a
a
ya

dee Aeta |

eae

Bees
(av
F,

PY a ae Baye Ron
Rita Pee
Tai anion) Se <

neat ei

f

 
 

CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

 

MUSIC
‘wi
HISTORY

or

THE BOEHM FLUTE.
PLATE. ‘tl:

 
HISTORY

OF

THE BOEHM FLUTE,

WITH

DR. VON SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM,
AND AN EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION OF
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY.

BY

CHRISTOPHER WELCH.

THIRD EDITION,

REARRANGED, ADDED TO, AND PARTLY REWRITTEN.

LONDON:
RUDALL, CARTE & CO., 23 BERNERS, STREET.

NEW YORK: G. SCHIRMER.

1896.
PREFACE

TO

THe THIRD EDITION,

—+

Tuis work did not spring out of either the desire
or the design of writing a book on the flute; it
was, as explained in the Preface, of fortuitous
origin.

It had been written seven years, or more, and
had long been dismissed from my mind, when
English flute-players were invited to co-operate
in bringing about an event which was to them
not without interest—the publication of a treatise
on their instrument, believed to be the work of
a life.

The author, Mr. R. S. Rockstro, was a profes-
sional flautist, as well as the projector of a model
Boehm flute. To his capacity, to his industry,
and to his perseverance, the many flute-players
who owed their skill in great part to the excellent
instruction for which they were indebted to him,
bore ungrudging testimony, whilst the distinction,
as a writer on musical subjects, achieved by
his well-known and deservedly popular brother,
vi HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Mr. W. S. Rockstro, augured well for the success
of the work from a literary point of view. As it
was thus anticipated that an important addition
was about to be made to the flute-player’s library,
Mr. Rockstro’s appeal for subscribers met with a
ready response. |

The hopes which had been raised were not
destined to be disappointed. On the appearance
of the volume it was at once acknowledged that
the result of the labours of the many years
devoted to its compilation had been expressed
with a clearness of diction that left little to be
desired. Moreover, there awaited us a pleasant
surprise ; the interest of the work was enhanced
by the charm of a lady’s hand. For her contri-
bution to their literature, Miss Georgina Rockstro,
Mr. Rockstro’s talented and accomplished daugh-
ter, is specially entitled to the thanks of flute-
players.

It was soon observed, however, that the treatise
was disfigured by a sad blot. That Mr. Rockstro
would not be unmindful of his own efforts to
improve the instrument of his choice was to be
expected ; but he had not stopped there; it was
found that he had shown scant sympathy with
certain of his fellow-workers, past as well as
present, in the field of flute construction.

Of them all, not one was so singled for censure
as the man, the record of whose brilliant and
enduring services in the cause of flute reform
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. vil

constitutes the most striking page in the annals
of our instrument. If all the calumnies which
jealous and malicious tongues have heaped on
Theobald Boehm could be justified, he would still
have immeasurably higher claims to the gratitude
of flautists than any other flute-constructor of
modern times; yet Mr. Rockstro had not only
applied contumelious language to his work, and
referred in terms of scornful contempt to those
who recognised in him a man of superior ability,
but, forgetful of the time-honoured adage, De
mortuis nil nist bonum, had even gone so far as
to charge him with acts of mendacity, duplicity,
and treachery, calculated to leave an indelible
stain on his memory.

Those who were of opinion that the sanctuary
of the grave should have been respected ex-
pressed regret that such matters had not been
passed over in silence ; but regret deepened into
indignation, when, on looking more closely, the
tale of a dead man’s turpitude, told by Mr.
Rockstro, appeared to be nothing more than a
work of fiction, which that gentleman had per-
suaded himself to regard as reality.

It was felt, more especially by some of those
the appearance of whose names in the book, as
supporters of Mr. Rockstro in his literary venture,
might be construed into acquiescence on their
part in this ungenerous attack, that a disclaimer
was called for on behalf of English flute-players.
Vill HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

As I had already interested myself in the origin
of the Boehm flute, appeals were made to me to
again come forward, but I was then engaged on
more attractive work; however, after a time I
undertook to become the spokesman of the
dissentients.

In considering how best to bring the disavowal
before my brother flute-players, my first thought
was that it should take the form of a pamphlets
but I afterwards decided to embody it in.a
Preface to a second edition of my ‘ History of the
Boehm Flute.’ When I began to write, it was
my intention that the counterblast should not
extend beyond ten or a dozen leaves, but my pen
travelled on until it had covered more than an
hundred pages; indeed, before I had done, my
preface had become as long as, if not longer than,
was the work itself in its original form.

The new edition, with its overgrown preface,
though printed in 1892, was not in the hands of
the public until 1893. Up to that time there .
had been no communication, direct or indirect,
between me and any member of the Boehm
family ; but during the course of the year, through
the kindness of an ardent admirer of Boehm, Mr.
John Finn, whose contributions to musical periodi-
cals are well known to flute-players, I was brought
into correspondence with Herr Ludwig Boehm,
Theobald Boehm’s eldest son. Herr Boehm was
so good as to look over some ald family papers, .
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. ix

and to furnish me with copies of documents thus
brought to light (amongst them Gordon’s long
sought for announcement of his “ Diatonic
Flute”), which supplied important missing links
in the story, as I had told it, of the instrument
which bears his father’s name. These documents,
which in justice to Boehm I felt bound to make
known, have now been incorporated with the
work ; additions rendered desirable by the newly
acquired information have been made to the text,
and the contents of the unwieldy preface have
been transferred to the body of the book.
PREFACE

LHE PIRST E2DITION,

—_—+e

Aw apology is due to the reader for the un-
systematic and desultory manner in which the
matter which forms this small volume is put
together. The only excuse I can offer is the way
in which the little book originated. It was as
follows :—

At the close of the year 1881, I wrote, for
‘The Musical Standard,’ an obituary article on
Boehm, of whose death I had then just heard.
Soon after it appeared I was asked to write again,
and to deal more fully than I had previously
with the question, whether Captain Gordon
ought, or ought not, to be regarded as the real
inventor of the flute attributed to Boehm (an old
controversy which had just then been revived,
both in England and on the Continent), and, in
compliance with this request, I contributed
another article to ‘The Musical Standard’ under
the title of ‘The Invention of the Boehm Flute.’

I at first intended that the articles should
appear either anonymously, or else under the

b2
Xil HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

signature of a nom de plume, as had all my
previous contributions to ‘The Musical Standard,’
but the editor thought that they might be more
interesting if my name were appended to them,
especially as I was one of the last Englishmen,
if not the last, who saw Boehm before his
death.

I complied with the suggestion he made, and it
having thus become known that I was the writer,
several brother amateur flute-players, who did not
take in ‘The Musical Standard,’ expressed a wish
to have what I had written, so I promised to get
a few copies of the two articles printed separately
for private distribution. I also determined to take
the opportunity of making a revision of the text,
rendered necessary by the results of renewed and
more careful researches. Moreover, as | had
been asked what authority I had for some of my
statements, I resolved to add notes, which should
consist partly of references and partly of matter,
which the limited space assigned to an article in a
newspaper had rendered it previously impossible
to introduce.

Whilst I was writing the notes, the controversy
between the Boehmites and Gordonites was still
going on, and it occurred to me that a collection of
the chief literary productions which had appeared
on the subject would be a not uninteresting
appendix to my two <articles, and, finally, con-
sidering that what | was about to put together
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Xili

would, with some additions, form a chapter in the
history of the flute—a history (however humble
the flute may be from a musical point of view)
incomparably more varied and interesting than
that of any other instrument—I decided to ask
Mr. Richard Carte, whom I had to thank for
valuable information, to allow the House of Rudall
and Co. to be named as its publishers.

CHRISTR. WELCH.

UNITED UNIVERSITY CLUB:

November 1882.
CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA.

Page 23, note 7, line 2, for 8 read 9.
3» 38, note Q, line 4, for 105 read 164.
5, 48, line 12, for Foltz read Folz.
5» 109, line 7, for 1895 read 1896.
s» 126, last line of note 6, for 28 ead 38.
»> 40, note 17, line 9
>» 58, line 19 of note
»> 97, line Io
5, 114, line 14 from bottom
3» 173, lines II, 12, 13
», 221, last line of note 51
», 226, lines 3, 4, 7 of note Square brackets [ ] should
+. 244, note 70, line 3 have been used instead of curved
+, 270, note 96, line 7 from bottom Gs
3) 283, note 109, line 6
>, 284, note 110, line 26
»» 369, note 22, line 6 from bottom
1» 377, note 2, line 5
»» 388, note 5, lines 3 and 4.
1» 467, note 44, lines 3 and 4.
»» 184, line 6 from bottom, delete I would.
1» 199, line 21 of note, for p. 131 read p. 329.
»> 211, line 2, dedete them, and line 4, of them.
>» 251, note 76, for 35 read 351.
s» 292, line 10, for flute-makers’ vead flute-maker’s.
9s 302, line 13, after defective zzsert as,
»» 351, note 4, for 25 read 251.
. ee je pom so i Jor Musicalische read Musikalische.
+ 358, last line, defore commissioner zsert a.
line 5 from bottom, for is read was.

In pp. 103 and 104 a lithograph is inadvertently termed an engraving,
and the lithographer called an engraver.

Should Schafhautl’s experiments with organ-pipes be repeated by a
future experimenter, the figures and observations will be examined and
tested. It may be well, however, to notice some errors which cannot fail to
strike even a cursory reader. For instance, there is an obvious mistake in
the last line but one of p. 363: ‘‘the G (or more nearly the G sharp of our
old high pitch)” What Schafhiutl wrote of course we cannot tell; but,
judging from the context, it would seem that he intended to say, ‘‘the G
sharp of the French pitch (or more nearly the G of our old high pitch).”
For ‘‘one decimetre” (p. 364, line 5) we should probably read ‘‘ one
centimetre,” it being out of the question that the wall of the organ-pipe
was one decimetre (nearly four inches) thick. In another place (p. 365,
lines 3 and 5 from the bottom) ‘*2 mm.” no doubt stand for **2 cm.,” and
**2 cm.” for ‘*4. cm.” On the next page, 366 (line 16 from the bottom),
is an omission for which my own printers are responsible: ‘‘G” should
be “ce G.”

In‘a passage in the Life of Boehm (p. 422, line 15), it has been
suggested that the word which Schafhautl wrote was not ‘‘nasty”

(Aamisch), but ‘‘namely” (zamlich), an emendation which has been
introduced into the text.
CONTENTS.

PART I.

THEOBALD BOEHM (Obituary Article), 3—Boehm as a flute-player
and an inventor, 4—He brings about a revolution in the con-
struction of the flute, 5—-His improvements applicable to other
instruments, 6—Lavigne’s Boehm hautboy, 7—Boehm’s cylin-
drical bore; its advantages, 8—Boehm and Gordon, 9—
Boehm’s visits to England, 13—Experiment with the cylin-
drical flute in the Albert Hall, 14—Improbability of perfect
intonation ever being attained, 15.

INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE, 18—Boehm and Nicholson,
20—Gordon calls on Boehm, 22—Boehm’s ring-key a revela-
tion to Gordon, 24—Gordon’s visit to Munich, 26—He issues
an announcement of his flute, 30—Coche’s pictorial puff, 32—
Panic in the Swiss Guards, 33—Cause of Gordon’s insanity, 34.

RISE OF THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY, WITH AN INQUIRY
INTO THE ORIGIN OF RING-KEYS, 36—The creed of the
Gordonites and that of the Boehmites, 36—Boehm influenced
by Gordon, 37—Gordon’s crank and wire system, 33—Was
the ring-key a modification of the crescent ? 39—Or was it an
original idea of Boehm ? 41—Or was it of earlier origin ? 42—
Search made in Paris for early ring-keys, 44—Discovery of
an early ring-key at the Patent Office in London, 45—Boehm
brings his new flute to England in 1833, 46—Connects himself
with the iron industry, 47—The Boehm flute adopted by
xvi HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Carte and Clinton, 48—Camus takes a Boehm ftute to Paris;
the improvements of Buffet, 4g—Savart and the Boehm flute,
s0—Conversion of Dorus and Coche, 51—Coche’s secret
letter to Boehm, 52—The Institute of France, 53—Modifica-
tions of Coche, 55—Coche’s pamphlet, 62—Berton’s report to
the Academy of Fine Arts, 64—The seed of the Boehm-Gordon
controversy sown, 66—Coche writes to Gordon, 67—To
Boehm, 70—Coche’s triumph, 71.

AN EXEMPLIFICATION OF THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT
OF OPEN-KEYED MECHANISM FOR THE FLUTE—The five-
foot flute, 73—MacGregor’s bass flute, 75—-Nolan’s ring-
key, 79—Pottgiesser’s key, 83—Gottfried Weber’s key, 84—
Boehm’s first model, known as Gerock and Wolf’s flute, 85—
Gordon’s diatonic flute, 88—-The Boehm flute, 104---Gordon’s °
flute, according to Coche, 106.

APPENDIX TO PART I.

LETTER from Coche to Boehm, 112—From (presumably) Camus
to Boehm, 114—From Coche. to Boehm, 115—Berton’s
report, 117—Berton’s letter to Coche, 118—Translation of the
report, 120.

CocHE’s ATTACK ON BOEHM, 124—Letter from Madame Gordon,
127—From Boehm, 129—From Gordon, 132—Original French
of the letters, 133—-Of Berton’s report, 138—Of Coche’s attack
on Boehm, 141—Extracts from Boehm’s pamphlet, 149.

OBITUARY ARTICLE ON BOEHM, FROM THE LONDON FIGARO,
152

LETTER FROM Mr. W. S. BROADWOOD.. .. .. ., .. 155

ARTICLE EY DR, SCHAFHAUTL.. . 159
CONTENTS. Xvii

PART I1.

An EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION OF THE
BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY, 171—Mr. Walter Broad-
wood negatives the assertion made by a gentleman who had
invented a key for the flute, that Boehm was an ignorant
impostor, 171—Mr. Rockstro puts on the cap, 172—Mr.
Rockstro imputes hysterical adulation, withholds Mr. Broad-
wood’s name and the title of the work edited by him, 173—
Mr. Rockstro ignores this book ; the author’s offence, 174—
Mr. Rockstro outdoes Sir John Falstaff, 177 — Opinion
entertained of Boehm’s parts before he was dissected by
Mr. Rockstro, 178—Invention of the overstrung pianoforte,
179—Boehm’s prize medals tell against the jurors ; M. Coche’s
claim’ to the crown of folly, 181—Boehm’s ruling passion
strong almost in death, 182—Boehm’s perfidy, 183—Mr. Rock-
stro’s compunction, 184-— His disinterested witness, 185—
Ward as Boehm’s superior, 189—Seduction of Mr. Rockstro,
190 — Beauty and the Beast, 191—Boehm’s superhuman
rapidity of conception, 194—Boehm hunted by a pack of
wolves, 195—Mr. Rockstro kicks the dead lion, 197—Indict-
ment of the libellers of Boehm, 200—First count, the
excavation to receive the lower lip, 201—Second count, the
division of the column of air, 202—Faulty position of certain
holes of the eight-keyed flute, 205—-How remedied on Boehm’s
first model, 206—Siccama as an ignorant impostor, 209—He
commits the unpardonable sin, 211—Third count, the open
keys, 213—The keyless flute, 218—Mersenne’s proposal to
apply to it closed keys, 222—The first closed key, 225—
Appearance of a spectre, 226—Quantz’s second key, 229—
The open-keyed principle originated by ‘Tromlitz, 231—Fourth
count, the Boehm fingering, 232—Fifth count, the ring-keys,
234—Dr. Nolan’s key, 236—Balaam and the angel, 242—
Complex nature of invention, 245—Was the Boehm flute
Xvill HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

constructed before Gordon came to Munich? 249; Mr. Rock-
stro takes a plunge, 255—His modus operandi, 256—The
nose flute, 257—Mr. Rockstro versus Captain Cook, 256—
Hercules and his club “ Must be,” 269—Mr. Rockstro’s skill at
conjuring, 271—Did Boehm visit England in 1833? 274—
The giant and the pigmy, 281—Conflicting statements of
Boehm and Coche, 283—Boehm and the Devil, 289—The
prostitution of science, 292—Science and the material of the
flute, 293—And the bore, 294—And the cork, 295—And the
embouchure, 296—And the position of the finger holes, 297—
Protest against the practice of claiming perfection, 301—
Conclusion, 304.

M. CAVAILLE-COLL ON BOEHM’S SCHEMA .. .. «  «. 306

LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE, 314—From J. Clinton, 316—
From T. Prowse, 319—From J. Clinton, 322—From Flauto,.
325—From Old Howling Stick, 326—From Omega, 327—
From Thomas Prowse, 328—From Cornelius Ward, 3z2g—
From W. C. Hodgkinson, 332—From John Pask, 334—From
Old Howling Stick, 338—From Embouchure, 339—From
Henry Kelsall, M.D., 339—From Auletes, 340—From Jim
* Crow, 341—From E. N. F., 343—From Obadiah, 344—From
Anti-Monotonous, 345—From A Professor of Counter-point,
345

MEMOIR OF DR. SCHFAHAUTL.—Parentage and education, 348—
He receives an appointment in the library of the University of
Munich, 349—Makes Boehm’s acquaintance, 350—Is brought
by a lawsuit to England ; in conjunction with Boehm, suggests
an improvement in the manufacture of iron, 352—His patent
puddling machine, 354—His furnace for utilising anthracite,
356—He receives the Telford medal, 356—Returns to Munich,
357—His many appointments, 358—His honours, 360—His
death ; his genial disposition, 361—His inaccuracy, 362—
His experiments to show the influence of the material on the
tone of wind instruments, 363.
CONTENTS. xix

SCHAFHAUTL’s LIFE OF BOHM, 373—Béhm as a pupil of the
flute-player Kapeller, 376—First appointment in an orchestra,
1812, 378—Boéhm’s tour as goldsmith and musician, 1816;
musical boxes, 380—Flautist in the Court orchestra, 1818;
Peter Winter, 383—Béhm and Molique; concert tours, 385—
Béhm’s playing; Béhm with Catalani, 389 —Béhm establishes
a factory for the manufacture of flutes; Paganini, 392—
Defective mechanism of the then existing flutes, 393—Bohm’s
improvements, his first flute, 307—-Béhm’s connection with
Professor von Schafhautl: acoustic ideas of the latter, 396
—Béhm’s journey to London, 398—The English flautist
Nicholson and his instrument, 405—-Gordon’s experiments
for the improvement of the flute, 406—An English amateur
flute-player: experiences in England, 408—Mechanism and
imperfection of the flutes of that time, 410—Attempts at
improvement, 413— Béhm’s new flutes: the ring-key
system, 415—-Gordon’s experiments in flute-making and his
sad end, 418—Spread, recognition of, and attacks on Béhm’s
flute, 422—-Béhm’s trip to England; Schafhautl’s improve-
ment in the construction of the pianoforte, 426—The English
iron foundries and smelting furnaces, 428—Béhm establishes
English smelting furnaces in Germany; becomes a puddle-
master, 431—Sojourn in Paris, 1834 ; the acoustician Savart,
432—Coche in Paris makes changes in Béhm’s flute, 433—
Béhm’s improvement in the transmission apparatus, 438—
Bohm’s last improvement of the flute, the cylinder flute,
1847, 439-——Carte the flute-player’s writings for Béhm in
London, 440—Béhm’s account of the origin of his new
cylindrical flute, 442—Spread, recognition, and use of the
same, 448-—Bohm’s refutation of the error introduced by
Chladni, that the material of the instrument is without any
influence on the tone, 450—Béhm’s improvements in the
oboe; his alto flute, 457— Carte in London — Béhm’s
opinion of the improvements made on his flute, 459—
structure and significance of the Béhm flute; relation of
the theory of acoustics to its practice, as illustrated by the
Bohm flute, 462—Ward in London as Bohm’s opponent, 466
—Béhm’s pupils, Haindl, Fiirstenau, and Kriiger, 469—The
last years of his life; Bohm’s principles of flute-playing,
471 — Arrangements and last compositions, 474— Béhm’s
XX HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

death, family, and physical constitution, 476 — Béhm’s
memory in England and America; sympathy lacking in
Germany, 479.

BGOHM’S COMPOSITIONS .. «2 se 4+ oe twee 482

(NDE oe vila! Ge. JAR Le Be coe
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

 

PLATES.

PLATE
I. PoRTRAIT OF BOEHM AT THE AGE OF 31 (from a litho-

graph signed, Fr: Rehberg ad viv: del.) Frontispiece

II, FaCSIMILE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF GORDON’S

DIATONIC FLUTE... .. 0 «2 0s 0s «+ facing p. 102
III.
Iv.
% BOEHM’S PASSPORT (1833) ..  « « «facing p. 278
VI.
VII. PORTRAIT OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL.. .. .. facing p. 348

VIII. PoRTRAIT OF BOEHM WHEN AN OCTOGENARIAN
Sacing p. 373

ILLUSTRATIONS IN TEXT.

FIG. PAGE
1. Crank and wire mechanism «© «2 «6 we ue ae 38
. Portrait of Buffet .. «2 +e oe te te tee we 5

2
3. The five-foot flute .. 0 6. 42 te tee ne ee 74
4.

. MacGtegor’s bass flute .. 6. we eee tee we 78
Oo On Dw

10,

Il.

12.

13.

14.

IS.
16.
17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

o2:
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

28.

29.

30.
31.
32. Nolan’s perforated key ..
33-
34.
35:

. Nolan’s ring-key

. Pottgiesser’s key

. Gottfried Weber’s key
. Boehm’s first model

. Gordon’s diatonic flute ..

Facsimile of Gordon’s signature ..

The Boehm flute .. .. ..  «
Gordon’s flute, according to Coche

Copy of the engraving in Coche’s pamphlet
Ward’s Crescentic ED key ..

Eight-keyed flute

Diagram of holes of eight-keyed flute..
Boehm’s first model

Boehm’s key, after Clinton

Flute showing valve for closing the third hole ..
Bass English flute ..

Siccama’s diatonic flute...

Siccama’s one-keyed chromatic flute ..
Siccama’s lever for closing the G# hole

Old bass flute on the Siccama plan

Angels playing a flute quartett

Keyless cylindrical flute

Pipes of Sourdeline..

Early one-keyed flute

One-keyed flute by Rippert .. .. 2...
Flute-player from ‘ The Music Master,’ 1730
Flute of Quantz .. ow. ww

Nolan’s catch .. .. 0...
Portion of Nolan’s flute.. ..

Boehm’s first ring-key ..

80

83

84

87

go
103
104
107
148
188
204
205
206
206
207
207
208
210
212
213
214
218
220
225
226
227
229

237
36.
37-
38.
39-
40.
41.
42.
43.
. Coche’s pictorial puff
45-
46.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Boehm flute of 1832
Development of Carte’s 67 flute, No. 1

i r » No.2
or % » No.3
3 39 » Nog
Nose flute..
Girl playing nose flute .. ..  .. 6
Dr. Pottgiesser’s ring and crescent key

Side view of Ward’s flute .. .. .

