND seen the first Strasburg
edition of the song 1 If he has not, I think
upon investigation he will find himself wrong
in the assertion that it "does not bear
Rouget's name." May I again suggest that
MR. BLIND should just give a glance at p. 40
in my work 1 S. J. AD AIR FITZGERALD.
P.S. In the first edition of 'Stories of Famous Songs' the foreign languages are more of the printer's imagination than of my quotation. But such is the compositor's humour.
' THE BURIAL OF SIR JOHN MOORE ' (9 fch S. vii. 461 ; viii. 72, 169). In a paper of mine on the above subject, at the first reference, an unfortunate error crept in, which I had fully intended to correct on receipt of the proof. When this arrived, however, I was abroad, and, being unable to have my corre- spondence properly attended to, it got set on one side, so that until my return home on 13 August I never knew it had been sent, much less that the article had appeared a fact communicated by a friend.
The mistake is as follows : the article states that Perrin's letter appeared in the Dublin Daily Express, Friday, 22 August, 1879. In- stead of this read, " Perrin's letter appeared in a daily Express, most probably an Irish one, Friday, 22 August, 1879." The letter referred to was quoted from a newspaper cutting in the possession of E. Lytton Falki- ner, Esq., of Dublin, who very kindly lent it me to copy. The owner had surmised that it formed part of the Dublin Daily Express for Friday, 22 August, 1877. This surmise, though extremely natural, proved to be incorrect on researches instituted by the present writer. The description of the slip is as follows : in
