Harper II.10
James Dodson
CHAPTER X.
THE PRECEPTIVE THEORY EXAMINED—INQUIRY IN RELATION TO SYNAGOGUE WORSHIP CONTINUED.
James Piccioto, a Jew, in his “Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History,” published in London, in 1875, gives an account of the beginning of the movement, sometimes called the “Reform” movement among the Jews, one feature of which is the introduction of instrumental music into the services of the synagogue.
From this work we learn that the first proposal to enliven the dullness of the synagogue ritual with instrumental music, was made in London in 1836, in the form of a memorial to the authorities of the synagogue. This memorial proceeded from certain wealthy Jews, who having “waxed fat, kicked” against the ancient customs, and were fain to copy the fashions of the day. Of the drift of this document, Piccioto gives a summary account, part of which is here subjoined:—“The memorialists stated in that document that they had observed with regret the existence of considerable confusion during great part of the service; that the irregular singing of the schoolboys and others, tended to destroy all harmony and to impair the solemn effect of the beautiful Jewish hymns; while a constant repetition of some of the prayers, seemed to them to be the cause of the relaxation of attention and seriousness vitally requisite to the maintenance of a spirit of reverence and fervor. Without presuming to offer any specific plan, the memorialists ventured to make a few suggestions. The singing and recitation of prayers should be confined to the reader and to a certain number of trained boys; and the introduction of an organ or other instrument, they thought, would insure harmony, order and solemnity during the whole service. In view of the constant allusions to instrumental music in the Psalms, it was not conceived that there could be anything inherent in the Jewish faith to prevent its adoption. They respectfully but earnestly solicited an inquiry to be set on foot.”
In 1836, as we learn from the same authority, a counter-petition, more numerously signed than the former, was presented to the elders. Touching the memorialists in this case, our author says:—“These members expressed an eager desire to see great order, solemnity and harmony established in the religious services, but
Page 35
conscientiously and firmly differed from the other requisitionists as to alterations which would set aside, or change, those observances which for ages have been held sacred; they firmly believed, that if the principle of alteration in Jewish religious institutions was once admitted, it would split the Jewish nation into innumerable sects.”
Failing to secure their ends, the advocates of change at length expressed the wish and purpose to be organized into a separate society, or congregation, in resolving upon which organization, however, they did not clearly state the reasons why they desired it; the main reason mentioned, being the plea of convenience in a local respect. Says Picciotto, who does not seem to be a special friend of conservatism, “It will be remarked that not a word is here said respecting instrumental music in synagogues, or the abolition of the second days of festivals, the two points most objectionable to those who call themselves strict Jews. Resolutions in conformity with the above declarations were adopted at that meeting, when it was decided that the new place of worship should be named ‘The West London Synagogue of British Jews.’”
The writer goes on to tell that the promoters of this enterprise were excommunicated for their conduct in the matter; but that, in the course of time, the sentence was revoked, the revolutionists thus gaining their point.
It is obvious, however, that those men, among whom, or in sympathy with whom were some scholars, as, for instance, Raphall, distinguished for their acquaintance with Jewish history and lore, did not dare to allege, though the plea would have been a potent one, that in the ancient synagogue, whether before or after the time of Christ, instrumental music was allowed. Even yet, in spite of the ritualistic tendency of the age, by which Jews as well as Gentiles are affected, and notwithstanding the power which the increasing wealth of the Jews has to induce them to ape the prevailing fashions, the “reformers,” so called, have had but very indifferent success in their effort to have the organ established in the synagogue. In a few places they have carried their point at the expense of the disturbance, and, in some cases, disruption of congregations, but they are still in the minority, and, from the traditional Jewish point of view, are under the ban of heterodoxy.
It is, I am aware, alleged by Dr. Burney, in his “History of Music,” published in London, in the year 1789, that in his time there was an organ in the synagogue of Prague. I am not in a position to contradict this statement, but I am in a position to prove that any statements made by this author favorable to the cause of instrumental music in worship are to be received with caution; for I have found him guilty in one very marked instance of misrepresenting, wilfully or unconsciously, documentary evidence, the purport of which he professed to give. But even if it could be indubitably proved that in one place, or in several places, instrumental music was used in synagogue worship in the last century, how far would this be from proving that such music was generally allowed in the synagogue, and that it had been so from the time of Christ!
Maimonides, a famous Jewish author, born at Cordova, in Spain, in A. D.
Page 36
1135, has left behind him a treatise containing a full description and explanation of the synagogue services in his time, and in this account, while he represents the chanting of psalms as a part of the service, he does not give a single hint as to the use of any instrumental music in worship.
Of all the authors who have handled the subject of the synagogue, none, not even our modern explorers, such as Jost, has been more thorough and scrupulously exact than Vitringa. Grotius, Selden, Spenser, Lightfoot, Thorndyke, Hammond and Buxtorf had preceded him as workers in the great mine of rabbinical literature, and his elaborate work was composed with all the aid derivable from the deep researches of those illustrious men. I have examined with considerable care his treatise, entitled “De Synagoga Vetere,” and have failed to discover in it the least insinuation that instrumental music was ever used in the worship of the synagogue. In a chapter devoted to an enumeration and description of the utensils which pertained either to the sacred worship or the decoration of the synagogue, particularly since the time of Christ, Vitringa specifies “tubæ et buccinæ,” that is, trumpets and bugles or cornets. The uses of these, he shows, were fourfold, namely: to proclaim sentences of excommunication; to announce the advent of the New Year; to intimate the approach of the Sabbath; and to usher in certain fasts. But, be it observed that only two instruments are mentioned, the harp, even, not being of the number, and that not a hint is given that either of them was used in connection with the service of song, or in any part of the worship proper. A cursory reader, on seeing the words “tubæ et buccinæ” might fancy that these must denote instrumental helps in the worship, but such a notion would be utterly erroneous and at variance with the tenor of Vitringa’s remarks.
It may be of interest to insert here a quotation from the “Jewish Record” of August 15, 1879: “When Meyerbeer, the distinguished German musician, was requested by Louis Augustus Frankel to furnish a composition for the dedication of a new synagogue he is reported to have said, ‘By all means do not introduce an organ. That is purely a Christian instrument. I reckon it to my credit that, together with Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, who fully shared my views, I have introduced in Berlin a singing choir only. Men, while praying, should speak to their God without any intermediation. This principle has been observed by the Jews since the destruction of the temple. It has been established 2000 years. We should make no innovation. If, however, different music, that is, different from vocal exclusively, is absolutely required, it ought to be produced by trombone and flute, like that which was sounded in Solomon’s temple. But the human voice is the most impressive and soul-stirring of all instruments.’” Meyerbeer, who thus expressed himself, was a Jew both by blood and faith. He was born in 1794, and he died in 1864. His testimony is valuable both as showing the traditional view of the Jews as to music in the synagogue, and as revealing the preference of two of the most eminent modern composers for singing without any instrumental accompaniment in worship.