Tulou’s improved flute ..

Xxili

240
246
246
247
248
262
267
268
273
28 I
453
PART I.
THEOBALD BOEHM.

 

AN OBITUARY ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE ‘MUSICAL STANDARD.’

 

Tue death is announced of this once celebrated
flautist at the patriarchal age of eighty-eight.1_ In
Germany, fifty years ago, Boehm was considered

1 It took place on the 25th of November, 1881, and the announce-
ment that he died at the age of eighty-eight went the round of the
newspapers. It is difficult to say, however, with certainty whether
the statement was or was not correct. If he was eighty-eight at
the time of his death he would have been born in 1793, but I have
been informed by Mr. John Finn that he has in his possession a
letter from Boehm, dated February 8th, 1872, in which he writes,
“T was born on the oth of April, 1794, and so I am too old to make
the acquaintance of the present generation.” Dr. Schafhautl in
his Lzfe of Boehm (infra, p. 375) also gives the same date. This
would make him eighty-seven at the time of his death. Yet Schaf-
hautl twice speaks of him as having reached his eighty-ninth year
(pp. 374, 475), whilst Boehm himself repeatedly makes statements
which involve the admission that he was born in 1793. For
instance, writing to Mr. W. S. Broadwood on the 22nd February,
1873, he says, “‘ My health is well enough in general, but my eyes
get so very weak that I am scarcely able to read and write. As
my eightieth birthday will be in a few weeks, the doctor says, ‘ That
is a malady which cannot be cured!’ Nevertheless. I play every
morning on my flute in G, and people like to hear it.” The follow-,
ing is from another letter, dated the 19th April, 1870: “I am still
able to work and play, although I have passed my seventy-seventh
birthday.” Sometimes, however, he confirms the statement that he
was born in 1794. Thus, writing on the 16th of April, 1866, a few
days after his seventy-second birthday, presuming that he was born
on the 9th of April, 1794, he says, “I am now an old man of
seventy-two, and I now play only among friends ; but good music
is still my greatest pleasure in this world.” Again, in November
1868, he speaks of himself as “ nearly seventy-five years old” (Essay

B 2
4 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

the first flute-player of the time.” He was re-
markable alike for his great execution, and the
grace and good taste of his style. ‘ D’aprés les
éloges, qui lui sont accordés par les artistes qui
ont entendu,” says Fétis, “il parait que Boehm
se distingue également et par sa belle maniére de
chanter /’adagzo et par le brillant de son exécu-
tion dans les difficultés.” His works are very
numerous, and some of his solos are not unfre-
quently heard in the concert-room, even at the
present day.

But his fame as a performer and composer has
been completely eclipsed by his success as an in-
ventor. In connection with this, it is scarcely an
exaggeration to say that his name is a household
word with every flute-player in the world. So
radical were the changes which he introduced,
that the flute now in general use may be said to
be a new instrument under an old name. When
he took it in hand, the flute was not only very

on the Construction of Flutes, p.54). On the other hand, ten years
afterwards, in July 1878, he writes to Mr. Mills, “I am quite well
in my old age of eighty-five years” (257d. p. 61). Possibly Boehm
may have overlooked the circumstance that a man’s birthday is not
the day on which he was born, but the anniversary of that day, and
that thus a child is one year old on his first birthday. Sometimes,
moreover, persons fall into the mistake of believing that they are of
a certain age as soon as they have entered, without waiting until
they have completed the last year of the series. In this way a man
who has only just passed his sixty-ninth birthday, may inadvertently:
speak of himself as being seventy years old. g

* Fétis, in the first edition of his Biographical Dictionary (1835,
article ‘Boehm’), speaks of Boehm as “considéré comme le
premier flatiste de l’époque actuelle, en Allemagne.” In the second
edition of this work (1860), for “le premier fifitiste” is substituted
“un des plus habiles flfitistes.”
THEOBALD BOEHM. 5

much out of tune, but scarcely two of its notes
were alike in quality or power, some of them
being strong and clear, others weak and muffled.*
Several of the shakes, too, were wretched,‘ and
as an instance of their bad effect, it may be
mentioned that Nicholson, although his tone was
admitted to be better than that of any other
player of his day, never made the shake on D,
which occurs in the ‘Ranz des Vaches,’ in the
overture to ‘William Tell,’ without causing a
shudder to run through the band.®

By adopting two principles, one that the holes
should be equal, or nearly so, in size, and the
other that the keys when in repose should be
open instead of closed, and by constructing me-
chanism by which these principles could be carried
out, Boehm produced such a revolution in the
instrument, that one of the jurors® at the Exhibi-
tion of 1851 declared that, in comparison with

5 In a pamphlet entitled, Examen critique de la Flite ordinaire
comparée & la Flite de Bohm, Coche prints the scales, and indi-
cates separately each note, which, on the old flute, was either sharp,
flat, or feeble, and sums up by saying, “‘ What can be expected of
an instrument, which, out of 217 notes, forming the total of the
twelve scales,.presents almost half of them defective (fausses) ?”

+ “In a compass of three octaves, the flute of the present day
presents forty notes on which one cannot execute a shake without
causing a defective sound to be heard.”—Coche.

5 This very imperfect shake attracted the attention of the con-
ductor of the orchestra of the Covent Garden Opera House, Signor,
afterwards Sir Michael Costa.

Coche includes it in a list of twenty-five passages, taken from the
works of Auber, Boieldieu, Cherubini, Carafa, Ad. Adam, and other
distinguished composers, which he brings forward as examples of
music which it was impossible to execute in a satisfactory manner
on the flute then in use, though written for that instrument.

8 This was Berlioz. Mr. Carte, who was present on the occasion,
6 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Boehm’s, the eight-keyed flute was only fit to be
played at a fair. It must be admitted, however,
that Boehm was not so successful with the high
notes, from the D upwards, as he was with the
two lower octaves. It is true that execution in
this region was so much facilitated, that passages,
before almost impossible, were rendered com-
paratively easy; but the tone of most of the
notes was thinner and poorer than on the old flute, °
and their intonation anything but satisfactory, as
they became, when forced, much too sharp.

As Boehm’s improvements are applicable to
the rest of the wood-wind, the oboe, clarionet, and
bassoon, surprise has been expressed that they
have not been more generally adopted. The ex-
planation usually given is, that it is impossible to
improve these instruments; that, with them, im-
provement would be destruction, as their essential
character lies in their imperfections. Perhaps,
however, the cause of this absence of reform may
rather be traced to the want of a sufficiently large
number of amateurs to break down by their
influence the conservatism of professional players,
and to overcome their disinclination to change.
A musician who has spent his youth in learning
to conceal the defects of an instrument, has but
little inclination to give up the vantage he has
gained, nor has he time, amidst the engagements
of his professional career, to learn a new system

informs me that he heard him make this observation in French, as
he was walking about the room whilst the instruments were being
tested. He was making a comparison by playing upon a flute on
the old system.
THEOBALD BOEHM. 7

of fingering. Still less can he be expected to
place in the hands of a young player, soon,
perhaps, to become a rival, an instrument which
may be the means of enabling him to come to the
front in the race for artistic distinction.

A clarionet’ on the Boehm system, modified
by Klosé, is in use in military bands in France,
and the Boehm oboe was adopted in this country
by M. Lavigne, who was so celebrated as a solo
player. His execution on it was amazing, and it
seemed to have double the power of the old oboe,
enabling him to make extraordinary cvescendos
and azmznuendos. Unfortunately, however, when
playing in the orchestra, he did not always re-
frain from using the extra power he had at his
command, and so caused the oboe to unduly pre-
dominate. This created a prejudice against the
instrument, especially as the characteristic reedy
tone was intensified, and assumed a piffero-like
timore in the loud sounds.’

Having effected a reformation in the holes,

7 The mechanism of this clarionet was contrived by Buffet.
Klosé pays him the following compliment :—“ It is to M. Auguste
Buffet, junior, who seized and interpreted my ideas with a rare
happiness, that I owe the instrument I now present to artists and
amateurs.”—Klosé’s Method for the Clarinet, English edition,
published by Rivitre and Hawkes.

In England a clarionet on Boehm’s principles has been designed
by Mr. Carte, and is manufactured by Rudall, Carte, & Co., but
it has not come into general use. I have seen a Boehm bassoon,
but have never heard of one being played.

8 I learn from M. Buffet, who made the instrument on which
M. Lavigne plays, that, though it was bored on a model, or bit, as
it is technically called, he received from Boehm, the hoies, by
-M. Lavigne’s instructions, were made larger than those proposed
by Boehm. This, of course, would account for the altered tone.

*B 4
8 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Boehm next directed his attention to the shape
of the interior of the flute, and in 1846 succeeded
in his second great achievement—a new bore,’
cylindrical in its lower two-thirds, but tapering in
its upper part, where it terminates in a truncated
cone.*°

At first the new bore met with violent opposi-
tion. So great was the prejudice against it, that
the late Mr. Clinton declared that, if the cylinder
were right, Nature herself must be wrong. How-
ever, it soon gained the ascendency, and before
many years even Mr. Clinton began to manufac-
ture cylindrical flutes.

The following are the chief advantages which
the cylindrical has over the conical bore :—Greater
ease in blowing, less strength of lip being re-
quired; greater carrying, or penetrating power,
the sound being audible further off, and the tone,
to listeners at a distance, being clearer and
brighter, as proved by an experiment made in the
Albert Hall;" a better pzano, the soft tones

® Boehm is said to have made no less than three hundred experi-
ments in connection with this invention. Avery interesting account
of them is given by him in his pamphlet, Ueber den Flotenbau
und dessen neueste Verbesserungen, Mainz, 1847, to which, or to
the French translation of it, often quoted in this work, entitled,
De la Fabrication et des derniers Perfectionnements des Flutes,
Paris, 1848, the reader is referred. In 1882 an English version of
this work by Boehm himself was published by Messrs. Rudall,
Carte, & Co., under the title of Ax Essay on the Construction of
Flutes, edited by Mr. W. S. Broadwood.

10 The termination is not, strictly speaking, conical, but slightly
curved. Boehm professed to employ the curve of the parabola, so
that the bore at this part may be said, I suppose, to correspond to.
a truncated parabolic conoid.

1 For an account of this experiment see Note A, p. 14.
THEOBALD BOEHM. 9

being more delicate in quality; greater,certainty
in eliciting, and greater ease in subduing, the high
notes, which are less liable to become too sharp.”
In one respect, however, it is inferior: for, in
passing rapidly from the higher to the lower part
of the instrument, the performer cannot attack, or
articulate, the low notes with so much force and
firmness.”

It has been the subject of a controversy, to
which national jealousy has imparted needless
warmth, whether Boehm was, or was not, indebted
for some of his ideas to a Captain Gordon, a
Swiss gentleman of English extraction, who was
working, among others, at the same time,
with the same object. But however this may
be, there can be no doubt whatever but ‘that
Gordon adopted some of Boehm’s inventions,
and even the French admit that two of his keys,

12 Further remarks on the intonation of the cylinder flute will be
found at p. 15, Note B.

18 Tt has been stated that the sox plein, a quality of tone
resembling that of the clarionet, which can be produced in the
lowest octave of the flute, is peculiar to the cylindrical bore. This
reedy timbre, however, can be brought out with quite as much, if
not more intensity on the conical flute: it depends, not on the
cylindrical shape of the bore, but on the strength of the lip of the
performer. Nicholson, who could elicit every variety of tone which
the flute is capable of producing, is said to have forced it out in
a way never before heard, and hence it was christened the
“ Nicholsonian effect.” It is much cultivated by English flute-
players, and those who have strong lips are often very proud of
being able to “thrash” the flute, as they term it, and so make it
heard. Most of the Continental flautists, however, look upon its
use, except to a very limited extent, as an indication of bad style,
akin to the questionable taste of some contralto singers, who,
finding themselves gifted with the faculty of emitting their low
notes with great power, never lose an opportunity of forcing them
on the ear of the listener.
IO HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

those for F sharp and the D shake, belong to
Boehm.”

Gordon, who began to make experiments in
Paris in 1826, made Boehm’s acquaintance in
London in 1831, when each showed the other
the result of his labours up to that time. Boehm
observed that Gordon had lowered and enlarged
the E hole, as well as that he had adopted a ring-
key. But the idea of this contrivance was not
new to him, for he states that not only had he had
in contemplation a flute with mechanism based on
a system of ring-keys before 1831, but that he
had already made, since he had been in London,
a model of the new instrument.” It was not until
he heard the magnificent tone of Nicholson, and
saw the enormous”™ holes of his flute, that he
began to despair of being able to retain the old
fingering.

They parted; Boehm returned home, and in
1832 constructed the flute which bears his name.
In 1833 Gordon went to Munich, and from that
time the rival inventors appear to have always
been on friendly terms.” Boehm placed an artisan

4 Infra, p. 126. 8 Infra, pp. 21, 130.

6 Infra, p. 22. W Infra, p. 130.

18 The holes of the flutes made for Nicholson’s own use were
much larger than those of the instruments sold as “ Nicholson
flutes.” Boehm, whose fingers, though long, were thin and taper,
told me that when he attempted to play on Nicholson’s flute he
found himself unable to stop the holes. He described Nicholson
as a handsome man, of commanding stature and muscular build,
with a powerful and capacious chest.

* It is only fair to mention that, since this article was published
in the Musical Standard, 1 have been told by Buffet, who knew
both Boehm and Gordon, that they had a violent (47#ante) quarrel ;
but when or where it took place he was unable to inform me.
THEOBALD BOEHM. II

and a workshop in his own house at the disposal
of Gordon, who, after working some months and
incorporating in his new production, with the
inventor’s consent, some of Boehm’s fingering,
issued an announcement of his flute.” In 1838 a
Frenchman commenced the manufacture of the
Boehm flute, which had previously been imported
into France from Germany, and, at the same time,
the invention was claimed in Paris as Gordon’s.
A letter was then written to Gordon in Switzer-
land for information on the subject, but, owing tc
the state of his health, his wife thought it best to
conceal it from him, and to reply to it herself.
Her answer,” which does credit rather to her
heart than her head, does not throw any new
light on the point at issue.

An examination of the engraving,” representing
the ingenious, but practically useless instrument,
on which the claim is based, shows that it was
larger and much less conical” than usual in shape,
and that the B flat and F sharp (the latter, as we
have seen, taken from Boehm), were produced by
the fingers of the right hand, as on Boehm’s
instrument, though the mechanism by which the
action of the fingers is conveyed to the holes to
be closed is very different. It may be mentioned,

20 Infra, p. 132, 2 Infra, p. 127. 2 Wig. 12, p. 107.

23 This departure from the usual conical shape is so marked that,
judging from the engraving, one would suppose that Gordon’s flute,
if not actually cylindrical, presented a distinct approach to the
cylindrical form. I am assured, however, by M. Buffet, who knew
Gordon and did work on his flute, that this resemblance is super-
ficial only. Gordon’s bore was probably funnel-shaped at its lower
end, like that of the bass flute represented in Fig. 1.
i2 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

en passant, that this cross-action of the fingers is
a drawback to Boehm’s system, and that in the
attempts (some of them successful) which have
been made by Carte, Briccialdi, and others to
make improvements on it, one of the chief objects
has been to do away with these objectionable
back-fingerings.”

But whether Boehm borrowed from Gordon, or
whether the same ideas occurred to both inventors
independently of each other, or whether these
ideas were derived from some common source, it is
certain that to Boehm is due the credit of bringing
them into a practical form, and introducing them

* The numberless attempts: which have been made to improve
the Boehm fingering, form a practical protest against it. But, not-
withstanding all the ingenuity which has been brought to bear on
the subject, no progress has yet been made towards what is so
much to be desired, namely, a mechanism with a fingering which
should be universally accepted, just as is that of the violin or the
pianoforte. Much facility, however, has been gained by a return
to the closed keys of the old flute, care being taken to guard against
inequality of tone by the introduction of duplicate holes covered
with open keys. In this way, Mr. Carte, by means of a closed
F key, has overcome most of the difficulties of the back-fingering
for F sharp, and M. Buffet, by having recourse to a closed B flat
key, those of the back-fingering for B flat. The majority of the
French players, and Mr. Radcliff and his followers in this country,
have returned to the closed G sharp, to the great relief of the little
finger of the left hand.

Following out this principle still further, I have designed ’a flute,
which has been made for me by Messrs. Rudall, Carte, & Co.,
on which all these three closed keys are retained, whilst the system
of open holes is in no instance departed from. On this flute there
are very great facilities for fingering, and two new and important
shakes in the high octave; at the same time the fingering of the old
flute is retained for all the notes except one (C natural). Moreover,
by the introduction of a piece of new mechanism, each of the upper
notes from D to G, both inclusive, is made with only one, and that
in every case the correct vent-hole (the fifth below the fundamental
note) ; a result, so far as I know, never before obtained,
THEOBALD BOEHM. 13
to the world. No sooner had his announcement
been issued, than Gordon undertook a journey to
London, in the hope of getting his flute taken
up, but he was doomed to disappointment. He
returned to his family in Switzerland much
depressed, though he again recovered his spirits.
However, two or three years afterwards, in endea-
vouring to effect, with his own hands, a further
improvement in his flute, he had the misfortune to
crack it; whereupon his reason, which had been
tottering since 1830, gave way, and it was found
necessary to place him under restraint.

In early life Boehm learnt his father’s business,
that of a goldsmith, and the skill he thus acquired
in the use of tools was of great assistance to him
in his experiments. He employed his inventive
power on several other things besides the flute,*
and, for two of his inventions, an improvement in
the manufacture of iron, and a method of com-
municating rotatory motion, he received prize
medals.* He visited England nine times, and
spent altogether more than two years in this
country. He used to speak with enthusiasm of ©
his reception, and of the kindness and hospita-
lity of his English friends. When the writer had
the pleasure of seeing him at Munich in Septem-
ber 1881, notwithstanding his great age, he still
‘held himself erect and walked with a firm step.

25 In the first edition of Fétis’s Déctzonary he is credited with
the invention of a new kind of pianoforte.

26 It seems that the “ prize medal” which Boehm received for the
part he played in connection with the iron industry was a decoration.
See infra, p. 431, also p. 438. :
14 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Of this evidence of a hale frame, so seldom seen
in his unwonted years, he was very proud, and he
attributed it, as well as his good health and
longevity, to his temperate habits; for, without
being particularly abstemious, he always avoided
excess, especially in alcohol. Although he did
not marry until he was twenty-six, he left behind
him more than fifty descendants.

NoTE A, page 8.

Mr. Radcliff having an engagement for a concert to
be given at the Albert Hall, during which he was to play
a solo, a duet with the pianoforte, and an obbligato to a
song, besides taking part in other music, it was arranged
to take advantage of the opportunity to make a com-
parison between the effect, in this large building, of the
conical and the cylindrical flute. Mr. Radcliff was to
use sometimes a conical and sometimes a cylindrical
instrument, and to prevent those who were to be the
. judges from being swayed by prejudice, he was not to
let it be known beforehand on which of the two he was
going to play. e

I stationed myself in the gallery, as far as possible’
from the orchestra, and from where I was placed I soon
detected a marked difference between the two flutes. On
the one the notes were bright, the rapid passages clear
and sparkling, and the tone possessed of that limpid
sweetness so characteristic of the flute; whilst the effect
of the other seemed, in comparison, to be dull, heavy,
and indistinct. Mr. Richard Carte was present in another
part of the Hall, and his impression corresponded very
much with my own.
THEOBALD BOEHM. 15

At that time I was playing on a conical flute, having
left the cylinder for it, being firmly convinced that,
whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the
effect of the cone close at hand, there could be no doubt
of its superiority when heard at a distance. Whenever,
therefore, the better effect was produced, I felt no doubt
whatever but that Mr. Radcliff was using the conical
flute, and great was my surprise on learning from him,
after the concert, that I was wrong in every instance.

This experiment seemed to me to be so conclusive
that I at once returned to the cylinder, and I have
played on it ever since. I believe that Mr. Radcliff
now seldom uses a conical flute for his public per-
formances.

I ought to mention that in this trial the cone
had more than a fair chance. The conical flute was
Mr. Radcliffs own, which he had in daily use ; whereas
the cylinder was one lent him for the occasion, and it
was only placed in his hands a few hours before the
concert. Moreover it was on the Boehm system of
fingering, a system very different from Mr. Radcliff’s,
and although this talented artist is gifted with the
extraordinary power of being able to play on any flute,
no matter what the fingering may be, yet he must have
been at a disadvantage when using an instrument to
which he was not accustomed.

Both flutes were of wood, with lined heads.

NoTE B, page 9.

Notwithstanding this improvement, the chief diffi-
culties with which the player has to contend as regards
intonation still lie in the high octave; and nothing but
a correct ear and a good embouchure will enable him to
overcome them.

Each note of the second eles is slightly flatter than
the corresponding note of the first, but this difference is
16 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

so trifling as to be of little practical moment. It is
different, however, with the high octave, where many of
the notes, unless skilfully blown, become, especially in
forte passages, unmistakably and painfully sharp. When
the air within the flute grows warm, the pitch of the
instrument rises, and if the high octave is not more
affected than the other two, it at any rate becomes more
difficult to control. This, as the temperature of a concert-
room is sometimes very high during a performance, adds
greatly to the embarrassment of the player. Boehm,
who took the utmost pains to endeavour to remedy the
defective intonation of the fiute, published a schema or
diagram, as he terms it, to enable musical instrument
makers to ascertain the theoretically correct places for
the different holes; but since the first edition of this
work was published, it has been openly stated that flute-
makers do not accept it as a guide.

Some improvement may, perhaps, be expected from
further experiments with the head-joint,?" the resources of
which are probably not yet exhausted ; but there seems
to be little or no prospect of perfection of intonation
ever being attained. To cause the diameter of the bore
to vary, as the performer passes from one octave to
another, is, of course, an impossibility ; nor is it likely
that mechanism of any practical use will ever be contrived
for keeping the cork in motion whilst the instrument ”

*7 T am now (1894) in possession of head-joints with which I have
much less difficulty in playing the high notes in tune. Moreover,
of late years it has been discovered that an important factor in
determining the proper position for the holes had been overlooked,
so that flutes are now much better tuned than they were in 1882,
when this work was written.

78 “Un second inconvénient qui m’obligeait de m’écarter de la
théorie, c’est limpossibilité de faire sur une fiiite la distance du
bouchon de milieu de l’embouchure en proportion des différentes
longueurs des ondulations d’air, parce que, sans un mécanisme
extrémement compliqué et presque impraticable, ni le bouchon ni
Pembouchure ne peuvent étre faits si mobiles qu’a chaque intervalle
cette distance augmente ou diminue selon la longueur inférieure de
THEOBALD BOEHM. 17

is being played, or for opening and closing a set of
separate and independent holes, as vent-holes for the
high notes.

