The study of the origin, function and evolution of music, according to modern scientific methods, is a matter of comparatively recent date.  As late as 1835 a French writer of the history of music expressed profound regret that he had been unable to determine when music was invented, or to discover the inventor’s name.  It was his opinion that musical man had profited largely from the voices of the feathered tribes.  He seriously asserted that the duck had evidently furnished a model for the clarionet and oboe, and Sir Chanticleer for the trumpet.  An entire chapter of his book he devoted to surmises concerning the “Music before the Flood.”  The poor man felt himself superior to the poetic fancies of the ancients, which at least foreshadowed the Truth, but had found no firm ground on which to stand.

Much finer were the instincts of Capellmeister Wolfgang Kasper, Prince of Waldthurn, whose historical treatise on Music appeared in Dresden in 1690.  He boldly declared the author of music to be the good God himself, who fashioned the air to transmit musical sounds, the ear to receive them, the soul of man to throb with emotions demanding utterance, and all nature to be filled with sources of inspiration.  The good Capellmeister was in close touch with the Truth.

It was in 1835, the same year that the French writer mentioned offered his wild speculations, that Herbert Spencer, from the standpoint of a scientist, produced his essay on the “Origin and Function of Music,” which has proved invaluable in arousing discriminating thought in these lines.  Many years elapsed before its worth to musicians was realized.  To-day it is widely known and far-reaching in its influence.

In those inner agitations which cause muscular expansion and contraction, and find expression in the inflections and cadences of the voice, Herbert Spencer saw the foundations of music.  He unhesitatingly defined it as emotional speech, the language of the feelings, whose function was to increase the sympathies and broaden the horizon of mankind.  Besides frankly placing music at the head of the fine arts, he declared that those sensations of unexperienced felicity it arouses, those impressions of an unknown, ideal existence it calls forth, may be regarded as a prophecy to the fulfilment of which music is itself partly instrumental.  Our strange capacity for being affected by melody and harmony cannot but imply that it is possible to realize the delights they suggest.  On these suppositions might be comprehended the power and significance of music which must otherwise remain a mystery.  The progress of musical culture, he thought, could not be too much applauded as a noble means of ministering to human welfare.  Mr. Spencer’s theory has of late led to much controversy.  Its author has been censured for setting forth no explanation of the place of harmony in modern music, and for not realizing what a musical composition is.  In his last volume, “Facts and Comments,” which