Many, I amongst them, when commencing the study
of the flute, have been misled by the statements of flute-
makers regarding the perfection of their respective
instruments. Mr. Siccama, for instance, in his ‘ Theory
of the New Patent Diatonic Flute’ (London, 18 50), thus
writes: “ Although the flute has always been a popular
instrument, scientific musicians have ever regarded it as
an imperfect one, on account of its being, in almost every
key, out of tune. Many have tried at various times to
remedy this defect, and much was hoped for in France
from the introduction of the Boehm flute, which, as far as
equality of tone is concerned, is an improvement on the
old plan; but, when examined with respect to correct-
ness of tune, it is very defective, particularly in the higher
notes, without taking into consideration the difficulties
arising from the complexity of its mechanism. All other
attempts in a like manner have only partially succeeded,
until it has become the general opinion that this defect of
the flute could only be modified, and that it is incapable
of being played as perfectly in tune as the violin.

“This imperfection has hitherto formed the great
obstacle:in studying the flute, for only consummate skill,
united with great perseverance and a scientific ear,
could enable the performer to arrive at any degree of
excellence in the art of flute-playing.

“ This subject has occupied the attention of the inventor
for some years ; and after a very careful investigation of
the theory of sounds, and repeated experiments, he has
succeeded in producing a flute equal in correctness of
tune to the violin. In order to prove this assertion, it

la colonne d’air. I] faut donc trouver pour le bouchon une place
moyenne, de telle sort que les nceuds de vibration des notes les
plus élevées ne s’approchent pas trop de l’embouchure et que ces
sons puissent encore développer.”— Boehm.

Cc
18 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

will be necessary to enter briefly into the subject of
Tune.” Here followsa mathematical disquisition on the
subject of tuning, extending over three pages quarto.

The following remarks, in a very different strain, are
from the pen of the late Mr. Clinton :—

“To say that I offer to the public a perfect flute in
my recent invention, would be saying more than the
flute is capable of being made. No flute is perfect, nor
can be; the principle by which we obtain the sounds of
thirty-seven pipes, varying in length and size, from one
single tube, precludes the possibility of perfection. Nor
do I say that my flute is arranged in consonance with
strict acoustical principles, because I am ‘confident so
imperfect an instrument as the flute never can be. It is
easy to show how the vibrations and the waves of air in
the flute are governed by the laws and principles of
acoustics, and to the uninitiated ear it smacks in some
degree of learning, but it is quite absurd to say that
an instrument which, with one tube, has to produce
thirty-seven different sounds, and one hole of which
(the C sharp hole) I have proved to be connected with
the production of so many different notes, can be con-
structed on true acoustical principles. The flute, by such
attempts at refinement, has been lowered to an extent
unworthy of it, while no beneficial end has been gained,
Mr. Boehm, who for years devoted himself to the study
of acoustical laws as connected with the flute, despaired
of being able to regulate the instrument by these laws ;
the result of his experiments, he says in a letter to me,
dated January 1847, is this—that though he sees clearly
by the laws of nature why one note or another will not
come out freely or in tune, why the octaves are here too
flat, here too sharp, &c., he also sees clearly what Savart
twelve years before had told him atParis—zhar zt ds
impossible to make a perfect flute.’ — Treatise on the
Flute, o. 46.
19

INVENTION

OF

THE BOEHM FLUTE.

+e

BorHM early evinced a disposition to apply his
inventive faculty and mechanical skill to the flute.
The manual dexterity he had acquired in his
father’s workshop enabled him, when quite a boy,
to construct without any difficulty a four-keyed
flute for his own use. As he grew older, it was
his constant endeavour to make improvements in
the manufacture of his favourite instrument, and
amongst his first applications to the flute, with a
view of rendering the instrument less imperfect,
may be mentioned new springs, cork joints,
leather fittings (garuztures en cuir), a sliding em-
bouchure of gold, and other things then not
generally used.’

Finding that he could not get his ideas carried
out according to his wishes by the musical instru-
ment makers whom he employed, in 1828 he
established a flute factory of his own. He now
succeeded for the first time in making.a flute with
which he was satisfied, and on this he played

1 De la Fabrication des Fittes, p. 8. Essay on the Construction
of Flutes, p. V1.

C2
during the professional visit which he paid in 1831

to Paris and London.’
Up to this time his efforts had been directed to

the improvement of the eight-keyed flute, but
whilst he was in London he reluctantly decided
to abandon the old fingering.

What induced him thus to change his views?
He shall tell us himself :—

“In this latter city,” he says, ‘I was struck
with the volume of the tone of Nicholson, who
was then in the full vigour of his talent. This
power was the result of the extraordinary size of
the holes of his flute,* but it required his mar-

2 He played in London at one of the Philharmonic Society’s
concerts, given on the 9th of May. He chose for the occasion his
“Grande Polonaise’ (Op. 16), dedicated to Camus. His perform-
ance is thus noticed in the Harmonicon: “Mr. Boehm is a very
superior player, with an excellent tone, and his composition was,
comparatively speaking, highly respectable; his style differs from
that of Nicholson and Drouet, inasmuch as he strives to touch the
heart rather than to astonish.”

On May 3rd, he took part in Moscheles’ concert, and is said to
have played a fantasia “with great ability.” He also played at
Moralt’s concert (Moralt came from Munich) on May 14th, and at
Hummel’s on the 20th of June. For other concerts see pp. 399, 435.

5 “The father of the late justly celebrated Nicholson gave greater
power to some of the lower tones of the flute by increasing the size
of some of the apertures to a most unreasonable extent. We shall
shortly see that this process necessarily sharpens the tones of the
lower octave more than those of the upper octaves, thereby throw-
ing a still greater inequality into the scales of the instrument and
creating the necessity for a greater action and practice of the
embouchure.

“Tt was here that Nicholson greatly excelled ; but the instrument
was rendered less manageable for all those who did not possess
great command of the embouchure, because the means of correcting
the defective intonation of the flute are not supplied by the instru-
ment, but are expected from the performer, by a certain alteration

of the action and position of the lips and of the force and direction
af the iet af hreath % Ward
INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE. 21

vellous skill and his excellent embouchure to mask
the want of accuracy of intonation and equality
of tone resulting from the position of the holes,
which was incorrect and repugnant to the elemen-
tary principles of acoustics.* I saw also in London,

* “Tn every flute made in the usual manner, the low C sharp and
E flat apertures are much too lew; the E natural very much too
high ; the F natural is also too high, and the F sharp too low; the
G nearly right ; the G sharp, A natural, and B flat much too high,
and the topmost aperture much too low.

“The necessary evil consequences produced by this improper
position of the apertures, are attempted to be remedied, so far as
intonation is concerned, by making those apertures which are too
high, small in size ; and wce versd, the apertures too low in position
are made large in diameter. But, as may always be predicted in
the application of false remedies, the above-named process only
very partially relieves one evil whilst it creates another of equal or
greater magnitude. As every flute-player is aware, a note deter-
mined by a small aperture, even if too high, necessarily yields a
paltry, feeble tone ; and a too low and large aperture gives a com-
paratively strong tone. Add to which, there are no apertures pro-
vided for the independent production of the second C natural and
C sharp, they being made by employing the apertures belonging to
other notes, by what is termed cross-fingering. This again being
equally a jumbling and confounding of natural laws, gives birth,
like the small holes, to a muffled quality and doubtful character of
tone. But we appeal to all performers on the best flutes of the
usual make, can they produce A, E, C, or other notes, loud, of
good quality, and in tune, without so much setting about it and
manceuvring, as is utterly impracticable in actual play? We
are sure they will answer in the negative; and we are further
sure that even Nicholson, with his special flute for his special
embouchure, did not and could not accomplish what we have
asked.. On the contrary, he has left on record the existence of
these and similar incorrigible difficulties as necessarily appertaining
to the instrument. By stupendous practice of the embouchure, he
and other talented performers have undoubtedly produced wonderful
and delightful effects upon the flute; but the honest have, at all
times, deposed to the difficulty of arriving at anything like a per-
formance satisfactory to the musician.

“By that quality of the flute which we have above described,
the artful quack has had the means of imposing on the public
instruments which he could make-appear in tune, obtaining thereby
at this time, an amateur, Mr. Gordon, who had
already made numerous attempts at improvement,
first at Paris, afterwards in London.

“ The E hole on his flute was bored lower down
and larger than usual, and, to avoid the lever of
the F, he had adopted a ring-key; he had also
had made a number of keys and levers ingeniously
conceived, but too complicated to ever be of much
advantage to his flute, which, moreover, was con-
structed in defiance of the principles of acoustics,
and was, therefore, destined to remain imperfect.

“ All this confirmed my conviction, the result
of my long researches, that no improvement,
really complete, could be brought about without
a reform of the system of fingering. I determined,
then, to devote my energies to the construction
of an entirely new flute, which should combine
accuracy of intonation with power and equality of
tone, and on which all music written within its
compass could be executed.

“On my return to Munich, I set to work.
After a careful examination and numerous trials of
holes and different kinds of mechanism, I decided
on the system of ring-keys as best calculated to
fulfil all the requirements, a system which I had
already had in contemplation before 1831.” ®

an exorbitant and iniquitous profit ; on the other hand, many have
imposed on themselves by supposing that the flutes on which they
have witnessed such effects, must be well in tune, and have given
large prices to possess them. We have even known instances in
which 50/7. have been given for instruments much worse than
ordinary in this respect.”— Ward.

° The French from which this passage is translated will be found
at p. 149.
INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE. 23

As it was during his acquaintance with Gordon
in London that Boehm has been accused of appro-
priating his invention, and as this charge has
caused his name to be mentioned with much
obloquy, it may be worth while to inquire for a
moment what he might have seen on Gordon’s
flute which he subsequently reproduced on his own.

For instance, did he see open-standing keys ?
Yes, undoubtedly. But open keys were not a
new invention ; they existed already on the foot
joint of the eight-keyed flute, and on other instru-
ments besides the flute.*.

Or, again, did he see the fingering which he
subsequently adopted? The negative evidence
on this point is perfectly conclusive with respect
to all the notes except two (C natural and B
flat), respecting which some uncertainty prevails.’

§ This leads to another and still more important question, namely :
Did Boehm now see, for the first time, open-standing valves suh-
stituted for the closed keys of the eight-keyed flute ; in other words,
did he borrow from Gordon the idea of the open-keyed system of
fingering? In answer to this question, we may say that, although
Gordon carried out the system of open keys still more completely
than Boehm, for he opened even the E flat key, which Boehm left
closed ; yet Boehm on his first model (Fig. 8) had already opened
one of the keys, that for F natural ; he must, therefore, if this model
was made before he saw Gordon’s flute, of which I entertain little
doubt, have been alive to the importance of open keys before he

‘became acquainted with Gordon.

’ The matter stands thus: there have come down to us repre-
sentations of two of Gordon’s flutes (Figs. 8 and 12) ; on one of them
(Fig. 12), but not on the other, these two notes are fingered as on
the Boehm flute. Now Boehm says (see Appendix, P 152): “Mr.
Gordon made use of essential parts of my instrument in constructing
his own, but he always loyally acknowledged it.” Gordon did not
acknowledge that he borrowed these two fingerings from Boehm,
and it therefore seems to be a legitimate inference from Boehm’s
observation that Gordon did not take them from the Boehm flute,
24 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Boehm arrived at his system of fingering by con-
structing three models, and then choosing from
amongst them, after actual use, that which seemed
to offer the greatest advantages.*

Then, as regards the most important part of the
invention—the ring-keys—Boehm mentions that
there was a ring-key on Gordon’s flute. But he
also states that he showed Gordon a model of
his own new flute, which he had made since
he had been in London;°* so that he, too, was
able, on his side, to produce a ring-key, in an im-
perfect form it is true, for it wanted the axle, an
important part of the contrivance, but still a ring-
key, by means of which one finger could close two
holes.

When Gordon saw this ring-key his eyes fell
on an object which conveyed to him a revelation.
Crude and immature as it was, there was disclosed
in it the mechanical principle which was destined
to revolutionise the flute. This key was literally
the key of the invention ; it embodied the essence
of the device by means of which was rendered
practicable a purpose which Gordon, and others

 

However, since the foregoing was written, Mr. Rockstro has ascer-
tained that the C natural fingering was originated before Gordon’s
time (see p. 234), leaving one only, that for B flat, to be accounted for.
* “Vavais fabriqué plusieurs plans aprés de mires réflexions sur
toutes les combinaisons de tons possibles et de mouvements de
doigts—car dans de telles choses, ce n’est que la pratique qui décide
définitivement—et je fabriquai trois modéles de fiites construites
différemment, parmi lesquelles par examen soigneux de tous les
avantages et désavantages, il se montra que le modéle de ma fidite
comme depuis lors offrait tous les avantages mieux que les autres,”
—Extract from a manuscript given to the Author by Boehm,
® Infra, p. 130.
INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE. 25

before him, had been labouring in vain to accom-
plish, the production of an open-keyed instru-
ment. That the idea seemed to Gordon to be an
Eureka, the one thing needful to complete “the
means of execution” of his flute, can excite no
surprise. Nor is it astonishing that he should
have discarded his own ring-key, whatever that
contrivance might have been, to substitute for it
one constructed after the idea with which he now
became acquainted. But what does seem extra-
ordinary, considering the way in which Boehm
was so often treated by his brother flute-makers,
is that having seen this key, he did not secretly
appropriate the idea, convert it to his own use,
and then proceed to disparage, belittle and vilify
Boehm. But Gordon was a soldier, and, as Boehm
testified, “‘a gentleman in every respect.” He
was a stranger to the corrupting influence of the
spirit of trade, an influence so destructive of the
sense of honour. As if he had foreseen that the
day would come when the rivals of Boehm would,
for their own purpose, credit him with the inven-
tion of the Boehm flute, he disclaimed by antici-
pation a pretension to the honour to be thrust
upon him, by inserting in the announcement of
his instrument the following words: “Zhe suppres-
sion of the two keys for F natural, and ther re-
placement by one key for F sharp, 1s an idea the
application of which offers great advantages. The
idea of this key for F sharp, communicated by
Mr. T. Bohm, of Munich, has been, with his
consent, adopted for the present flute, of which it
completes the means of execution.”
26 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Gordon imagined that the unsatisfactory action
of his keys arose, not from the inherent mechani-
cal defects of his system, but from the difficulty
of getting his mechanism properly constructed.”
Having failed in this in Paris, he had come to
London, where he employed two flute-makers,
Messrs. Rudall and Rose™ and Mr. Ward,” but
without success. He then determined to try what
Boehm, who had a very skilful workman, could do
for him, and in 1833 he went to Munich.* He
now saw, for the first time, the Boehm flute,
which had been finished in the previous year, and
it is only reasonable to suppose that if it had been
merely a modification of his own invention, as has
been alleged by M. Coche, he would at once have
indignantly broken off all communication with
Boehm, as a man who had shown himself capable

10 See Appendix, p. 163.

11 [t is a tradition in the house of Rudall and Co., that the former
heads of the firm worked for Gordon.

12 « About the year 1831 we constructed a flute under the direc-
tion of Captain Gordon, of Charles Xth’s Swiss Guards, who had
been experimenting on the matter for some time. In this flute the
apertures were placed consistently with the proper length of tube
required for each fundamental note in the chromatic gamut ; and
the captain contrived a method of acting upon the additional aper-
tures beyond the number of fingers. With this flute the captain
returned to Paris. Mr. Boehm was at the same time trying to
improve the flute or to remodel it ; and it is said, with some reason,
that he adopted a great part of the captain’s contrivance. Upon
this matter much has been said and written, and although some
points were never clearly ascertained, we must give our decided
opinion that Gordon is entitled to most credit in the affair.”—
Ward, The Flute Explained, p. 9.

18 “ He went to Munich to be near M. Boehm, who had a work-
man who was the only person who could assist him in the con:
struction of the flute he had invented."—Madame Gordon’s letter,
tnfra, p. 127. .
INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE. 27

of grossly abusing his confidence ; instead of this,
however, the only effect which the new instru-
ment appears to have had upon him was to un-
settle his views with regard to his own flute, and
to suggest further modifications and improve-
ments.“* Boehm assigned him a room * in which,
with the assistance of his best workman, he could
make fresh experiments in privacy. He gave
him, moreover, every facility for carrying out his
new ideas, even permitting him to transfer to his
now remodelled flute some of his own mechanical
ideas.”®

The following is a more detailed account of
Gordon’s proceedings at this time.

As Gordon’s object in calling upon Boehm in
London was to consult him about his flute, we
may take it for granted that he mentioned the
difficulties he had encountered in getting its
mechanism constructed to his satisfaction. We
know that he admired the workmanship of the
instrument on which Boehm was playing, and
that Boehm offered to make a flute for him on his
own model; also that he told him that he, too,
intended, on his return home, to construct an
improved flute, and that he promised to send
‘him one of the perfected instruments—a re-
mark from which we learn that he had already
become dissatisfied with the model he showed

Gordon.

4 See p. 151. ;
145 Boehm pointed out to me the situation of this room, It was

in the upper part of the house, his workshops being in the story

above his flat.
16 The mechanism for F sharp, and the D shake (see p. 106).
28 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Boehm left London for Munich, and, shortly
afterwards, Gordon returned to Paris. Here
he saw both Drouet and Tulou. Drouet ex-
pressed his approval of his flute, but would
not hear of a change of fingering. Tulou™

17 Gordon does not seem to have met with much encouragement
from Tulou, if we may judge from the following, which I take from
the preface to the AZe¢hod of that great artist. After alluding to the
circumstance that different systems had of late years been applied
to the flute, he goes on to say: “ The first trial was made by one of
my pupils named Gordon, a captain in the Swiss Guards in France.
I had to regret that I could not give that zealous amateur the ap-
proval he expected. His flute transgressed, in my opinion, by the
principle on which it was founded. In fact, Gordon had taken for
a basis the harmonic sounds, a thing to be avoided on instruments
pierced with holes, if one desires to preserve their characteristic
quality of tone. The flute requires a tone mellow in the pzano,
thrilling and sonorous in the forte. Gordon’s instrument, on the
contrary, had a dry (maigre) tone, without fulness (rondeur) which
came far too near that of the hautboy. It is on this first idea
that the Boehm flute has been conceived. The author of this
new instrument, a man of great intelligence, has sought how
to best turn to account the system of his predecessor. He
has perfected it; but although he may have brought about happy
modifications, he has neglected two essential points, namely:
the preservation of the tone, and the simplicity of the ordinary
fingering. . . . . It is of fundamental importance to preserve for
each instrument the difference of ¢2mdrve which is peculiar to it; for
it is this very difference which constitutes in great part the charm
of music. Each instrument has its place and its special merit ; for
instance, if the flute solo which Gluck has used in his opera of
Armida to accompany the slumber of Renaud, was played on a
hautboy, what would happen? The sweetness which the composer
has desired to give to this piece would completely disappear. Well,
then! I am convinced that the result would be the same with the
Boehm flute. . . . . Let us seek for ameliorations of use, let us
remedy, if it is possible, the defects which can be discovered, but
let us preserve the pathetic and sentimental tone of the instrument.
What is the first requisite for a singer? a beautiful voice; for a
flute-player, a fine tone. Wlien an artist does not possess this quali-
fication he plunges into a torrent of difficulties to obtain applause.
To play with ease that which is difficult is without doubt a merit,
but it is not the only object at which one ought to aim. In art,
INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE, 29

was opposed to it just as decidedly. He now
employed himself in constructing a flute, for he
was learning the art of flute-making.* About
the 1st February, 1833, he went to Lausanne,
whence, on the 15th of that month, he wrote to
Boehm, as follows :—‘I returned home to Lau-
sanne a fortnight ago, after a pretty long sojourn
in Paris, whither I went from London shortly
after I saw you there, when you started for
Munich. I have not lost my time, and I have
been working assiduously at a new flute, which I
have made myself, as well as I could, and which
I have just finished.

“T have not forgotten you, and I have been
constantly expecting that you would send me
an improved flute, such as you purposed making
on your return to Germany. In accordance
with your offer in London, I wish to send you
my flute, begging you to make me a fine instru-
ment on its model, seeing that I am in possession
of the whole of the fingering for playing it.””

In his reply to this letter, Boehm said that it
would be better for Gordon to come to Munich,
and Gordon took his advice.

During the first week in May Boehm set out
for England with his new flute.” On the r5th of

with the flute especially, ‘’Tis charming!’ is an exclamation it is
worth more to call forth than ‘’Tis astonishing !’”

18 His good wife, with pardonable pride, believed that he ulti-
mately became really very expert ; but if the flute represented by
Fig. 9 is either the original, or a copy of that which he made in
Paris at this time, it is certain that he still had much to learn.

18 The original will be found at p. 95. 2 Infra, p. 278.
30 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

July, whilst Boehm was still in London, Gordon
wrote from Munich to M. Mercier, of Paris,”
telling him that he had just had made, by a clever
artisan, an excellent instrument on his model. He
enclosed to him some copies of a printed paper
or circular, announcing the invention, with the
request that he would distribute them in Paris.
They were to be delivered to Tulou, Drouet,
Fétis, Jeannet and Cotelle, the well-known pub-
lishers, and others of note connected with music.
He added that he was about to start for London,
and he gave him his address there (22 Newcastle
Street, Strand), so that he might be communicated
with in case any amateurs should make inquiries
in response to his announcement.

He imagined that, as soon as his “ beautiful
instrument” * became known, players would flock
to purchase it, and it was his dream, after taking
out a patent, to establish, with the assistance of
Boehm’s workman, manufactories in London,
Paris, Vienna, and the other chief cities of
Europe,” and so to realise an income to replace
that of which, through no fault of his own, he had
been deprived.* Alas, poor man! he knew
nothing of the world, and little thought that, even
if his invention had been all he fondly believed it
to be, it would still be necessary to set in motion
hidden wheels to launch it and keep it afloat
amidst the billows of prejudice and interest.

Gordon remained in England until his stock of
money was exhausted, and then rejoined his wife

Infra, p. 132. 2 Infra, p. 127.
8 Infra, pp. 127, 131. * Infra, p. 127.
INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE. 31

and children at Lausanne, wofully disappointed
at his want of success.* Indeed, it appears to
be not improbable, judging from an expression
used by Madame Gordon, that he was suffering
from an attack of melancholia. However, he
threw off his despondency, and it seems that he
returned to Munich and resumed his flute-making,
for Boehm offered to produce evidence to prove
that he was there in 1834.% His stay at Munich
is variously stated at six, nine, and twelve months.
If we regard his visit to London as a break in his
residence there, it may serve possibly to account
for the discrepancy.

We must now pass over a period of four or
five years. In the interval Gordon had lost his
reason. The Boehm flute had been slowly but
steadily gaining ground, particularly in France.
A demand for it was springing up in Paris, and
in 1838, M. Coche, professor of the flute at the
Conservatoire, entered into an arrangement with
M. Auguste Buffet, jeune, a Parisian musical in-
strument maker, to establish a Boehm-flute manu-
factory. Boehm had not protected himself by a
patent, so that there was nothing to stand in his
way; and accordingly he assured the public
that Boehm’s flute had been copied “with an
exactitude truly scrupulous,” though, as a matter

25 See Madame Gordon’s letter, p. 127.

% Schafhautl in his Lzfe of Boehm (p. 420) says that Gordon was
so dissatisfied with his flute that he did not go to London in July
1833, but gave up his intended journey and remained at Munich
until March 1834. In another place he states that Gordon did not
arrive at Munich until July 1833 (p. 164). In the present state of -

our information the task of reconciling the conflicting statements as
regards dates appears to be hopeless. °
32 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of fact, certain changes of more or less importance
had been made in the instrument.

In order to ensure the sale of his flute, he had
recourse to an expedient, which, however clever
it might have been as a mode of puffing, raised a _
great prejudice against Boehm. He published an
engraving, representing three flutes side by side.
They were styled respectively, Invention, Modifi-
cation, Perfectionnement. The first designation
was applied to Gordon’s, the second to Boehm’s,
and the third, it is needless to say, to his own
flute. Now, had he wished to show that the in-
vention originated with Gordon, he should, of
course, have selected for his illustration one of
Gordon’s early instruments, before he had been
influenced by Boehm; instead of this, however,
his drawing represents one of Gordon’s later
flutes, to which he had applied Boehm’s finger-
ing, and hence this engraving has proved an
endless source of error and confusion.” Surely,
however, M. Coche, who was deriving a profit
from Boehm’s invention, should have been the
very last to raise the cry of ‘“ Wolf!”

As for Gordon, his bravery, his simplicity, his
misfortunes, his ingenuity, and his perseverance
gained him many friends, and excited universal
sympathy. No one speaks more highly of him

* In the second part of this work (p. 273) this engraving is
reproduced as it appears in Coche’s Method, to this, however, is
appended the following footnote: “(N.B.) La Clé du Fatt et la
Clé du Trille du Ré.appartiennent 2 M. Boehm. (Tablature
Gordon).” In Coche’s pamphlet there is another of these en-
gravings representing the three flutes, without any such explana-
tion, but instead of it a mercantile announcement relating to the
moderation of the price of Coche’s flute. See snfra, p- 148.
INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE. 33

than Boehm. When expressing his regret, as he
does in defending himself, that Gordon's lips were
sealed, those lips which alone could. free his
character from the calumnies with which it had
been assailed, he says of him that he was as
honourable as he was modest.

In the Revolution of 1830, when Charles X.
lost his throne, and Gordon’s professional career
was brought to a close, his reason sustained a
shock from which it never quite recovered. On
Thursday, the 29th of July, the Swiss Guards, in
which he held a commission, were suddenly seized
with panic in the courtyard of the Louvre, which
they had bravely defended all the morning, and
made a rush, pell-mell, for the portal leading into
the Place du Carrousel. Those who failed to get
through were quickly despatched by the rebels,
who, in the demoniac frenzy which breaks out at
such times, instantly stripped the bodies of the
fallen soldiers, placed their helmets on their
shaggy heads, and arrayed themselves with tat-
tered fragments of their gory uniforms.” Mr.
Cornelius Ward, the inventor of Ward’s Patent

2 “The Tuileries Gardens in Marmont’s rear were thus left
unprotected ; and the marshal, to provide their defence, was
obliged to recall one of the Swiss regiments, which then guarded
the Louvre. The commander thought it best to send away that
regiment which had all the morning resisted the assailants from the
colonnade, and to replace it by the other which occupied the great
court. Orders to this effect being given, the Swiss soldiers manning
the colonnade withdrew with alacrity, whilst those who were to
replace them proceeded to do so with no alacrity whatever—so much
so, that the colonnade for an interval remained undefended. The
people behind the barricade opposite were not slow to perceive the
suspended fire. The boldest advanced to the gate of the Louvre,
near which a wooden trough for shooting rubbish was left starding,

D
34 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Flute, who made an instrument for Gordon in
1831, says of him: ‘“ He was considered to be of
unsound mind, and that he was thus affected on
account of the defeat of his comrades, and his
own loss of fortune, in the Revolution of July. He
was generally treated with consideration on that
account ; but very little attention was paid to his
flute mania, such being the light in which his
views respecting the flute were regarded.” But
he adds—‘ We consider it due to Captain
Gordon, to state, from our own personal know-
ledge, that he was an ingenious, rational, and
kind-hearted gentleman.” ”

His affectionate wife relates in touching lan-
guage,” how no sooner was his flute finished,
than he went from Munich to London to bring
out his invention; how, owing to his retiring
disposition, his inexperience of the world, and
his want of introductions, he saw his pecuniary
resources melt away before he had succeeded in

.and afforded a communication with the colonnade above. Some of
the mob soon climbed it, rushed through the apartments of the
Louvre, and showed their shaggy heads and menacing guns through
the windows. The Swiss soldiers: still in the court perceived this,
and cried out that the palace was taken ; in a trice a panic seized
them, and all who could fled through the portal into the Carrousel.
The mob, still more alert, had already broken in, and little mercy
was shown the unfortunate Swiss who remained behind. Ina few
minutes their naked bodies covered the court, whilst red fragments
of their uniforms adorned the breasts, as broken-helms the heads,
of the victors.”—Crowe’s History of france, vol. v. p. 401.

“ By a strange coincidence they passed over the same spot where
their predecessors had gloriously fallen on the roth of August 1792,
—Alison’s History of Europe, vol. iii. p. 531.

° The Flute Explained, p. 10.

%° In her letter to Coche, p. 127.
INVENTION OF THE BOEHM FLUTE. 35

making himself known; how he returned to her
and his children at Lausanne, ill and disheartened ;
how afterwards, in endeavouring to make his flute
still more perfect, he cracked the instrument,
which had cost him so much pains.and so many
sleepless nights; how, though overwhelmed with
distress, he set to work with unabated ardour to
construct another; and, finally, how the difficul-
ties he encountered, all unaided, in the under-
‘taking, added to the opposition and hostility his
schemes had raised against him, brought about,
by little and little, an alteration in his intellectual
faculties.
RISE

THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY,

With an inquiry into the origin of Ring-keys.

—_oe—_

Tue creed of the Gordonites is embodied in a
sarcastic taunt addressed to Boehm by M. Coche,
Professor of the Flute in the Conservatoire of
Paris, by whom a claim on behalf of Gordon was
first advanced. ‘They say in musical society
(le monde artiste),” he wrote, ‘that the flute which
bears your name was discovered by a person of
the name of Gordon, an old pupil of Drouet.”?

On the other hand, the learned Carl von
Schafhautl, “Doctor and Professor in the Royal
Bavarian Academy, University, and Conserva-
torium,” Boehm’s mathematical tutor and friend
for upwards of half a century, thus propounds
the belief of the Boehmites, of whom he is the
champion: ‘‘ That such a man [as Boehm] should
have borrowed from others the ideas upon which
he founded the construction of his instruments, is
what no one can seriously believe.” ?

As is often the case where such wide differences
of opinion exist, the truth lies between these two
sweeping assertions.

1 Infra, p. 160. ? Infra, p. 166.
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 37

To say that the Boehm flute was discovered ‘or
invented by Gordon would be an exaggeration,
even if it could be established that he was the
originator of the ring-keys, as is assumed by °
Coche,* and of the open-keyed system of finger-
ing, as is asserted by Clinton;* but as these two
statements, as has been seen,® cannot be substan-
tiated, the expression warrants the use of still
stronger language.

Boehm, however, admits ® that one of the two
causes’ which operated in inducing him to aban-
don the old familiar fingering, was the impression
he received, on seeing the ingenious attempt at
improvement which Gordon showed him, when
he called upon him, during his visit to London
in 1831, to consult him upon the manufacture of
his flute. That Gordon exercised an influence
on Boehm is therefore undeniable; but to what
extent he influenced him will now never be known
with certainty. Many are the surmises and con-
jectures which have been made on this subject.
In support of one of them, some show of reason
has certainly been adduced (p. 23); and it will
presently be seen that Boehm’s ideas regarding
the reformation of the flute underwent a material
change, to whatever cause it may be assigned,
about the time he became acquainted with Gordon.

3 Infra, p. 126.

4 “ We find, practically, there are but two systems of fingering in
existence ; that of the old eight-keyed flute, and that of Gordon,
known in this country as the Boehm flute—-the former being on the
shut, the latter on the open-keyed principle.”—Clinton’s Huds Zo,

Flute-players, p.1. 5 Supra, p. 23. 8 Supra, p. 22.
7 The other being Nicholson’s flute with its large holes and

powerful tone.
38 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

A most novel and, as far as is
known, original part of Gordon's
invention was a plan for carrying the
motion of the fingers from one part of
the flute to another by means of wires
and cranks, or angular levers (the
same in principle as those used in
bell-pulls) attached at one end to the
valves to be acted upon, and at the
other, either to terminations represent-
ing the ends, tails,° or touches of the
keys of the old flute, or else to cres-
centic expansions partly encircling the
holes. By this means, the pressure
of the finger was communicated to a
crank, which pulled a wire, and this,
in turn, acted on another crank, which
set the valve in motion.”

u, w, ends of keys acted on by the

8 Fig. 12, p. 107, 2, m, x.

® Fig. 12,7,8,g. According to Schafhautl, Gordon
took the shape of these crescents from that of the
waning moon “five days before the new moon”
(p. 105) ; but Mr. Rockstro has traced the crestent
to Dr. Pottgiesser, who published a drawing of a
crescent-key (figured at p. 83) three years before
Gordon commenced his experiments,

10 These wires and cranks may be seen on
Ward’s patent flute. On this instrument the low C
and C sharp valves are closed by the left thumb,
and consequently the action has to be carried:a
very long distance. For this purpose Ward has
adopted Gordon’s contrivance, but for the rest of
his mechanism he has recourse to the usual rods or
> axles and ring-keys (see p. 281), Two of his keys,
L those for G sharp and E flat, are on the objection-

4 able double-action Dorus plan, first devised by
Gordon.

left thumb, the action carried by wires and cranks to 13, 14, the valves for the low C sharp and C natural.

Fig. 1—Crank and wire mechanism. From a drawing in the specification of Ward's patent.

 

 

 
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 39

Although Gordon employed the best workmen
he could obtain in Paris and London, he failed to
get his mechanism constructed in such a way that
it would act with sufficient certainty to admit of
rapid execution ;" but, notwithstanding its failure,
he clung to it with extraordinary tenacity. He
was ready to take Boehm’s advice on other points,
but he was obstinately bent on following out his
own ideas as to the mechanism of the keys.” He
adopted Boehm’s fingering for F sharp, but he
rejected the three rings of the mechanism by
which this note was produced, and substituted for
them three of his beloved crescents; and even
Boehm’s little D-shake key reappeared on his
flute mounted with two cranks and a wire.*

The crescents had this in common with the
ring-keys employed by Boehm:™ they enabled a
finger, when closing a hole, to close, by the same
movement, one or more other holes, not neces-
sarily close together, so that one finger could do
what it had previously required two or more to
accomplish. Now as this power, which virtually
increases the number of the fingers, lies at the
foundation of the Boehm system of fingering, and
constitutes an essential part of the invention, it
becomes of importance to trace with care the
origin of ring-keys.

First, then, the ring-keys have been supposed
to be only a modification of Gordon’s crescents.
It has been thought that Boehm, seeing Gordon’s
ingenious but clumsy device, seized his idea,

u Infra, p. 127. 2 Infra, p. 130.
1 See Fig. 12, a. See his flute, Fig. 11.
40 HISTORY OF THE BOKHM FLUTE.

developed the crescents into rings by extending
them round the holes, and substituted improved
mechanism for the unsatisfactory wires and
cranks.

This is the explanation * put forward by Coche,
and it has been accepted, without examination or
inquiry, by Fétis,"° Tulou, Berlioz, and others,”
who have written on the subject. .

Coche, however, brings forward nothing in proof
of his assertion, but assumes that, as Gordon was
the first in the field, the crescents must necessarily
have given rise to the rings. His argument, if
argument it can be called, appears to be this:
Gordon made crescents before Boehm made
rings; therefore the crescent is the parent of
the ring.

It would not be difficult to show the illogical

18 See the extract from his pamphlet, given in the Appendix, p. 126.

1% Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, 2nd edition (articles
‘Boehm’ and ‘ Gordon’).

“Te premier essai fut tenté par un de mes éléves nommé
Gordon, Capitaine aux Gardes Suissesen France. . . . . Cvest
sur cette premiére donnée que la fiite Boehm a été congue.
L’auteur de ce nouvel instrument, homme d’une grande intelligence,
a cherché quel était le meilleur parti a tirer du systéme de son
devancier. Ii l’a perfectionné; mais, bien qu'il soit arrivé &
d’heureuses modifications, ila négligé deux points essentiels, savoir :
la conservation du son et la simplicité du doigté ordinaire.”—Tulou,
from the Introduction to his Method. “This instrument (the flute),
which for a long time remained imperfect in many respects, is now
—thanks to the skiil of certain manufacturers, and to the system
of fabrication pursued by Boehm, according to the discovery of
Gordon—as complete, as true, and of as equal a sonority as could
be desired.”—Berlioz on Justrumeniation, p. 116.

“ Didée de Gordon, exploitée et modifiée par Théobald Boehm,
donna naissance aux fiites 2 anmneaux.”—Chouquet, Catalogue of
the Museum of the Conservatoire of Paris, p. 62.

Compare Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians (articles
‘Flute’ and ‘ Gordon’).
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 4I

nature of such a position as this, and we know
that it was Gordon’s habit to replace rings by
crescents; it is, however, unnecessary to discuss
the question further, because there is good reason
for believing that Boehm had made rings before
he saw the crescents on Gordon’s flute.’®

Secondly, Schafhautl and his followers would
have us believe that the ring-key was an original
idea of Boehm.

I find, however, no countenance. for this view
in the account given by Boehm of the first con-
struction of his new flute. He speaks not of
inventing the ring-keys, but of deczding on and
choosing them. He says: ‘On my return to
Munich I set to work, and after a careful exami-
nation and numerous trials of ways of boring
holes * and different kinds of mechanism, I decided
on (je me fixat a) the system of ring-keys as best
calculated to fulfil all the requirements-—a system
which I had already had in contemplation before
te30.”

Again: “ The position of the holes being new,
a new fingering was requisite.

“This task was the more difficult to accomplish,
as the thumb of the right hand serving to hold
the flute only, there remain but nine fingers
for fourteen holes. It was necessary to com-
bine mechanism which should make up for this

18 See supra, p. 24.

19 « Ways of boring holes.” J] have translated the word “‘perces”
in this way, because the context shows that Boehm does not refer
to the bore of the interior of the flute. He probably contemplated
the idea of boring the holes obliquely. (See z/ra, p. 78.)

20 For the original French, see z#/ra, p. 149.
42 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

disproportion, and I chose, after a mature examina-
tion, ring-keys.””

If this is not the language of an inventor, an
expression which Boehm uses in speaking of the
mechanism he saw on Gordon’s flute, when it was
first shown to him in London, in 1831, is still
more significant. ‘The E hole of his flute,” he
remarks, ‘‘ was bored lower down and larger than
usual, and, to avoid the lever of the F, he had
adopted a ring-key. He had also made a number
of levers zngentously conceived (tmaginés).”

It will be observed that Boehm does not say
that Gordon had conceived his ring-key, but that
he had adopted it; a term implying that, in his
opinion, it was not an original but a borrowed
idea, and involving the admission that he knew of
a source from whence it might have been derived,
although Gordon had constructed it before even
the first model of the Boehm flute had been
made.

Thirdly: The view I am inclined to take as
most consistent with all the facts of the case, as
far as they are at present known, is that ring-keys
existed before either Gordon or Boehm undertook
the reformation of the flute; but their value not
being as yet recognised, they had not come into
use, but had remained comparatively unknown,

1 “La position des trous étant nouvelle, il fallait un doigter
nouveau.

“ Cette tache était d’autant plus difficile 4 accomplir, que le pouce
de la main droite servant exclusivement a maintenir la flfite, il ne
reste que 9 doigts pour 14 trous. II fallait combiner un mécanisme
de clefs qui suppléat 4 cette disproportion, et je choisis, aprés un
mtr examen, des clefs & anneau.”—De la Fabrication des Flites,
p. 18.
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 43

until their importance was practically demonstrated
by Boehm. If this supposition should be correct,
their origin is involved in obscurity ; but in tracing
the history of an invention, we often find that it is
preceded by ingenious attempts, which come near,
without actually attaining the end aimed at, but
which subsequently serve the inventor as stepping-
stones to enable him to reach the goal he has in
view.

In connection with the mechanism of the flute,
we may instance, as one out of many, an improve-
ment of which we catch a glimpse in a passing
notice by Ward, made bya person whose name he
does not think it worth while even to mention.”
The abortive efforts of Gordon also: properly
belong to this class, and his name, too, would
probably have been forgotten long ago, had it not
been rescued from oblivion and brought into
undue prominence by Coche. I am disposed to
think that it is to some one of the many unknown
workers in this field that the first idea of a ring-
key should be attributed, and that the way had
thus been paved for a man of genius; the ma-
terials were lying ready for his hand, and what

2 “The first truly scientific remodelling of the flute with which
we are acquainted, was made in 1803. It was a great improvement
on the ordinary flute, inasmuch as the apertures were placed more
nearly in accordance with the acoustical principles of the instrument.
The manner of acting on the extra apertures was not, however, so
‘complete as could be desired, from the want of a little mechanical
skill in the party who devised it. We have one of these flutes at
present by us ; but, notwithstanding its superiority, it never came
into use, from the obstacles before alluded to, and because the time
had not then arrived when such an important improvement would
be appreciated.”—Ward, The Flute Explained, p. 9.
44 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Boehm did was to fit the crown to an arch, to
which many builders had each contributed a stone.

I had thus come to the belief that ring-keys
were of earlier origin than is generally supposed,
and had written the above, when I began to
make search, in the hope of finding them on an
instrument of a date anterior to that of Boehm’s
invention. I commenced in London, but not
meeting with success, I made, during a visit to
Paris, an examination of the extensive and inter-
esting collection of flutes, hautboys, and other
wind instruments in the Museum of the Conser-
vatoire ; every facility for doing so having been
most courteously afforded me by the amiable and
learned Curator, M. Chouquet.

I was still unsuccessful ; another day, however,
when calling on M. Buffet jeune, so well known
as the maker of Coche’s flute, I took the oppor-
tunity of asking him if he had any knowledge of
ring-keys before he saw them on the Boehm flute.
He replied that, in the year 1826, he had in his
hands a clarionet on which there was a ring-key.
This clarionet, he further informed me, had been
made by Lefévre, and belonged to a M. Bleéve,
a clarionetist of Havre. He was quite sure that
Berr knew of the existence of this ring-key,
for it had subsequently formed the subject of
a correspondence between him (Buffet) and Berr ;
but Berr did not adopt it because he considered
the old plan preferable.

The next day, acting on a suggestion of Buffet,
I went to see M. Bié, the successor of Lefevre,
but he was not able to give me any further
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 45

information, the circumstances to which I referred
having taken place before his time. Afterwards,
however, I most unexpectedly obtained a clue to
M. Bleéve himself.

Whilst conversing with M. Chouquet, I hap-
pened to mention what Buffet had told me, and
he informed me that, in his youth, he had resided
at Havre, and that he was acquainted with
M. Bléve. He said he believed that, though
very old, he was still alive, for he had met him
not many months ago; he had retired from the
musical profession, and was living in Paris.

I now returned to Buffet, and told him what
I had heard. He recollected that he had the
address of a son of M. Bléve, and he was so
good as to write to him; but he received no
answer to his letter. However, although I thus
lost all hope of becoming acquainted with the
particulars of the contrivance used by M. Bleve,
afterwards, when ransacking the records of the
Patent Office in London, I came upon the descrip-
tion of a ring-key in the specification of a patent
taken out in 1808, a time when Boehm and
Gordon were boys. As this work, though nearly
ready for the press, was not in the printer’s hands,
I was able to include a drawing and a descrip-
tion ™ of it. It throws a light on the origin of
the rings; they were at first, not crescents, but
perforated keys.

Boehm completed his flute in 1832. His first
recorded appearance with it in public was on the
ist of November” of that year. By the following

8 Infra, p. 79+ 4 Infra, pp. 253, 488.
46 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

spring he had mastered the difficulties of the new
fingering, and had become a brilliant executant,
as is evident from an account which has come
down to us of a concert given at Munich on the
25th of April, 1833.% About a week afterwards
he started for London, where he stayed nearly two
months and gave English flute-players an oppor-
tunity not only of hearing but of examining the
new instrument, for he exposed it for sale at
Gerock and Wolf’s® shop in Cornhill.

In the following year, 1834, Boehm again came
to England. He travelled wz@ Paris, and reached
London towards the end of July. It would seem
that when he left Munich he did not contemplate
along absence from home, for his passport was
taken out for three months only; but circum-
stances occurred which induced him to remain in
this country for nearly, if not quite a year. An
invention of his friend, Dr. Schafhautl, connected
with the construction of the pianoforte, had been
patented by Gerock’s partner, Robert Wolf. The
patent having become the subject of litigation,
Schafhautl’s presence was required in England,
where he joined Boehm in the month of October.”
‘The current of Boehm’s thoughts was now turned
from the course in which it was running into a very
different channel; his mind was diverted from
poetry to prose, from music to.the production of
iron. This subject was not new to either Boehm
or Schafhautl; they had not only made a study
of it, but had set up an experimental furnace in
the neighbourhood of Munich with a view of

* Infra; p. 251.  * Infra, p. 277. ™ Infra, pp. 352, 427.
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 47

endeavouring to discover a method of smelting
which would enable a Bavarian nobleman to
utilise a deposit of ironstone which had been
found on his estate. During a previous visit to
this country, Boehm had been favoured with
the entrée to some English ironworks; a privi-
lege which he was in a position to extend to
Schafhautl. The two friends were thus brought
into connection with an ironmaster, who became
interested in their ideas and encouraged them
to resume their investigations. The experiments
were now made on a larger scale, and resulted in
an improvement in the manufacture of malleable
iron which was patented in Schafhautl’s name.
As the patent was not taken out until May 1835,
it would seem that the greater part, if not the
whole of the winter was devoted to the work |
which led to the discovery. Nor was this the
only distraction calculated to take Boehm’s atten-
tion from music. It was during this visit to
England that he made the model of his invention
for communicating rotatory motion, for which he
received a medal from the Society of Arts; more-
over, it seems not unlikely that three overstrung
pianofortes (Boehm was the inventor of over-
stringing), a piccolo, a cabinet, and a square” were
made at Gerock and Wolf’s in 1835. The flute,
however, was not entirely laid aside; we are
told by Clinton that Boehm played several times
in this year ;* on one of these occasions Ward
was present, as we learn from his letter to the
‘Musical World.’® Still Boehm was so far

28 Infra, p. 180, 2 Infra, p. 277. ° [nfra, p. 330.
48 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

prevented from making it known that up to the
end of 1835 he is said to have sold but one instru-
ment in this country.

In June Boehm returned to Bavaria. The
next summer, that of 1836, he was again in
London, where he played at a concert given on
the 17th of June in aid of the New Musical Fund.”
Other visits were paid to England in 1837 and
1839. We have evidence that in the last-named
year the new flute was beginning to make way:
Card was interesting himself in it, and Signor
Foltz was playing solos on a Boehm flute made
in London by Ward.” We next hear of the
instrument being taken up by two English players
of distinction, Messrs. Carte and Clinton. Mr.
Carte claims to be ‘the first native professor to
- perform on it in public,” ® whilst Clinton states
that he adopted it for his own playing and pro-
ceeded to introduce it as early as 1841," and also
that it was he who induced Messrs. Rudall and
Rose, the leading English flute-makers of the
time, to undertake its manufacture.* But however
this may be, it is, I believe, undisputed that by
1843 both Carte and Clinton were playing, and
giving lessons on the new instrument, that
Clinton’s ‘Essay on the Boehm Flute,’ was
published, and that Messrs. Rudall and Rose
were engaged in making Boehm flutes, Grevé,
Boehm’s skilful and experienced foreman, having
Infra, p. 435.
® Ward’s letter to the Musical World, p. 329.

8 Carte’s Sketch of the Flute, p. 26.

Clinton’s Treatise on the Flute, p. 21..
Clinton’s School for the Boehm Flute, Introduction.
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 49

come over to England to instruct their work-
men.”

It was introduced in France somewhat earlier.
On his return home from London in 1833 Boehm
had passed through Paris, where he appears to
have made his flute known to Farrene, Camus,
and Laurent, flute-makers of the Palais Royal.”
Other flying visits to Paris were paid in 1834 and
1836, but we have no record of any instruments
having been sold on either of these occasions.
However, in the year following, 1837, Camus, the
first flute at the Italian Opera, an old friend of
Boehm,* brought a Boehm flute to Paris. He
had, it seems, been commissioned by Boehm not
only to act as an intermediary in procuring flutes
from Boehm’s factory for purchasers in France,
but also to enter into arrangements for the manu-
facture of the new instrument in Paris. Buffet
became acquainted with the flute thus brought to
Paris by Camus; indeed, according to Buffet’s
statement, it was placed in his hands by Camus
himself. This clever maker, who, next to Boehm,
has played the most important part in the at-
tempted reformation of wood-wind instruments,
subsequently made and patented important
improvements in the mechanism, three of which
are in universal use at the present day.” It

88 Carte’s Sketch of the Flute, p. 19.

87 Boehm’s letter to Coche, p. 131.

88 The Grande Polonaise, played by Boehm at a Philharmonic
Concert in London, on May 9th, 1831, published by C. Gerock
& Co., 79 Cornhill, was dedicated to “his friend” Camus.

. 8 They are: 1. The “needle-springs.” 2. The “clutches,” or

pieces of correspondence, to supersede the arms employed by Boehm

(see Fig. 36). 3. The“ sleeves,” or cylindrical tubes encircling the
E
50 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

appears, however, that Camus did not come to an
understanding with him for its manufacture, but
entrusted its construction to another Parisian
instrument-maker, M. Clair Godefroy.

In the spring of this year, 1837, Boehm, while
spending a few days in Paris, on his way from

 

Fig. 2.—Auguste Buffet jeune, froma photograph taken in 1862.

Munich to London, took the opportunity of
showing his flute to Savart, one of the greatest
authorities on acoustics then living. Savart at
once recognised the importance of the invention,

rods or axles ; by their means two actions are conveyed on the same
shaft.

In 1843, in conjunction with Klosé (see p- 7), he applied ring-keys
to the clarionet (Chouquet, Catalogue of the Museum of the Con-
Servatoire, p. 73), and the following year to the hautboy (zd. p. 67).
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 51

and had it brought before the Academy of
Sciences. Boehm attended a sitting, read a short
paper, giving an account of the new construction,
and submitted his ‘instrument to the judgment of
the Academy. A Commission was appointed to
pronounce a formal opinion on its merits; the
Commissioners being Dulong and Savart of the
Academy of Sciences, and two musicians, Auber
and Paér from the Academy of Fine Arts, who
were requested to join them.”

By this time a conversion, which ultimately
proved a tower of strength to the Boehm cause,
had been made in the person of a young genius,
destined to rise to the position of an artist of the
first rank. This was Dorus, whose magnificent
playing established the supremacy of the Boehm
flute in France; it being more than sufficient to
form a counterpoise to the opposition of Tulou,
who had brought the whole weight of his great
influence to bear against the new system. The
precise year in which Dorus abandoned the old
flute, like so many other dates connected with our
inquiry, is the subject of conflicting statements ;
but although it has been said to be earlier by
three or four years, it can scarcely have been later
than 1837.

Camus and Dorus were not the only artists who
had become disciples of Boehm by this year; the
new instrument had been taken up by M. Victor

4 The following is the entry in the Compées rendus (vol. iv.
p. 705): “Mote sur une nouvelle construction de la fldte; par

M. BozruM. Commissaires, MM. Dulong, Savart. MM. Auber
et Paér, de ?Académie des Beaux-Arts, seront priés de s’ajoindre

4 cette Commission.”
Ff; 2)
52 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Jean Baptiste Coche, who, as I have already
mentioned, held the appointment, as coadjutor of
Tulou, of Professor in the Conservatoire of Music.
Coche was not satisfied with playing on the
Boehm flute for its own sake; he proceeded to
make advances to Boehm, and to put himself
forward as competitor with Camus for the
pecuniary benefits which seemed likely to spring
from the adoption of the novel invention by
French flute-players.

‘On the 6th of November of the year to which
we are referring, Coche wrote Boehm a letter
which he begged him to keep secret. Notwith-
standing the provocation Boehm afterwards
received, he never disregarded this request,
although, had he been vindictively -disposed, he
might have used the letter to Coche’s prejudice,
for it contained a proposal on which it was
possible to put the construction that it was an
offer to traffic in the name of the Institute of
France. It was Coche’s habit to profess to be
actuated by a desire to watch over the rights, and
to study the interest of others; so, after alluding
to his inexpressible admiration for Boehm’s mag-
nificent and rich instrument, the ardour with
which he devoted himself to its study, and the
hope he entertained of one day becoming worthy
by his execution to share the suffrages to which
the beautiful invention was so justly entitled, he
went on to say that it was his duty to inform
Boehm that a musical instrument maker of the
name of Clair Godefroy the elder had made an
exact copy of his flute, had placed his name upon
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 53

it as if he had been the inventor, and had openly
exposed it for sale in Paris. He expressed the
opinion that it would be to Boehm’s advantage to
put a stop to the production of this “ counterfeit ”
by coming to Paris, and taking out a patent, which
would secure for him the sole right, not only of
manufacturing his flute in France, but also of
importing it into that country. He then stated
that he had caused the Boehm flute to be heard
by Cherubini, Paér, Auber, Berton, and Halévy,
five of the six musicians who were members of
the Institute, adding, “‘I believe that I have in
my hands the possibility of getting your in-
strument adopted, and if private arrangements
may be agreeable to you, on the supposition that
you are intending to establish a depot at Paris,
we could come to an understanding on this
subject.” #

At this critical moment, when the old and the
new systems were hanging poised against each
other in the balance, the influence which the
adoption of a favourable report on the Boehm
flute by the Institute of France might have on the
future of the instrument could scarcely have been
over-estimated. Not to mention the honour
involved, the prestige attaching. to the name of
the Institute was, and still is immense. Every
visitor to Paris who has crossed the Pont des
Arts must have noticed an edifice surmounted by
a dome standing opposite the Louvre, near the
south end of the bridge; it is the Palace of the

41 A translation of this letter is given at p. 112, and the original
at p. 133.
54 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Institute, the building in which the members
meet. On the rolls of the great Society, which is
composed exclusively of Frenchmen, are inscribed
the most illustrious names of which France can
boast in science, literature, and art. Although self-
elective, it is in reality a state establishment, no
election being valid until it has been ratified by
the Ministry, whilst its Palace is Government
property, and each member is in receipt of a
stipend, paid out of the public revenue. It is
divided into five Academies, each Academy
being subdivided into Sections. The Boehm
flute had already been brought before one of the
Academies, the Academy of Sciences. A com-
mission had been appointed whose duty it was to
examine it, and to draw up areport. The report
would be read before the Academy, and, unless
opposition was offered, would, in due course, be
adopted. Surely, then, Boehm had no need of
Coche’s assistance. Was it requisite for a foreign
inventor to enter into “ private arrangements”
with a French flute-player in order to ensure for
himself fair treatment at the hands of the Insti-
tute of France ? What answer Boehm returned
to Coche’s letter we cannot tell. We only know
that he informed him of the commission he had
given Camus.

On receiving Boehm’s reply, Coche, without
more ado, determined to place on the French
market an instrument bearing his own name, and
to divert to it the coveted distinction the Institute
had in its power to bestow. His object he after-
wards candidly avowed in a letter to Boehm,
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 55

declaring with cynical frankness that as Boehm had
empowered Camus to make the most of (/aire
valoir) his invention, and had thus in a manner
retired behind that artist, there was nothing left
for him but to produce the report of the Institute,
and to play on the flute enriched with 47s
improvements in order that the public might
judge between him and Camus. To carry out his
design he allied himself with the flute-maker
Buffet.

Coche began by endeavouring to give effect to
an idea which Boehm had previously attempted
to realise, and which others have since sought to
reduce to a practical form; he “imagined,” he
tells us, ‘‘in conjunction with M. Buffet, a sort of
mixed instrument” on which the new system of
construction was to be combined with the old
fingering. The result not being satisfactory, he
was obliged, as he confessed, to return to Boehm’s
invention, adopting its mechanism, and ‘“ adding
to it” certain “‘ modifications.” ”

The first of these modifications was the substi-
tution of a closed for Boehm’s open G sharp key.
The key introduced by Coche was not constructed
with a double action like the well-known Dorus

42 “Dans le but de faire adopter plus vite la flate nouvelle par
ceux qui jouent Vautre, j’imaginai (de concert avec M. Buffet jeune)
une sorte d’instrument mixte, ou V’ancien doigté pfit étre conservé
sans employer la complication du mécanisme de Béhm ; je ne pus
obtenir un bon résultat. Je trouvai bien quelque chose de la
qualité de son et de la justesse qui distingue la fiite de Béhm, mais
pour exécuter les notes élevées, il fallait bien déroger aux anciennes
régles, aussi je fus obligé de revenir & la flite nouvelle, en adoptant
le mécanisme et en y ajoutant les modifications qui-m’oat paru
utiles."—Coche’s Examen Critique, p. 12.
56 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

G sharp ‘key, nor was it supplemented with a
duplicate hole, as on the Radcliff flute; it was a
restoration pure and simple of the G sharp key of
the old flute, and, as such, it constituted a

4 Boehm, in arguing against the application to his flute of a
closed G sharp key, states that his fingering is based “on the opening
and closing of the holes in regular succession.” But Coche observes
that Boehm, who had retained the closed E flat key, was not ina
position to object with propriety to the closed G sharp key. “ If,
as a rational piece of work,” he remarks in his Examen Critique,
“ Boehm wished that the fingers should be raised so as to make an
ascending progression, in order to be consistent, he should have
placed the E flat key open.” <

In giving his reasons for returning to the closed G sharp key, Coche,
after drawing attention to the circumstance that the easiest keys on
the old become the most difficult on the new flute, and vdce versdé,
proceeds thus: “I recollected that in playing the violoncello I had
already noticed that the little finger of the left hand and the ring
finger were, after their removal from the position of the hand, weak
in the extreme. My remark is so applicable to the flute that I
resolved to restore the closed G sharp key, just as it is on the ordinary.
flute, and to make a connexion with the G sharp key to utilise the right
hand, which is raised in the shakes and turns made with the ring
finger and the little finger.” He then points out how much work
can be transferred by using a closed key from the little finger of
the left hand to the spring which closes the key.

But the chief objection to the use of Boehm’s open key for G sharp
does not lie, as Coche supposed, in a want of strength in the little
finger of the left hand (indeed, unless the spring is made needlessly
strong, a child finds no difficulty in closing the key), it depends not
on the little finger itself, but on the way other fingers are affected by
the action of the little finger. From causes into which this is not the
place to enter, the difficulty of raising the third, and in a less degree
the second finger is much greater when the little finger is kept
down, than when it is left free, so that if the flute-player attempts
to lift either of these two fingers whilst he is pressing the little
finger on a key, he finds them stiff, or hampered in their move-
went. “The great cause of difficulty,” remarks Mr. Richard Carte
in his Sketch of the Successive Improvements in the Flute, “in
fingering the Boehm flute ‘arises from the necessity of constantly
keeping the little finger and thumb of the left hand upon their keys
to shut them, which otherwise are kept open by their springs.
This, especially in the upper octave, cramps the action of the other
fingers. ‘The cause of the superior facility of the ordinary flute is
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 57

flagrant departure from the open-keyed system,
its effect being to veil the A, the note above the
now closed G sharp hole. This Coche did not
deny, but he stated that he had taken “the pre-
cautions necessary to enable the A to preserve
the accuracy of intonation and equality of tone of
all the other notes.”“ The precautions which
have since been taken by others for this purpose,
consist in enlarging and lowering the A hole, this
being a violation of the second of the two prin-
ciples (the equalisation of the size of the holes) on
which the Boehm flute is founded.

That the reintroduction of a closed G sharp
key, even in the improved form suggested by
Dorus, which was so contrived that both of the

the freedom of these fingers, the keys worked by them being kept
closed or shut by their springs.” Coche, as we have just seen, met
this difficulty, as far as the little finger was concerned, by reinstat-
ing the closed key of the old flute. Mr. Carte applied another
remedy. He connected the open G sharp key with the F sharp
key in such a way that when the first finger of the right hand was
pressed down to make F sharp it carried with it the G sharp key.
By this expedient not only is the left little finger set free whenever
the first finger of the right hand is pressed on the F sharp key, but
many other advantages are gained. Amongst them is the com-
paratively small number of times the left little finger is required to
move in ascending the twelve major scales and the twelve major
common chords, the relative numbers being, according to Mr. Carte,
as follows: on the Boehm flute 71 times, on the ordinary flute 51,
but on Carte’s flute 22 only. Moreover, on this flute the facility of
fingering in some of those keys in which there is no G sharp in the
scale, such as A major and E major, is quite astonishing ; A major
becoming what was called on the old flute the Lord Mayor’s key,
whilst in E major execution is, if possible, even easier.

44 “Les précautions nécessaires pour que le éa@ pit conserver la
justesse et 1’égalité de son de toutes les autres notes.”—Coche’s
Examen critique de la Flite ordinaire comparée ad la Flite de

Lohm, p. 14.
58 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Boehm principles were strictly adhered to,“ was
“a retrograde step” is asserted by a gentleman
who certainly cannot be said to be swayed by

*’ The Dorus key was brought out in 1838, and was, it seems, at
once adopted by Coche. In reproducing in his Method, published
in £839, the passage in his Examen Critigue in which he states
that he had restored the G sharp key “as it exists on the ordinary
flute” he alludes to the Dorus key, but without mentioning Dorus’s
name, by, introducing in a parenthesis, “however, G sharp keys
are also constructed open and closed by one finger only.”

Camus, like the majority of his.countrymen, became a convert
to the Dorus key. In the English edition of his Method for the
Boehm Flute, published in London in 1849, when he had taken
up his residence there for the purpose of teaching the instrument,
he wrote, “I was the first who played and taught the Boehm flute
in France. I played it for one year just as I received it from the
hands of the Inventor in 1837. But a year afterwards, having be-
come acquainted with the G sharp key invented by Mr. Dorus, and
having convinced myself that this key, though an extraordinary
simplification, was s¢zd/ in no way an alteration of Boehm’s system,
I adopted it without hesitation.” He expresses himself on the sub-
ject thus: “The invention (of Mr. Theobald Boehm) has been
appreciated in England, with respect to the correctness of zzéona-
tion and equality of tone; but reasonable alarms have been
expressed and entertained at the difficulties consequent upon too
great an alteration of the fingering. Hence the multiplicity of
inventions, or rather incomplete imitations of the Boehm flute,
which would not have been attempted, if in England (as in France)
the G sharp key so ingeniously invented by Mr. Dorus had been
immediately adopted. That key so simplifies the fingering that zz
a very short time a person accustomed to the old system would be
able to play on the Boehm flute. It would be erroneous to suppose
that this key is of advantage to those only who already play upon
the old flute ; and that for instance a beginner ought to take up the
instrument in the state in which Boehm conceived it. I say that it
would be erroneous, for in his system the left hand, already en-
trusted with the support of the flute, employs four fingers to stop
four holes, so that the little finger is constantly at work, whilst with
the Dorus *ey the little finger is almost always free, and the left
hand has the same advantage as the right, which with the three
fingers opens and stops four holes.” “A no less convincing proof
of the efficacy of the Dorus key is the fact that it renders useless
the crutch imagined by Boehm for the support of the flute.” “This
key has been in England zmproperly cailed a ‘shut key,’ for it is
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 59

prejudice against Coche, for he confesses that he
regards him “with feelings akin to reverence.”
Moreover this same gentleman, Mr. R. S.
Rockstro, declares that Boehm, whom he is said
to look upon as an ignorant impostor, “deserved
much credit for his courageous and persistent
efforts to bring the little finger of the left hand
into activity,” by means of an openstanding key,
‘in spite of the obstinate resistance of many
professors and amateurs whose fingers had
become partly incapacited by having been
habituated to a vicious system.” *°

Another of Coche’s modifications was to confer
on the third finger of the left hand the power of
closing the B natural hole by placing a ring round
the A hole, and connecting it with the B flat key,
so as to obviate the difficulty of making B flat in
rapid passages when that note was preceded or
followed by G. But Mr. Rockstro informs us
that this modification would have had the effect
of “spoiling” the high F sharp, the vent hole of

an open key, and makes no change in Boehm’s system ; the only
difference is in a double-action spring, which enables the player to
finger the G sharp as on the old flute.”

There being objections to the use of two springs for one key,
flutes with the closed G key are now usually constructed with a
duplicate G sharp hole instead of the Dorus key ; an arrangement
with which those who play on the Radcliff model are familiar. The
plan, however, of employing two springs, one stronger than the
other, was retained in Ward’s flute. Clinton, too, in his Equisonant
flute employed an open C natural key which was kept closed by
the more powerful spring of the B flat key. The same principle
was adopted by the late M. Barret, the well-known hautboy player,
for a highly ingenious and very novel flute which he designed ; an
instrument which did not come before the public.

46 Rockstro’s /reatise on the Flute, section 378, p. 192.
60 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

which it would close; he therefore gives it as
his opinion that “it is hardly likely to have been
actually applied to a flute,” he being “inclined to
think that this modification only existed on
paper.” *" However, it is right to say that
amongst Coche’s modifications was one of real
value; he claims to have “imagined” the
shake key for D sharp with which flute-players
are now familiar, but it should be added that
this key appears in the specification of Buffet’s
patent.

If Boehm was under the impression that in

® 3 bl :

order to bring about the adoption of his invention
by the Institute it was not necessary for him to
lay on a pipe to supply Coche’s cistern from the
Pactolus which that gentleman believed could be
made to flow from the new flute, it was not long
before he was undeceived. The Commission was
appointed in May, but month after month passed
away, and 1837 came to an end, yet no action
‘had been taken. The first to move in the matter
was Camus. He addressed a communication to
the Academy of Sciences calling attention to the
circumstance that the flute on which the judg-
ment of the Academy was to be pronounced had
been left with him by the inventor to be placed
at the disposal of the Commissioners, when they
should find it convenient to examine it. Camus’s
letter came before the Academy at a sitting
held on the 8th of January, 1838, and the Com-

“ Rockstro’s Treatise on the Flute, section 632, p. 356. This
modification is shown in the drawing of Coche’s flute in his
Examen Critique, reproduced on p. 148.
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 61

mission was thereupon requested to hasten on
the report.“ However, no further allusion to
the report is to be found in the Compies rendus
of the sittings of the Academy of Sciences.
The explanation seems to be that the affair now
entered on a new phase; that the hand of a
superior power made itself felt, and that a change
was brought about both in the venue of the trial,
and in the judges by whom the inquiry was to be
conducted. The Commission, it will be remem-
bered, was composed of two members of the
Academy of Sciences, MM. Dulong and Savart,
and two musicians, Paér and Auber, who were
invited to join them, from the Academy of Fine
Arts. The two scientists Dulong and Savart
disappear from the Commission, whilst four
musicians, Cherubini, Halévy, Carafa, and Berton,
are added to the two, Paér and Auber, who had
previously been nominated ; the Commission, as
reconstituted, consisting of the six musicians who
formed the Section of Music of the Academy of
Fine Arts, to which, on a request being made to
it by the Minister of the Interior, the new flute
was referred. How the Ministerial influence had
been evoked, there is, as far as I am aware, no
record in existence to show.

48 <M. Boehm avait soumis l’an passé, au jugement de l’Académie,
une fiéée d’une construction particuligre, et qui fut renvoyée a
lexamen d’une Commission. Aujourd’hui M. Camus écrit que
cette flite lui a été laissée par auteur pour étre mise a la dis-
position des Commissaires, lorsqu’ils jugeraient convenable de
Yexaminer.

“La Commission sera invité & hater son Rapport.”—Compies
rendu des Séances de ? Académie des Sciences, vol. vi. p. 52.
62 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

To further the object he had in view, Coche
had recourse to his pen. He prepared a pam-
phlet, in which he came to the assistance of the
examiners, and saved them the trouble of making
an examination by doing the work himself. The
pamphlet was not published at first, but was
presented privately to the six members of the
Section of Music who were to act as judges. It
was entitled, ‘A Critical Examination of the
Ordinary Flute, compared with the Flute of
Boehm.’ Coche, however, did not confine him-
self to this examination. He stated that after
studying the new instrument for about six
months, he had seen the necessity of introducing
into the system certain modifications, and he
proceeded to describe, and to set forth the
advantages of the three modifications just men-
tioned: namely, the reintroduction of the closed
G sharp key, this being a modification in which
both of the principles of the Boehm flute were set
at defiance; secondly, the ring placed round the
A hole and connected with the B flat key, the
effect of which would have been so disastrous
that Mr. Rockstro considers it unlikely that this
modification was ever actually applied to a flute ;
and thirdly, the new shake key. Nor were these
the only modifications made known to the judges
in the pamphlet. So complete a modification
had Coche’s opinion on the subject of a “ counter-
feit” of the Boehm flute undergone on the receipt
of Boehm’s letter in reply to his invitation to
enter into ‘private arrangements,” that he wrote
as follows :—‘ The instant this instrument was
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 63

called by its usefulness and the choice of con-
noisseurs to replace the old flute, a distinguished
maker, Mr. Buffet the younger, hastened to
study the details of the mechanism, and he has
succeeded in manufacturing with an exactness
truly scrupulous flutes similar to those of Boehm.
For the future it would be strange that one tied
himself down to get fetched: from Germany an
instrument which is going very soon to become
popular in France.” “
Whilst Coche was thus engaged Camus, on his
side, was not idle. It appears from a letter
which,” though it is unsigned, there can be but
little doubt was written by him, that he was
taking active steps to defeat the schemes of his
rival. His efforts, however, as will be seen,
proved unavailing. Coche’s pamphlet bore fruit.
Berton, one of the judges to whom it had been
sent, drew up a report on behalf of himself and
his judicial brethren. That the pamphlet was the
cause of the report is asserted by Coche himself.
The Academy of Fine Arts sits every Satur-
day afternoon. From a statement made by
Coche in a letter to Boehm it would seem that
the case should have come before it early in
January, but that delay was again interposed, it
being put off from sitting to sitting for a period
of nearly three months. At length, on the 24th
of March, the report was brought up. It now
appeared that the subject which the Academy
had been requested by the Minister of the

49 Examen Critique, p. 18.
_ % The letter will be found at p. 114.
64 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Interior to refer to the Section of Music was not
the important advance made by Boehm in the
construction of flutes and other finger-holed
instruments, but, if the report can be trusted,
‘the improvements introduced into the manufac-
ture of the flutes called ‘flutes on the Boehm
system’ by M. Cocuz,” and the “method,” or
“school” as we should call it, that gentleman had
written for facilitating the study of the new
instrument. Instead of the flute left by Boehm
with Camus, there was presented to the Academy
of Fine Arts by the Commissioners one made by
Buffet, at the construction of which Professor
Coche was said to have “ presided,” and to which
he had caused to be added “new ameliorations of
his own invention.”

Although the Commissioners were deputed to
examine the improvements introduced by Coche
into the manufacture of the Boehm flute, there is
not a word from the beginning to the end of the
report to indicate that they understood in what
these improvements consisted. As to how they
conducted the examination we have no informa-
tion; but they had qualified themselves, as we
learn from the report, for the task entrusted to
them, not by conferring with Savart, but by
“chatting ” with another member of the Academy
of Sciences who was an amateur flute-player.
But either this distinguished gentleman did not
prove a very competent instructor, or else his
pupils were not sufficiently versed in the philo-
sophy of the flute to be able to comprehend his
explanations, for Mr. Rockstro, referring to an
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 65

observation imputed to him in the report,
writes: “It will be seen, from this remark, that
the illustrious Charles did not quite understand
the subject on which he was conversing, or else
that his words were imperfectly reported.” We
know that Coche played at the Institute, but
whether he played to the examiners when they
were occupied with the examination, or at the
sitting of the Academy of Fine Arts when the
report was read and the flute presented, there is
nothing to show. We may be sure, however, that
there could have been no Parisian Mr. Rockstro
present at the trial to raise a warning voice, and
to point out to the judges that, of Coche’s three
“ ameliorations,” one was a contrivance which, if
applied to a flute, would ruin a note in the high
octave, whilst another involved a retrograde step,
‘ill advised and unphilosophical in the highest
degree”; for one would suppose, on reading
the report, that Coche was entitled to almost as
much credit as Boehm himself. ‘But that which
ought, it seems to us ”—-I am translating a quota-
tion from it—‘‘to more particularly deserve our
encouragement and our eulogies, is the constancy,
the tenacity displayed by M. Ccche, in causing
this happy invention to bear fruit. He carried
off the first prize for the flute at the Conserva-
toire ; his brilliant talent has caused him to be
nominated there a professor for the flute class.
Well then! perceiving the importance of the dis-
covery, he has had the courage to give himself
51 See note, p. 121.

® Rockstro Ox the Flute, section 378, p. 192.
F
66 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

up to the study of the new instrument, and to
superintend its manufacture, causing notorious
improvements to be made therein.” *

The report, to which each of the six members
of the Section of Music, Cherubini, Paér, Auber,
Halévy, Carafa, and Berton had affixed his sig-
nature, was read before the Academy of Fine
Arts, and its conclusions adopted. The sitting
before which it came was held, as I have said,
on the 24th of March. ‘In the month of April
following,” writes Coche, ‘‘ several drawings and
tables of fingering were given to me to make
me acquainted with Mr. Gordon as the jst
enventor.”

Calumny, whose voice when she is new-born
is but a whisper, if she be not smothered in the
cradle, will gather strength by degrees until she
can shriek from the housetop. It is from an
acorn, which a child can crush beneath his heel,

53 These remarks were but the echo of certain high-flown
reflections in which Coche had indulged in his pamphlet. He
had intimated that he was actuated by a high sense of duty in
studying and making known the Boehm flute, and had moralised
on the hard fate of inventors and pioneers, amongst whom he
included himself, in working for the benefit of others. “But it
must be admitted,” he exclaims, “it is a truth sad enough which
is applicable to the labours of all those who invent: it is by no
means to them that their invention is of benefit. And when the
new flute shall be diffused, estimated at its true value, we other
artists who shall have studied it, extolled it, and caused it to be
appreciated, we shall be far from immediately reaping the fruit of
the pains we have taken. The footsteps we shall have traced will
be followed by others who will no longer meet with obstacles.

“But when a man believes that any invention whatever can be
of general utility, he must divulge it, he must noise it abroad, it is a
duty, even when the labours of the artist are not crowned with

success.”—Examen critique de la Flite ordinaire comparée a la
Flite de Bohm, p. 19.
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 67

that there springs the mighty oak a giant is
powerless to uproot. The seed thus planted by
an unknown hand brought forth a sapling, which,
watered by jealousy, and watched by hatred of
change, quickly spread its noisome arms and
lifted high its poisoned head. This upas-growth,
which should have been cut down and cast into
the fire when those to whose failings it owed its
life had passed away, has now, under the fos-
tering influence of Mr. Rockstro’s imagination,
yielded fruit in tenfold abundance.

Coche, having received the drawings and
tablatures, and having heard the assertion with
which they were coupled, conceived the idea of
bringing forward Gordon as the inventor, and of
thrusting Boehm into the background as a mere
modifier, whilst he himself posed before his fellow-
countrymen as the perfecter of the new instru-
ment; a design in carrying out which he certainly
displayed diplomatic skill of no common order.

His first step was to write to Gordon, who was
known to be living in retirement at Lausanne, in
Switzerland. What he said to him we have no
means of knowing ; for, in publishing what he is
pleased to term the correspondence on the sub-
ject, he withheld his own letters. We can judge,
however, of the tenor of his representations from
the effect they produced on Gordon’s wife, into
whose hands his epistle came, owing to her
husband having become deranged. On reading
it, Madame Gordon came to the conclusion that
Boehm (whose flute, it is needless to repeat, had
been invented more than five years before) having

F 2
68 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

heard during the winter then just over of her
husband's mental affliction, had taken advantage
of his helpless condition to appropriate his inven-
tion and bring it out as his own, excusing himself
on the ground that, by so doing, he was prevent-
ing its benefits from being lost to the world. She
confessed that she was unable to throw light on
a question respecting which Coche appears to
have desired information—namely, whether the
flute which Boehm had sent him was _ her
husband’s, or else an instrument for the idea of
which Boehm was indebted to her husband, or,
possibly, one perfected in imitation of that of
her husband. In her perplexity she proposed,
if Coche should approve of the step, to write to.
Boehm’s workman with whom her husband had
made his flute, in order to ascertain which of
these surmises was correct. Nor can it scarcely
be open to doubt that Coche, as was his wont,
had not omitted to allude to the purity and
loftiness of his motives, to his disinterestedness,
to his sense of duty, and to his zeal in defending
the right ; for Madame Gordon believed that she
could discern in his actions the agency of a
higher power, and conceived for him a feeling
not unlike that with which, in after years, he
inspired Mr. R. S. Rockstro—a feeling akin to
reverence. To her it seemed that the stranger
who had thus come forward, uninvited, as the
protector of her stricken and prostrate husband,
at the prompting of “a delicate sentiment,” which
impelled him “to desire to be able to render
justice to him to whom it belongs,” must be the
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 69

chosen instrument of an unseen but ever-watchful
Providence. The poor lady little thought, when
assuring him, as she did, of the claims he would
have on her gratitude and her most profound
respect, if he would honour her with his advice
as to what proceedings she could take to restrain
the unscrupulous appropriator of a sick man’s
rights, that she was appealing to the very
person who, according to his own showing, was
endeavouring to reap for himself the fruits of
her husband's ingenuity.

The letter™ in which Madame Gordon gave
expression to these ideas suited Coche’s purpose
admirably. He had no sooner received it than
he turned his attention to Boehm, with whom he
was not less successful. In writing to him he
was bound, in common fairness, in order to give
him an opportunity for an explanation, to acquaint
him, if not with the communication which had
passed between him and Madame Gordon, at
least with the drawings and tablatures which he
informs us had been placed in his hands to make
him understand that Gordon was the inventor of
the Boehm flute. Instead of so doing, however,
the course he adopted was to tell him that he
was openly accused in Paris of palming off
Gordon’s flute as his own, but to conceal from
him the evidence on which the allegation was
based. Nor was this all. Although he was
secretly engaged in collecting statements to make
it appear that the Boehm flute was a piracy, he
assured Boehm that he exclaimed against such

54 This letter will be found at p. 127.

'
7O HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

an assertion—nay, he even took credit to himself
for the frankness with which he was treating him.
But he could not resist the temptation of adding,
‘Any one else would, perhaps, trouble himself
very little about this dispute on the subject of the
invention, and would seek to substitute himself
for one or the other inventor, or for both of them
together,” * thus disclosing with unconscious
candour what was passing in his mind.

In answering the letter, Boehm betrayed a want
of accuracy which, considering that his honour was
at stake, is much to be regretted. Early in the
year 1833 Gordon had written * to Boehm asking
him to make a flute for him. Boehm had con-
sented, and at the same time had suggested that
Gordon should come to Munich and superintend
its construction in person: and this Gordon
accordingly did. But when referring to these
occurrences in his reply to Coche, Boehm repre-
sented them to have taken place in 1834, instead
of 1833. He thus gave Coche an opportunity of
attacking his character as a man of veracity, of
which he was not slow to avail himself.

He was able to produce a letter,” written by
Gordon in July 1833, which showed that not only
was he at Munich at that time, but that his flute
was already finished and an announcement of it
printed and ready for distribution. Discredit
having thus been thrown upon one of Boehm’s
statements, all the rest were naturally received
with incredulity, and those of Madame Gordon,

5 A translation of Coche’s letter is given at p. 115.
5 See zzfra, p. 95. See infra, p. 132.
THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY. 71

whose letter Coche printed in juxtaposition with
that of Boehm, found general acceptance.

In commenting on the letters, Coche assumed
an air of lofty indifference, declaring that he was
influenced by conscientious motives only, and by
a love of truth and justice, as it was really a
matter of little importance by whom the instru-
ment had been invented ; and, whilst professing
to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions
from them, he adroitly prejudged the case by
bringing forward his own interpretations of con-
troverted points, and speaking of them as if they
were self-evident truths.

He further followed up the advantage he had
gained by issuing misleading engravings ;* and,
although he professed to consider that it made
little difference who was the inventor, he seemed
determined that his own views on the subject
should be impressed on the student at the very
outset of his career, for he published his instruc-
tion book under the title of a ‘School for the
New Flute, Invented by Gordon, Modified by
Boehm, and Perfected by Coche and Buffet’ ;
indeed, so unscrupulous was he in his attempts to
excite prejudice against Boehm, that he did not

58 See zufra, p.124. The letters as wellas the report of the Com-
mission and the attack on Boehm were appended to the pamphlet
which Coche had presented to the Commissioners, and which he
afterwards published with these additions to the world. Its full
title is: Examen critique de la Flite ordinaire comparée & la
Flite de Bihm, présenté & MM. les Membres de l Institut
(Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts, section de la Musique), par
V. Coche, Professeur au Conservatoire. Paris, Chez Auteur, Rue
du Faubourg-Poissonniére, No. 30. 1838.

5. See p. 273, also p. 148.
72 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

hesitate to state on the title-page of this book,
that the fingering of these three instruments, viz.
those of Gordon, Boehm, and Coche, was identi-
cal, though, as a matter of fact, no less than five
of the notes of the Boehm flute were fingered
differently from those corresponding to them on
Gordon’s instrument.
73

AN EXEMPLIFICATION OF

THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT

oF

OPEN-KEYED MECHANISM FOR
THE FLUTE.

Se

Tue Five-roor Fiute.

Exact date unknown.

Tue plan of employing open keys to act upon
two or more of the six holes of the flute, when
placed so far from the others as not to be within
reach of the fingers, was first carried out on bass
flutes. So far from being an idea of recent origin,
it seems to have even preceded the invention
of the additional keys for the semitones, for
M. Chouquet was of opinion that the flute here
represented dates from the end of the seven-
teenth or the beginning of the eighteenth century.

The instrument from which the drawing is
taken was presented to the Museum of the Con-.
servatoire of Paris by M. Dorus. On account of
its great length, it is familiarly known as a@ /ive-
foot flute. \t measures exactly four feet (English)
from end to end, and it requires long arms on
the part of the performer. It is made of box,
74 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

and the keys are of brass. The
maker’s name, ¥. Beuker, Amsterdam,
surmounted by a crown, is branded
upon it. The head is cracked, but
it has been carefully repaired and
clamped with a brass ferrule. It sounds
easily, and the tone is full and rich.
It is an octave below the concert
flute.

The distance between the C sharp
and B holes (1 and 2) is two inches
and an eighth, and that between the
G and F sharp holes (4 and 5) one
inch and seven-eighths; an uncom-
°+~4 fortable, but possible stretch, in each
ot» case, for an ordinary hand. But the
ae space between the B and A holes (2

5 and 3) is no less than three inches and
lee an eighth, and that between the F
sharp and E holes (5 and 6) two inches
‘4 and seven-eighths. As the A and the
|» E holes (3 and 6) were thus placed
quite out of the reach of the longest
F—6 fingers, it became necessary to have
recourse to mechanical means for
closing them. The keys employed for
this purpose are double levers of the
kind commonly found on hautboys of
this early period. They terminate, as
was usual at the time, in two cusps,
for the accommodation of left as
. __ well as right-handed players.
ig. 3.—The Five- . .

foot Flute. The bore is conical, but funnel-

et

 

 

 

——
THE FIVE-FOOT FLUTE. 75

shaped at its lower end, as the following measure-

ments of its diameter will show :—
in.

At its upper end above the cork .. .. 1}
At the junction of the first joint with

the head . BG aes, Bete core, 16a? ee, EE
At the junction of the second ss with

the first .. .. I
At the junction ee ihe: ‘foe wich the

second joint .. .. .. .. «. 4. 08
At itslowerend.. .. .. .. .. .. I

MacGrecor’s Bass Fiure.

1810.

Another step in advance is here made. Two
more of the six holes, viz. those for C sharp (1)
and G (4), are covered with open keys. Both of
the keys now added still survived in an altered
form on Carte’s, and one of them (that for the
C sharp hole) on the Boehm flute (Fig. 11, c).

In order to shorten the instrument the bore is
doubled in the head. This gives it a singular
appearance.’

The patentee, Mr. Malcolm Macgregor, musical
instrument maker, of Bell Yard, Carey Street,
London, thus describes his invention :—

“Figure ist represents the form of my new-
invented flute of the largest size ; it is composed

1 It must not be supposed that these ideas of Mr. MacGregor
were new. In Diderot and D’Alembert’s Eucyclopedia, Paris,
1751-80, is an engraving of a bass flute, the bore of which is
similarly bent back upon itself in the head, and the same four holes

covered with keys, the difference being that single instead of double
levers are employed.
76 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

 

 

 

 

=a

 

AIO i

o-—- 4

a)

 

 

|
1

|

—

+—G

 

4

Fig. 4.—MacGregor’s

Bass Flute.

of three joints, but may be made
of a greater or less number, as
may be judged most convenient ;
the top joint G, which I call the
head, is of an oval or flat form
for the accommodation of two
calibers or bores, which bores
answer similar purposes to the
two joints called the head and
middle of a German flute hav-
ing the four usual joints, one
of such bores having the mouth
hole, the other of such bores
having three holes for the left
or upper hand. The mouth hole
A is placed on the side of the
head or top joint G, at a con-
venient distance from the three
holes for the left or upper hand,
so as to allow the mouth and left
hand to be at a suitable distance
from each other, and which they
will be by the proportion in
Figure 1 being observed, or
nearly so, and so as to allow the
body to be in an easy posture.
The tone or sound is produced
by the wind proceeding from the
mouth hole up to the caliber or
bore, in which it is made, through
the other bore, by means of the
communication between the two
bores. By thus having the two
.MACGREGOR’S BASS FLUTE. vai

bores in. one joint, the larger sized new-invented
flute is much curtailed in' length and rendered
manageable to perform upon, which would not be
the case if such bores were made into two joints.
I, 2,3, inthe same Figure 1, represent the three
holes to be played with the left or upper hand ;
two of such holes, 1 and 3, being acted upon by
keys, which are to be so made as to remain open
till used ; these keys are necessary, owing to the
distance which the holes are from each other, being
in a new-invented flute of the largest size, about
double to that of a concert German flute. The
holes 1 and 3 are supposed to be hid in the
Drawing by the flaps of the two keys. 4, 5, 6,
in the same Figure 1, represent the three holes to
be played with the right or lower hand; two of
such holes, 4 and 6, being acted upon by keys
in the same manner as described as to 1, 2, 3,
and the holes 4 and 6 are supposed to be hid in
the Drawing similarly to the holes 1 and 3, as
before described. The holes 1, 2, 3, and 4, 5, 6,
respectively of a new-invented flute of the largest
size are about the distance of three inchés and
one-fourth from each other. The mode of finger-
ing this flute is similar to that of the concert
German flute, except that the keys acting on the
holes 1 and 3, and 4 and 6, are to be used instead
of the fingers being placed on those holes ; the
tails of which keys are to be so made as with
the open holes to form about the same distances
from each other as the finger holes of a concert
German flute. The Drawing represents a new-
invented flute to produce a bass or an octave
78 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE,

below to the German concert flute, having only
one key for the D sharp; but if the new-invented
flute be required as a bass to a-German flute,
having keys for more semitones, or descending
to C natural below the lines, then corresponding
keys must be added on the new-invented flute
accordingly. The lengths of the different joints
of the largest size of the new-invented flute as
described in the Drawing, Figure 1, are as
follows :—The head or top, fourteen inches; the
second joint, about ten inches ; third joint or foot,
about seven inches. I have given these and the
other different dimensions as near as may be;
which, however, the manufacturer will regulate
at his discretion, so as to produce the different
notes in proper tune. As a general rule it may
be observed, that the distances in the largest size
new-invented flute between the holes correspond-
ing to the finger-holes to a concert German flute,
and between the nearest of such holes to the
mouth hole, and the mouth hole, are about double
those of the concert German flute.”

MacGregor also proposed to bring the holes
within reach of the fingers by boring them ob-
liquely, and so causing them to approach each
other in the substance of the wood. ‘This ex-
pedient had long before been resorted to in the
construction of bass flutes-a-bec and bassoons.
NOLAN’S RING-KEY. 79

Nowan’s RING-KEY.
1808.

The keys of the flutes just described were
only intended to close holes which the unaided
finger could not reach. We now come to a
new departure, the introduction of mechanism
by means of which a finger, when pressed down
to close a hole, carries with it a lever acting ona
valve which closes a second hole; thus conferring
on the finger the power of doing what it had
previously taken two fingers to accomplish.

In the year 1808, a clergyman, the Reverend
Frederick Nolan, of Stratford, near Colchester,
took out a patent for “certain improvements in
the construction of flutes, flageolets, hautboys,
and other wind instruments.” These improve-
ments consisted, he states, ‘“‘in constructing wind
instruments, which are modulated by the fingers,
on the principle of bringing the semitones, which
are generally cross-fingered or played by ad-
ditional keys, under the modulation of the fingers
which play the regular diatonick notes.”

Amongst other curious contrivances, which it
would be out of place to describe here, was a
ring-key. It consisted of a ring surrounding a
hole, and an open-standing valve; the two being
connected by a lever, which might be either single
or double. The ring was made by boring a hole
in the touch of a key; a circumstance which has
an important bearing on the history of the inven-

tion of ring-keys.
80 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

In the engraving, which is taken from the
specification of the patent, this ring-key, g, is
shown as applied to a flute for the production of
Gsharp. The reader will perceive that on raising
the first finger of the right hand a player would
pass from F sharp to G sharp (a fingering in use
at the present day on Carte’s flute), and herein
he may discern the germ of the open-keyed
system of fingering. But as there appears to be

C.

Jf

qr

Fig. 5.—Nolan’s Ring-key.

no provision for G natural, he will no doubt
wonder how this note was made.

It should be mentioned, therefore, that the
valve was only to be left free to act when music
was being played in those keys in which there is
no G natural. Should G natural, however, occur
as an accidental, the performer was directed to
place the finger, instead of on the ring, on the
lever just above it, and so to close the G sharp
hole whilst leaving the G natural hole open.
Before commencing to play in a key in which G
natural formed one of the notes of the scale, the

eo:
NOLAN’S RING-KEY. 8I

player fastened down the valve by means of a
catch provided for the purpose. Whilst playing,
should he meet with an accidental G sharp, he
had to touch the catch and so release the valve.
This, as well as the construction of the ring-key,
is explained by Mr. Nolan, in the specification of
his patent, as follows :—

“In order to bring the acute semitone under
the modulation of the finger which plays the
regular diatonick note, let a perforated key (1)
be placed over a hole bored to produce the re-
quired semitone between the proper hole and the
hole next above it, of the following construction :—
Let it be made of a proper length to cover both
holes, viz. that sounding the full tone with its
touch (e), and that sounding the semitone with
its valve (¢); let it be so bored through the
touch (e) as to permit the full tone to pass freely
through the perforation (¢), or to be completely
stopped by the finger which presses the key down ;
let it have its hinge (4) behind the valve (c), its
spring (@) between the perforation and the valve,
and let it be furnished with a protecting tongue
(a) behind the hinge, to prevent the spring from
throwing the touch too high. For the purposes
of modulation there should be likewise a catch
(/) placed behind the touch, which, by turning
on a pin or pivot, may fasten down the key when
it is fixed to the instrument () in a box or bali
properly placed for the hinge. In place of this
key a jointed key (J) of the same kind as those
used on the German flute and hautbois may be
used when there is sufficient distance between

G
82 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

the holes sounding the full tone and semitone to
admit of a double lever’s being employed. This
key should be perforated, as well as the former,
and occasionally fastened down by means of a
catch. Hence, on loosing the catch, the acute
semitone may be produced by the same fingering
as the full tone. The accidental of the former
is produced by pressing the key towards the
valve, and permitting the sound to come through
the perforation; the accidental to the latter is
produced by touching back the catch, and allow-
ing the key to spring up. This contrivance is
principally of use in producing gf on the flute
and such instruments, and /# on the bassoon
and clarinet, &c.; middle cf on the clarinet may
be produced more simply than at present by
placing the touch of the key which produces that
note under the modulation of the fourth finger
of the right hand, so as to enable the performer
to cover the proper hole of that finger while he
presses the key, or the former being stopped or
plugged up to modulate the latter.”

As the advent of the Boehm flute drew near,
attempts to devise open-keyed mechanism began
to multiply. Thus, in the ‘Allgemeine Musi-
kalische Zeitung’ for 1824, there is to be found,
as Mr. Rockstro has pointed out, the drawing
and description of an openstanding key by means
of which one and the same aperture in the flute
NOLAN’S RING-KEY. 83

could be made to do duty either as a large ora
small hole. The first finger-hole, that for C sharp
closed by the first finger of the left hand, was
surmounted by a valve in which there was a
perforation ; the perforation being smaller than
the hole itself. The valve was acted on by a
crescent which partly surrounded the B natural
hole, so that when the second finger of the left
hand was pressed on this hole the aperture in the
flute covered by the valve would be closed, whilst
the perforation in the valve would be left open.
This contrivance was the proposal of a German
amateur, Dr. Pottgiesser. A somewhat similar

~e—@

Fig. 6.—Pottgiesser’s Key.

 

Tr

device for the same purpose was many years
afterwards applied by Mr. Richard Carte to the
same hole (that for C sharp) on his cylinder flute
with the old fingering.

In 1826, two years after the publication of the
account of Pottgiesser’s key, Buffet, as already
mentioned (p. 44), saw a ring-key on a clarionet
in Paris, but neither drawing nor description of it
is known to exist.

In the year following (1827), Gordon com-
menced his experiments, but no drawings of the
flutes he made prior’ to his connection with
Boehm have been preserved. The next year

(1828) another open key made its appearance,
G 2
84

 

 

Fig. rk ta

 

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

 

eber’s
C natural Key.

 

that for C natural played with
the left thumb, with which
we are all so familiar. It
was described and _ figured
by. Gottfried Weber in an
article in the German musical
periodical, ‘ Cecilia.’ But
there was no novelty here.
From time immemorial a hole
closed by the left thumb had
been in use on the /lée douce,
and in 1800 a proposal to close
the C natural hole with the left
thumb, either with or without
an open key, had been made
by Tromlitz.

Again, in 1831, Boehm, as
we have just seen, observed a
ring-key of the Game sort on
Gordon’s flute. “But we are
left in the dark as to the details
of its construction, for Gordon
subsequently discarded it to
adopt another ring-key, the idea
of which was communicated to
him by Boehm. Indeed, when
we consider how much atten-
tion the improvement of the
flute had attracted about this
time, it seems not unreasonable:
to suppose that many such
expedients, of which we have
no record, were suggested.
BOEHM’S FIRST MODEL. 85

Borum’s First MopeEL, KNOWN AS GEROCK AND
Wotr’s FLutTe.

153 bs

This is the flute which Boehm made during his
visit to London in 1831.7 A passage in one of
his letters to Clinton, in which he calls it his first
model, enables us to identify it as the instrument,
which, as he states in his letter to Coche,’? he
showed Gordon when he first became acquainted
with him.

The engraving is a facsimile, reduced in size
by photography, of a drawing in the prospectus
issued by Messrs. Gerock and Wolf. It appeared
in the shape of a small pamphlet, entitled ‘Scale
and Description of Boehm’s Newly-invented
Patent Flute, manufactured and sold by the
Patentees only, Gerock and Wolf, 79 Cornhill.’ *

The following is an extract from it :—

“The patentees, Messrs. Gerock and Wolf,
having availed themselves of the valuable assist-
ance of Mr. Boehm, principal flutist to the King
of Bavaria, distinguished not only as a musician
but for uncommon powers of mechanical inven-
tion, have succeeded in perfecting a flute devoid

2% The first model I made at my friend Mr. Wolf’s in 1831,
proves that I wanted to preserve as many notes in the old way of
fingering as seemed feasible.”—Lxrtract from a letter from Bochm

to Clinton, written in March 1843, published in Clinton’s Treatise
on the Flute, p. 45.

3 « At that time I had already made in London the model of my
new flute, and I showed him [Gordon] everything that I had done.”
—Boehm’s letter to Coche. (See Appendix, p. 130.)

* This flute was not patented.
86 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE,

of those inaccuracies of intonation universally
complained of in flutes of the usual formation,
and are enabled confidently to invite the attention
of the musical world to their new patent flute, in
which, by a slight alteration in the form and
arrangement of the keys, the following important
results are obtained, namely :—

“FirMNess, Equaity, and RicHness of tone
which have never before been combined in any
other description of flute.

“Simpticiry of mechanism as regards Fin-
GERING.

“ Facility in FILLinc, producing sweetness and
freedom up to the highest C, and unexampled
capabilities for the more delicate graces of expres-
sion which belong to a finished style of execution.

“Tt will accordingly be found that the whole
construction of the newly-invented scale of this
flute tends to a more complete identification with
the natural scale of the harmonic succession of
sounds, inasmuch as by means of the simple F
key, as exhibited in the annexed drawing, the
hole for the note E is placed in its natural
situation, which gives to it all the power of the E
flatand D. Besides which advantages, its peculiar
formation has influence upon several of the high
notes, which become better in tune thereby, and
more pure, easy, and clear in tone; giving at the
same time a facility on several shakes or trills,
which could never be made on the flute before.

‘In all passages of music, likewise, similar to
the annexed examples, where the notes preceding
or following the F natural require either the G
BOEHM’S FIRST MODEL.

sharp key to be opened, or the sixth
hole to be closed with the third finger
of the right hand, there is a difficulty
on the common flutes in gliding to or
from the F natural keys, and a partial
unstopping of the intermediate holes,
which produces a sound between the
respective notes, and requires the skill
and practice of a first-rate professional
artist to surmount the difficulty in
such passages of music as are affected
thereby ; which difficulties and inaccu-
racies are also obviated by the newly-
invented F key as described in the
figure subjoined.”

On looking at the engraving, it will
be observed that the A hole is brought
down to its proper place, and that the
finger of the performer is enabled to
act upon it by means of an open key
(2), as on the flutes represented in
Figs. 3 and 4; but the key, being
much shorter than that required for a
bass flute, is constructed with a single
instead of a double lever. English
flute-players are familiar with this key,
as it was made use of by Mr. Siccama
on his “diatonic flute ’””—a flute which
was adopted by two distinguished
professional players, Richardson and
Pratten, and became very popular in
this country about thirty years ago.

The E hole is also lowered; but

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 8.—Boehm’s
First Model.
88 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

instead of employing, like Mr. Siccama, another
key of the same kind, Boehm brings down the first
three fingers of the right hand, and has recourse
to a ring-key, by means of which he effects his
well-known back-fingering for F sharp.

The mechanism employed in the construction
of the ring-key is very different from that which
Boehm afterwards used; indeed, the invention,
regarded from a mechanical point of view, must
be considered to be still only half complete, for
the rod, or axle, to which the rings and the valve
should be attached, as radii parallel to each other,
so as to constitute a lever of the third order, is
wanting, its place being supplied by two levers of
the first order (6 and c); the action being the
same as that of the keys of the two bass flutes
and of Nolan’s ring-key when made with a double
lever (Fig. 5, J).

This key for F sharp should, of course, have
been constructed with three rings (see the Boehm
flute, Fig. 11), but for want of the axle it was
impossible, without departing from the simplicity
of the mechanism, to employ more than two, the
absence of the third being a great drawback to
the fingering,

Gorpon’s Diatonic FLute.

When Gordon left London after his interview
with Boehm, during which he was shown the
instrument just described, he went to Paris.
Whils in Paris the constructed a flute, which he
GORDON’S DIATONIC FLUTE. 89

made, he says in a letter to Boehm, as well as he
could with his own hands. It has been suggested
in this work (Note 18, p. 29) that the flute which
he thus constructed in Paris may possibly be the
original of the instrument about to be considered.
This is merely a speculation arising out of a
peculiarity of construction, to which I will draw
attention, leading to the conjecture that it was
designed after Gordon had seen Boehm’s first
model, but before he had become acquainted with
the Boehm flute. But wherever the original may
have been constructed, we are told by Boehm
that a flute such as is here figured was completed
in his workshop at Munich.

The instrument has little in common with
Gordon’s flute as figured by Coche (Fig. 12).
Its holes, placed out of line, betraying a want of
knowledge of how to regulate the mechanism,
and its clumsy, ill-shaped keys form a marked
contrast to the elegant and symmetrical work of
the drawing of that instrument. If not made by
Gordon himself, it would seem at least to be the
work of some ’prentice hand.

It bears no resemblance to the Boehm flute
(Fig. 11), but it is based on Boehm’s first model
(Fig. 8), which Gordon has apparently endea-
voured to reproduce with alterations and improve-
ments of his own.

On comparing it with Fig. 8, it will be observed
that, in adopting the mechanism for F sharp,
Gordon has converted the rings into two rude
forms (¢,/), intended probably to represent
crescents. In connection with these he has
gO HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

 

 

 

Cc

GS

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 9.—Gordon’s Diatonic Flute.

made an improvement which
constitutes an important me-
chanical advance on Boehm’s
contrivance. He has re-
placed the double lever by
an axle (a).

Now the reader will re-
collect that it was pointed
out in the description of
Boehm’s first model, that
there was a mechanical diffi-
culty which stood in Boehm’s
way in furnishing this key
with more than two rings.
By the introduction of the
axle this difficulty was re-
moved. Why, then, did not
Gordon make use of a third
crescent, which would have
been of so much service
in facilitating the fingering?
Was it because the idea of
doing so never occurred to
him? If so, it is difficult to
resist the inference that when
he designed this instrument
he had not yet seen the
Boehm flute (Fig. 11).

If the reader will now
direct his attention to the
key for covering the A hole
on Boehm’s first model (Fig.
8, a), and then compare it
GORDON’S DIATONIC FLUTE, QI

with the corresponding key on this flute (a), he
will see that Gordon has again employed an axle,
thereby securing a better action.

It may, perhaps, be worth while to méntion
that Gordon was not the only designer of flute
mechanism who carried out this improvement.
Boehm’s plan. for thus acting on the A hole was
adopted not only by him, but by Siccama, Clinton,
and Pratten. Siccama simply copied Boehm’s
key, but both Clinton and Pratten made the same
change in it as Gordon.°

Boehm, having remedied in the way described
the two most glaring defects of the old flute—the
incorrect position and size of the A and E holes—
made no other changes on his first model in the
mechanism of the keys. Not so Gordon; but it
must be confessed that, considered as improve-
ments, his alterations are of very doubtful value.

Passing upwards from the A to the key next

5 Pratten had recourse to an axle when he changed the name of
the instrument on which he played from Siccama’s Diatonic to
Pratten’s Perfected Flute. Clinton does not deny that he took
this key from Gerock and Wolf's flute, as the following passage
from his 7veatise on the Flute will show: “The A natural hole
I have moved lower down upon the instrument than it was upon
the eight-keyed flute, which renders that note perfect. This hole
is governed by a key, in order that the finger may act upon it
without inconvenient extension. The reader, upon referring back,
will observe that this key is somewhat similar in principle to that
which was affixed to Messrs. Gerock and Wolf’s improved flute,
but with a much better action. The key upon that flute was set
at a sharp angle, which rendered it awkward to control, while on
my flute it is placed horizontally, whereby a free action is obtained.”
The flute here referred to is not that to which Clinton gave the
name of the “ Equisonant Flute,” but an earlier instrument, made
for him by the late Mr. Potter, and stili manufactured by his son
and successor, Mr. Henry Potter, of 30 Charing Cross.
g2 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

above it, that for B flat, we see that Gordon has
substituted an open for the old closed key, and
that, with his extraordinary and inexplicable
fondness for crescents, he has provided it with a
crescentic appendage (/) to receive the left thumb,
by which it was played, though it is probable that
a flat plate would have answered the purpose
much better.

Going higher still, we come to the C natural
key (2). Here Gordon has introduced an entirely
new arrangement. ‘This was rendered the more
necessary, as Boehm, as we are told by Clinton,
who possessed one of Gerock and Wolf's flutes,
had, in improving the A, destroyed the C natural,
cross-fingered with the middle finger of the left
hand, so constantly used by players on the old
flute. Gordon employs the closed C natural key
of the eight-keyed flute, but he fits it with two
levers, one (/) for the left thumb, the other (2) for
the third finger of the left hand. The expanded
end of the latter is brought so close to the plate
of the A key (a), which is cut away to receive it,
that the finger can, when required, slide on to it.

For the three lowest notes C, C sharp, and
E flat, Gordon has recourse to the same arrange-
ment as that employed by him on his flute repre-
sented by Fig. 12, to the description of which the
reader is referred.

The lever /, to which no reference has yet been
made, was for making G sharp with the first
finger of the right hand.

The woodcut is taken from an engraving on the
frontispiece of Clinton’s ‘School for the Boehm
GORDON’S DIATONIC FLUTE. 93

Flute.’ In the introduction to this work, Clinton
publishes a letter from Boehm, dated August
12th, 1845, in which he thus writes: ‘“‘As some
wnterested parties have circulated various un-
founded reports respecting my invention, amongst
which they have insinuated that it was copied
from Mr. Gordon, I have furnished you with the
means to refute all such charges, and should you
consider it advisable to publish them, or this
letter, you have my full permission to do so.’

After making some remarks on other matters,
Clinton says: ‘I now come to the most important
part of my subject, namely, the invention itself.

“Tt has been most ungenerously asserted by
some parties that Mr. Boehm cofgzed his invention
from Mr. Gordon, an amateur, and a captain in
the Swiss Guards in Paris; while others, with an
affectation of indifference on the subject, quietly
assert that the same idea suggested itself to both
these individuals about the game period, but that
Mr. Boehm, having superior knowledge and facili-
.ties, realised his conception, and Mr. Gordon did
not.

“The facts of the case are simply these:
Twelve months after Mr. Boehm had completed
his flute, he met Mr. Gordon in London, who was
then busily occupied in devising a reformation of
the flute; Mr. Gordon, thinking that Mr. Boehm’s
workmen were more likely than any others to
carry out his ideas, requested permission of the
latter to complete his instrument at the manu-
factory in Munich, which favour was unhesitatingly
granted, and in 1834, Mr. Gordon’s instrument.
94 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

was completed, which he called the ‘Flaite
Diatonique,’ a drawing of which is given in the
frontispiece. By comparing Mr. Gordon’s flute
with that of Mr. Boehm, it will be found that
every part of it is ¢otally different, excepting that
which is acted upon by the first, second, and third
fingers of the right hand; and even this part,
although the same in principle, is differently
worked in detail ; however, this is the owly part
which could possibly justify any assertion that
Boehm had copied from Gordon. Now, to prove
that even this part of the instrument originated
with Mr. Boehm, Mr. Gordon had thus written :
‘La suppression des deux clefs de Fa naturel, et
leur remplacement par une clef de Fa diese, est
une idée dont l’application offre de grands avan-
tages. Liidée de cette clef de Fa diése, com-
muniquée par M. T. Bohm de Munich, a été,
avec son agrément, adoptée pour la présente
flite, dont elle complete les moyens d’exécution.’
The original of the above is in my possession, and
the following is a translation: ‘The dispensing.
with the two keys for F natural, and replacing
them with one key for F sharp, the application
of which offers great advantages, was an idea
suggested by Mr. Boehm, of Munich, and has
been, by his consent, adopted on the present
flute, thereby rendering the means of execution
perfect.’

“Tt is now confidently hoped that this honour-
able acknowledgment from Mr. Gordon himself
will establish Mr. Boehm’s just claim to the inven-
tion. I likewise possess other proofs, equally
GORDON’S DIATONIC FLUTE. 95

satisfactory, but the above may be deemed suf-
ficient on this point.”

Clinton’s ‘School for the Boehm Flute’ was
published in 1846. In the year following, 1847,
Boehm gave the world his own account of the
origin of this flute in his pamphlet ‘ Ueber den
Flétenbau. A translation of the original
German of the passage into French will be found
at p. 150, whilst the following is a verbatim copy
of this account, as it left Boehm’s pen when he
prepared the abbreviated English version of this
pamphlet, known as his ‘Essay on the Construc-
tion of Flutes’ :—

“At the beginning of 1832 my new flute was
completed and not only known in public by my
playing upon it, but I had also sold already
several of these instruments, when I received the
following letter from Mr. Gordon, the original of
which is in my hands.*°

‘LAUSANNE, 15 /ébr. 1833.
‘Mon cHer MonsIzuR
‘Je suis depuis quinze jours de retour chez
moi & Lausanne, aprés un séjour assez long a
Paris, ou je suis venu de Londres peu aprés vous
avoir vu, lorsque vous en étes parti pour Munich.

‘Je n’ai pas perdu mon temps, et j’ai travaillé
avec persévérance 4 une flite nouvelle que jai
faite moi-méme aussi bien que j’ai pu, et que je
viens de terminer.

‘Je ne vous ai point oublié, et j'ai toujours
attendu que vous m’enverriez une flite perfec-
tionnée que vous proposiez de chercher a faire a

6 A translation of this letter is given at p. 419.
96 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

votre retour en Allemagne. Selon votre offerte
a Londres, je veux vous envoyer ma flite en vous
priant de m’en faire une belle sur ce modéle; vu
que je posséde entiérement le doigté pour la
jouer. Je vous enverrai en méme temps la
tablature du doigté.

‘Je n’ai pas voulu vous envoyer ma fifite avant
d’avoir regu de vos nouvelles. Veuillez donc
m’écrire a l’adresse ci-aprés: 4A Monsieur Gordon
a Lausanne en Suisse, et me dire la maniére qui
vous croyez la plus sGre de vous la faire parvenir
sans accident; et si vous pourriez m’en faire une
semblable, vous en occuper le plutét possible.
Dans l’espérance que ma lettre vous trouvera a
Munich, je vous lenvoye 4 l’adresse que vous
m’aviez donne.

‘Acceptez l’assurance de toute. ma considéra-
tion.’

‘Votre dévoué serviteur,
‘GORDON.’

7 There is a postscript to this letter. It is written partly in
French and partly in German. Only the first two or three
sentences of it have hitherto been published. It is here given in
its entirety.

“ P,S.—Avez-vous toujours votre bon ouvrier dont vous m’avez
parlé & Londres ?

“Jai vu Drouét 4 Paris. Il 4prouve ma Flite, mais il recule
devant un changement dans le doigté. Tulou en est 14 aussi. Ce
n’est pourtant qu’une affaire de Deux mois.

“ Ich habe ihnen, mein lieber Bohm, nicht mein ganzes Brief auf
Teutch geschrieben, weil ich weiss dass sie sehr gut Franziésich
sprechen und Lesen und dass ich im gegentheil mein Teutsch ganz
vergessen habe. Leben sie recht wohl, und schreiben sie mir
bald.”

Translation.

“ Have you still your good workman, of whom you spoke to me
in London?
GORDON’S DIATONIC FLUTE. 97

“Some months after my reply to this letter
Mr. Gordon came himself to Munich, and soon
became convinced of the defects of his flute in
comparison to mine. He rejected his system,
and began trying another, for the execution of
which I allowed him to make use of my work-
shop and my workmen.’ After a twelvemonth,
when he had two flutes completely destroyed by
continual alterations, he left Munich with the
flute represented in Fig. 1 (Fig. 9 of this work).
He named his flute quite erroneously Fléte
diatonigue, as only the old flute with six holes
is azatonic, but all those since furnished with keys
are chromatic. He published also 1834 an
engraved scale to his flute, which he gave to
me, and in this scale he observes, among other
things: ‘La suppression des deux clefs de Fa
naturel,’” &c., as above.

In the preceding paragraph, Mr. R. S. Rockstro
would have us believe that there is to be found
one of the many false representations which he
endeavours to fasten on Boehm. “ It is evident,”
he writes in his ‘ Treatise on the Flute,’ “that
the drawing published with Gordon’s scale of

“T saw Drouet at Paris. He approves of my flute, but he recoils
before a change in the fingering. So also does Tulou. ’Tis never-
theless but a matter of two months,

[Jz German.]

“J have not written, my dear Boehm, the whole of my letter to
you in German, because I know that you speak and write French
very well, and that I, on the contrary, have entirely forgotten my
German. Farewell, and write to'me soon.”

8 In the German pamphlet Boehm added here : “ what he was in
search of was a simplified mechanism which should permit him to
retain several of the ordinary fingerings.”

Bf
98 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

fingering was not a representation of the flute to
which Boehm alludes, as he implies, but of that” °
depicted in Fig. 12, p. 107, the instrument which
Coche brought forward as Gordon’s flute. How,
when, or where it becomes evident we are not
told ; it is enough for us to know that it has been
perceived by Mr. Rockstro’s mental eye. It will
be observed that it is not only Boehm whose
veracity is here impugned. Mr. Rockstro in-
directly charges Clinton, also a dead man, with
being an accomplice in this fraudulent attempt to
deceive the world; for Clinton, as we have just
seen, had stated that when he wrote the intro-
duction to his ‘School for the Boehm Flute,’ the
original of Gordon’s declaration was in his posses-
sion.” To the method of writing history adopted
by Mr. Rockstro, of which this is a sample, I shall
have again and again to draw attention.

It happens, however, that the copy of the
“ engraved scale to his flute” which Gordon gave
to Boehm, and which Boehm placed in Clinton’s
hands, is still in existence—a circumstance of

9 Treatise on the Flute, Section 576, p. 319.

‘0 That Clinton spoke the truth when he asserted that the original
of Gordon’s acknowledgment was in his hands, is proved by the
following extract from a letter from Clinton to Boehm, which shows
that Boehm lent Clinton the copy which Gordon had given him of
the announcement of his flute. The letter was written in December
1845, after the plates for Clinton’s School for the Boehm Flute
were engraved, but before the work was published. “I enclose
you,” he writes, “two of the drawings I have had made, one of
your flute and one of Gordon's, which I give by way of comparison,
in order to prove that you did not copy from him. In the text of
my work I have given an extract from that paper of Gordon’s
which you lent me, which acknowledges that he copied from you.”
‘The words italicised are underscored by Clinton.
GORDON’S DIATONIC FLUTE. 99

which Mr. Rockstro was not aware when the
revelation was vouchsafed to his mental eye.
Through the kindness of Herr Ludwig Boehm, in
whose custody it is, I am able to place before the
reader a facsimile, reduced in size for the sake of
convenience, of this document, which has been
for so many years the subject of doubt, curiosity,
and speculation. The following is a translation
of the letterpress which covers the first page :—

“DIATONIC FLUTE.

“ The Flute as it is known at the present day
is a very imperfect Musical Instrument. Flute
Concertos are played with great Talent, for
Talent is a Magician; but the truth is that one
cannot in any Key make a good Scale on the
Flute. In loading it with new Keys they have
only made it more complicated, without changing
its defective Conformation, the sole way to
improve it. These Keys, moreover, as well as
the Holes, are not in their true place; many
Notes have not a sufficient length of Column of
air, whence, partly, the indecision, the inequality,
and the defective intonation of the greater part of
these Notes.

“The Study of this Instrument in its present
state, is a constant struggle with these defects,
which one can succeed in palliating, in disguising
more or less successfully, but never in entirely
overcoming, because they lie in the structure of
the Instrument, which does not sufficiently second

the Musician who plays it.
a 2
100 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

“Tt was then to be desired that the Flute, the
Taste for which is so widely diffused, should at
length be brought more into conformity with the
dictates of reason, and constructed in such a way as
to yield, in conjunction with greater ease of Study,
more satisfactory results in relation to the tone,
the Correctness of the Intervals (which the Name
Diatonic should express), and of the equality
of the Notes—in one word, new means which
should favour execution, free and suitable for
melody, and for brilliant passages in all the Keys.

“We believe that these advantages are com-
bined in the New Flute which we to-day
announce to the Musical World.—The new dis-
tribution of the Instrument necessarily involves a
slight change in the ordinary fingering (see the
subjoined Table). This fingering thus modified’
is clearly more simple. Experience has proved
that it is acquired in a short Time.

“The mechanism and the position of the
Keys, eight in number, are well calculated to
insure precision, certainty, and facility of action.
The Flute, supported on the inner part of the
Left hand, leaves the Fingers free from any
contraction.”

‘The Key for G sharp and that for C are the
only closed Keys on the Flute. These two Keys
are opened by pressing the finger upon that which
is indicated by the sign X. The six other Keys
stand open ; their Holes are closed like the other
holes of the Flute by the pressure of the fingers.

" This passage scems to indicate that Gordon, like Boehm and
Coche, used a crutch or some such contrivance,
GORDON’S DIATONIC FLUTE. IOl

“The suppression of the two Keys for F
natural, and their replacement by one Key for
F sharp, is an Idea the application of which offers
great advantages. The Idea of this key for F
sharp, communicated by Mr. T. Boehm,. of
Munich, has been, with his consent, adopted for
the present Flute, of which it completes the
means of execution.

‘An amateur moderately advanced, will ac-
quire after two months’ practice the fingering of
the new Flute, and from that time forward,
seconded by his instrument, his further Study
should assure him rapid progress.”

The two inner pages of the announcement are
‘devoted to the drawing of the flute and to the
tablature, or table of fingering. The back, which
is Otherwise blank, is adorned with a picture. It
represents the interior of a room. In the centre
of the apartment stands a harp, and, near it, a
chair, in which, judging from its position, the
harpist was accustomed to sit. Close to the
chair, on a small mat, there lies a lap-dog. Not
far off is a music stool, and, in front of it, a music
stand with the desk lowered sufficiently to enable
a performer to play from it when seated on the
stool. On the ledge of the desk is Gordon’s
flute, with the holes turned towards the spectator,
so that the mechanism can be seen and identified.
Over the flute is written its superscription, “ Flute
Diatonique, par J. Gordon.”

The room is lighted by a richly curtained
French window looking into a garden. The
window, which is enclustered with flowers,

Fry *y
102 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

discloses a charming view ; it overlooks a sheet
of water which mirrors a cloudless sky, whilst hills,
bathed in sunshine, are seen rising picturesquely,
side by side, almost from the water's edge. In
the garden, which appears to slope rapidly down-
wards, is a serpentine gravel walk ae
seemingly, towards the water.
The picture may be nothing more than a con-
ventional design, intended as an ornamental
vehicle for the title of Gordon’s flute; but a flute-
player of an imaginative turn of mind might be
tempted to put on it a very different interpreta-
tion. He might see in it a representation of the
drawing-room in Gordon’s house at Lausanne.
He would observe that although the balmy
breath of summer, laden with the fragrance of the
garden, floats through the open window, the
ample curtains, looped up in massive folds, tell of
the rigour of a Swiss winter. In the fringed
valance which adorns the chair and the music
stool his mental sight would recognise the
handiwork of Gordon’s clever, devoted, and
domesticated wife. To him it would seem that
the last strains of a duet for harp and flute, which
Madame Gordon had been playing with her
husband, could not long have died away, for their
tiny audience still lingers in the place by its
mistress’s side it occupied during the concert.
The quondam little listener would reveal to the
dreamer the secret of Gordon’s expatriation. He
would trace in the lineaments of the highly
honoured pet reposing on its dainty cushion the
outline of a King Charles’s spaniel; to him an
indication that Gordon’s was one of the many
Flb. Diatenigue’
La Flite tlle quille ast connue aujourd: hu, ext ur Instrument de Mousiguertres mpoarfiritioyous des lon.
certs de Fluke, arec beaucnys de Talent pareegue le Lulent es@ ur Magitien;, mais la verite woqubr.

nepeul, dans, aucun Ton/feure une bonne Game sur lu Flite. En la chargeant de lig nouvelles own
it guts la compliguer de ge, sans changer sa Conformal euse, seul moyen de la rede mul.

dure. Ces clef dasleurs aante que les Trous ne sont pas wleur veritatie place; plusieurs Tons none pas.
wre longuer de Clone daar suffisante, dela’, en partic, Vindeius ton, Vinegalit ct-lafausete de la pluspar?
de ces Tors. c a : :

L' Etude de cet-Lutrument dans son chat acuel, est une lutte comtinutlle avec’ ces defauts, gue Low pet?
purvenir a'palier, a deguiser plus ou moins bien, mats james a surmonier cubirerecnl parcege tls tient
@ lw structure de l'Instrument-gui ne seconde pono asst le Musiaien guile youe,

Lt doit done a dazirer que le Blite, dontle Gout tt si rtpanin, fue enfin miu racsonee, CC comstructe
de manure & Ufrir avec une Etude plus facile des resuttats plus sanifusans, sous le raport de la sonore.
te, de laJustisse: des Intercalashe quednt duprimétr le Nom Duatonigieet de bey alité de Sons, cr uv modes
moyens nouveau guifavorisent L execution france et concenable dw chantetdu Trak dans tous les Toros.

Nous crowns ces vantages reuus dansta Nourtle Fhite que rous ationcons myourd hua Monde
Musical. _ La distribuatin/nouvélle te b'Tnstrument.a ew pour consequence necessaire un leger chats:
gement duns le doite ordiatre| Voir la Tablature ci zoiut).le doie’ ainsi: modifié est evideitent? plus

vimplal deperience a prove’ gu tb sacquicrt en poude Wms.

Le mécanisme ct la position des Clef; au nombre dehuitl sont tien enterdus pour la prevsion,
lasurde, et lafacihie deleur actor La Flite soutmue sur la partie wntemieune dela matin Caw-
che, lawseles Doits libres de toude contraction.

La Cede Sot Ditre etrcelle b'ut sont les seules Clo fermess dela Fite. Ces deus Clef sor.
mente apurant le dot desus co qur eb indugué parle Signer. Leas sux autres Clef sont Te.

coves; leurs Trous se ferment Come les autres trous dela Flite par la pression des Dorgts.

La supressuon des deux Clofs de Fanaturel, et leur remplacemenc par une Clef de Rar diene; esO une
Tee done 0 aplication yffre de grands avantages. I'Tite de cétte def de Ba dere coruuaguee par
MD Behm de Munich a a; aveeson agtément, doptee pour la presse Flite, dowt elle completes
les mayens.d' execution, ;

lhe amateur de force mayehe; possédera apres deux mous & Exerc le deite dela nowvblle,
Flite, & destors secondé par sow Instrument, sor ituie alterweure Gait tue assurtr de rapittes Pragres.
Lb ature dale

Les Lettres A.B, CDE, designent diverses Branches comumquant a des Clef et servant aux Trilles Le Tru
trille mineur avant, ele trele mayeur ap

ut Ut Re Rep Me Fa/ Fak Sol Sif La Log Se uty Wp Re/ of MS 2. O46

gS Y
> o
§

 

+ Chague fois que te fa dite grare ow celuc dw multe precederont’ vinedialernent une Ne ae
+ Ly def de Me b mol pouwant wuiiperement tire ouverte ou, fermes( pour toutes Utd -
la plus comode pour la main dans Vaxeculion du That.
Hite Diatonigut
miyeur cmincur de chaque Note est indique par le Signe tr dans la lone du Doite de cette Noto , Savorr le

lay dite indiation’ dur Doté/, of
tutres Doutes

aia
njostes 22 = eae Te
== ee ee s

to

ty

my

fie

a2:

    

          

   

 

taguelle le anguieme Crow doit ttre p Jer in, onufermera ce Dow en prone ba clef de Fakere.
ur les quelles tlle nest pas indiguée férnee) ona lafacutie dela laser dans ler position quan CrowWera
 
GORDON’S DIATONIC FLUTE. 103

families which left their native land when com-
promised or reduced in circumstances through a
too zealous attachment to the Stuart cause. The
path in the garden, winding down towards the
water, would conjure up to the eye of fancy the
closing scene in the drama of the Gordon flute ;
Gordon, flute in hand, descending to the lake to
consign to its placid bosom the cherished object,
once the source of so many bright hopes—hopes
soon overshadowed by disappointment, and now
quenched for ever in the darkness of despair.

Hdon—

Fig. 10.—Facsimile of Gordon’s Signature. .

In the engraving Gordon is styled J. Gordon.
This raises a question, What was Gordon's
Christian name. Fétis gives ‘‘ W.” as the initial
of it, and he is followed by Schafhautl and others ;
but in the signature of Gordon’s letter to Boehm,
of which a facsimile is here given, the G is pre-
ceded by a stroke of the pen which looks very
much like the letter J Boehm appears to have
regarded this as an ornamental flourish, for, in
quoting Gordon's letter, he represents him as
signing it with his surname, Gordon, only. But
 

Fig. 11.
The Boehm
Flute.

 

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

whatever might have been Gordon’s
Christian name, if the engraver of
the picture had before him a signature
similar to that above, it is certainly
not surprising that he should have
believed that Gordon had written
J. Gordon. It will be observed that
the letter d@ in Gordon’s name, as it
appears in the picture, is so engraved
as to resemble the same letter as
formed by Gordon in his signature.

Tue Borum FLuTE.
1939;

The engraving represents this in-
strument in its original form. Boehm
commenced its construction on his
return home from London in 1831,
and ‘he is stated to have played it in
public on November 1st, 1832.” It
made its appearance in England in
1833,”

The change of fingering for the
right hand, introduced on Boehm’s
first model (Fig. 8), is here retained.
The ring-key is now constructed with
an axle, and a third ring is added to
the mechanism for F sharp.

2 See p. 253.

® Essay on the Construction af Flutes, p. 13.
See also z/ra, p. 278.
THE BOEHM FLUTE. 105

The open-keyed system is extended to the left
hand; the C natural, the B flat, and the G sharp
holes, which were left covered with closed keys
on Boehm’s first model, having been opened.
The G sharp key is played, as before, with the
little finger of the left hand, but it is kept open by
a spring. For C natural an openstanding key,
as previously proposed by G. Weber, and before
him by Tromlitz, is adopted. As there are now
six open holes with only five fingers available
for closing them, it becomes necessary to use a
ring-key and thus to have recourse to a second
back-fingering. The key selected to be acted on
in this way is that by which B flat is made. It is
closed by the action of the first finger of the right
hand, an arrangement which Gordon has been
said to be the first to adopt. It is, however, only
fair towards Boehm to bear in mind that this, as
has already been pointed out,” is a matter of in-
ference only, the earliest flute of which a drawing
is known to exist showing this fingering, . being
that now before us.

The key for closing the A hole (Fig. 8, a) is
discarded, the third finger of the left hand being
brought down so as to cover the hole; the other
fingers of the left hand are lowered with it, and a
key (c) is introduced, as on MacGregor’s bass
flute, to enable the first finger to act on the C
sharp hole, from which it is now removed.

The fingering of the Boehm flute is too familiar
to need further description, but the reader's atten-

Mu Supra, p. 23, Note 7.
106 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

tion should be drawn to the projection (a) for the
spring of the D-shake key, the needle springs”
not having been yet brought into use, and to the
arms (4, 6) for closing the valves over which they
extend, now superseded by clutches,” or pro-
jections from the axles, meeting each other. The
absence of the Briccialdi lever for making B flat
with the left thumb will also be noticed.

Gorpon’s FLUTE ACCORDING TO COCHE.

The drawing here reproduced was brought
forward by Coche as a representation of Gordon’s
flute, when, after the failure of his proposal for
‘private arrangements” with Boehm, he offered
his fellow-countrymen a flute improved by him-
self. He, however, draws special attention by
a nota bene to a statement, which he makes on
the authority of ‘Gordon’s Tablature,’ that two
of the keys, viz. that for F sharp and that for
shaking D, belong to Boehm.”

The open-keyed system now reaches its full
development. Every one of the keys (with the
exception, of course, of that for the shake),
including even the E flat, which Boehm did not
alter, stands open when not in use. In its finger-
ing it departs still more widely from the old
system than does the Boehm flute; for though it

1 Invented by Buffet, of Paris, p. 49.
16 Infra, p. 273, at the foot of the engraving.
GORDON’S FLUTE ACCORDING TO COCHE, 107

retains one fingering (that for G
sharp) which Boehm changed,
it changes three (E flat, low C,
and C sharp) which he retained.

The statements of Buffet,”

the representations of Coche,®
the letter of Gordon to Mer-:

cier, and that to Coche from
Madame Gordon,” who speaks
of her husband as having
made his instrument, of which
she enclosed a drawing, with a
workman of Boehm, all com-
bine to show, unless we are to
impute error, fraud, or mis-
representation, that the flute
here depicted was constructed
in Boehm’s factory at Munich
in the year 1833. On the other
hand, so grave are the difficul-
ties in the way of accepting this
figure as a-drawing taken from
an instrument actually made,”
that it has been thought that it
may possibly be nothing more
than a design on paper in which
Gordon has attempted to adapt
the Boehm flute to his method

of construction. On _ these:

points it will be for the reader

" Infra, p. 282. 18 Infra, p. 125.
9 Infra, p. 132. 20 Infra, p. 127.
4 Infra, p. 286.

a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0-16
o—_|@)

INI| _,
c——) ©
=

>
ets
z— j__._7
&—_ Y J
2
Oo
oO

LZ. x

(@

@

&-
@
|—¥
}
a,

 

Fig. 12,—Gordon’s Flute
according to Coche.
108 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

to use his judgment, or to exercise his ingenuity in
endeavouring to discover a satisfactory elucidation
of the mystery.

The engraving is a facsimile (photography being
employed to make it smaller) of that published by
Coche, who implies, though he does not state, that
it corresponds to the drawing forwarded to him by

Madame Gordon.”

EXPLANATION.

a. D-shake key taken from the Boehm flute; the mechanism
altered to Gordon’s system of wires and cranks. It was played by
means of the knob or button, ¢.

é. Key to close the C sharp hole. This very long key worked
upon the axle /; its shank was brought round the key ¢ by a
sickle-shaped curvature, underneath which was the spring.

c. Two small holes for C natural, They were closed by the left
thumb.

d. Projection in the wood to keep the thumb in its place.

e. Key for closing the B natural hole. B flat was made by
closing this key by the first finger of the right hand, the action
being brought up from the crescent 7 by wires and cranks.

A. Crescent to close the key ¢. If this key worked on the axle /,
there must have been some contrivance not shown in the engraving
for reversing the action.

o. G sharp key. This key was open when in repose, but when
the finger was applied to the hole 4 it was carried down and
closed by means of the arms 2, z, one of which was furnished with
a small crescent 7. This double-action key, with simplified
mechanism, was afterwards known as the Dorus key,

2. Tail of the G sharp key.

m,2. Tails of the low C and C sharp keys, communicating with
the valves y, z, by wires and cranks.

2. Knob for shaking G and G sharp with the first finger of the
right hand.

w, r, Ss, g. Mechanism for F sharp. The idea taken from
Boehm, the rings replaced by crescents.

z. Button to make F sharp without using either of the crescents.

x. Open-standing E flat key.

” Infra, p. 125.
APPENDIX TO PART I.

 

THREE LETTERS

TO WEICH RYFERENCE IS MADE IN THE ACCOUNT GIVEN IN
THIS WORK! OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BOEHM
FLUTE INTO FRANCE.

THESE letters, the originals of which are in the posses-
sion of Herr Ludwig Boehm, are now (1895) published
for the first time. They disclose a vista which forms a
strange background to the likeness we have of Coche,
painted by himself and retouched by Mr. Rockstro, in
which he is represented “ manfully standing forth,” at the
instigation of offended Justice, “as the champion of the
ingenious but unfortunate Captain Gordon.”? The sketch
for the portrait was taken when Coche, in the discharge
of a duty he owed to himself—the duty of endeavouring
“to ascertain the truth’ *—was engaged in “collecting
and sifting the conflicting evidence” on which Gordon’s
title to be considered the real inventor of the Boehm
flute rested. He was posing in the attitude of a “con-
_ scientious * artist” animated by a spirit which would be,
were it not “for a certain tendency to over-estimate
the merits of Boehm,” * “a spirit of judicial impartiality.”
Still, Coche, though “actuated” by the most “honour-
able motives,” ® does not appear to be absolutely imma-
culate, even after the picture has been varnished by
Mr. Rockstro. The varnisher has detected a flaw in the

1 Supra, pp. 49 to 72.

2 Rockstro’s Treatise on the Flute, section 923, p. 630.

8 See Coche’s attack on Boehm, zu/ra, p 124. * Ibid.
5 Rockstro’s Treatise on the Flute, section 609, p. 341.

6 Ibid., section 615, p. 345.
IIo HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

colouring. Coche “seems to have erred,” we are told ;
but he erred “on the side of excessive generosity
towards” the culprit whose guilt he was labouring to
bring to light". In short, so distinct is the halo of
righteousness with which the figure is adorned that
Mr. Rockstro has been accustomed to regard it with
feelings akin to the reverence due to the image of a
saint. But the great marvel of this masterpiece of art
—a marvel on which the letters throw light—has still to
be noticed. The painting is endowed with the mys-
terious property of the chameleon. No sooner is the
chivalrous exploit of the knight-errant of the flute placed
in the magic lantern of fact than it dissolves into an
astutely planned trade manceuvre.

In the first of the letters Coche informs Boehm, under
the seal of secrecy, that he believes the possibility of
getting Boehm’s “magnificent and rich instrument”
adopted by the Institute of France to be within his
grasp. He suggests that the powers of the law should
be invoked to put a stop to the manufacture of the
Boehm flute, then just commencing in France, thus to
compel those Frenchmen who desired to adopt the new
invention to obtain their instruments from a depot to be
opened by Boehm in Paris. Although he professes to
make this proposal from a wish to promote Boehm’s
interest, he hints, in guarded but unmistakable language,
that he is not indisposed to take a share of the profits
which might be expected to accrue from the monopoly
to be thus established.

The answer which Boehm returned to this letter is not
preserved, but we gather from the opening sentences of
letter No. 3 that he informed Coche that he had already
commissioned Camus to introduce his flute into France.
In these same sentences we catch a glimpse of a
transformation scene. Coche was: not the man to
submit tamely to a rebuff. He had quickly resolved to

" Rockstro’s Treatise on the Flute, section 6c5, p. 339.
APPENDIX TO PART I. II!

forge a weapon to bring his ‘rival, Camus, to the ground.
The public, who were to be the judges of the contest,
would reward the victor with a crown of gold. Accord-
ingly, the richness of the “magnificent ” instrument for
which Camus was the agent was called in question;
Coche had “ presided at the construction” of a flute
“enriched” by himself, and in little more than four
months from the time when he had suggested that his
countrymen should be forced fo buy their flutes at
Boehm’s Paris depot, was inviting them to purchase his
own superior home-made article, the adoption of which
by the Institute of France he had already secured.

The second letter is unsigned, but there is internal
evidence, which seems overwhelming, that it was written
by Boehm’s agent Camus. The carelessness displayed
in the writing and the composition, together with the
occasional erasures and other indications of haste, show
that it was the reverse of a studied production. Whether
the omission of the signature was accidental ; whether,
as well may be, it arose from an unwillingness on the
part of the writer to make himself responsible for the
very plain speaking the letter contains ; or whether it was
a measure of precaution to prevent his name from being
used for a fraudulent purpose, he having given Boehm
authority to draw on him for a sum of money, I shall
leave to the judgment of the reader.

The letter was written about three weeks after the
adoption of Coche’s flute by the Institute. Camus,
assuming him to have been the writer, seems to have
endeavoured ‘to ward off the impending blow; but he
was no match for the clever Coche. The anger he
betrays indicates clearly enough that he felt himself to
be the beaten party; indeed, he makes no attempt to
disguise his defeat : “The intrigues have succeeded,” he
tells Boehm, “and you and I are put aside (mis @
lécart).” :

Having vanquished the agent, Coche now determines
I12 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE,

to measure himself with the principal. In the third
letter he represents Boehm as having retreated behind
Camus, follows him to his alleged retreat, and proceeds
to pave the way for his pictorial achievement, the pro-
duction of an engraving which shows at a glance his
superiority, as a flute constructor, over Boehm; the
engraving being so designed that he who runs may read
that Coche was a perfecter, whilst Boehm was only a
modifier. z

The letter shows what a perfect master was Coche of
the tactics of inimical correspondence. To the diplo-
matist it affords an example of the method of throwing
an opponent off his guard by expressing an earnest wish
to protect his interest, to defend his character, and to
wipe a stain from his honour. The epistolary strategist
will see how, by the dexterous use of calumny passed
through an anonymous mouth, an antagonist can be
driven into a pitfall, where he is compelled to prove a
negative, and at the same time forced to defend himself
in the dark ; whilst the student of the art of taunting,
who desires to know how to sharpen the barbs of sarcasm
to a needle-point, will learn that insult and invective
can be covered with a veil woven out of self-exaltation
combined with the profession of a desire to uphold justice
and to put slander to silence.

No. 1.
From Coche to Boehm.

PARIS, the 26¢h November, 1837.
MY DEAR SIR,

I cannot express to you all the admiration I feel every
day as I work at your magnificent and rich instrument,
which is destined to make one of the most remarkable
of revolutions in wind instruments. It is therefore with
great ardour that I study it; may I some day become
APPENDIX TO PART I. I13

worthy by my execution to share the suffrages which
belong by right to this beautiful invention.

I ought to inform you, my dear Sir, that an instrument
maker of the name of Clair Godefroy, the elder, has
made an exact copy of your instrument, and, what is
more, has placed his name upon it as if he was the
inventor of it. I conceive, then, that it would be to
your interest to come to Paris and take out a patent for
invention and importation, and then you would be the
only maker able to manufacture it.

I am entirely in ignorance as to what are your
intentions on this subject; perhaps you do not mind
counterfeits being made, but as I was in doubt, I have
taken all the precautions possible to prevent this hap-
pening ; so you may judge of my astonishment when I
saw your instrument copied and exhibited in a passage
of the capital.

I beg you, then, to keep this letter Secret, to tell me
to what professional players, and to what persons you
have sent your flute, and what are your intentions on
the subject of the counterfeit.

I have got it heard by the members of the Institute,
Messrs. Cherubini, Paér, Auber, Berton, Halévy; I
believe that I have in my hands the possibility of getting
your instrument adopted, and if private arrangements
may be agreeable to you, supposing that you are intend-
ing to establish a depot at Paris, we could come to an
understanding on this subject.

Be assured of the admiration of your devoted,

‘V. COCHE.

Do not forget, I beg you, the music of your com-
position which you have promised me.

No. 1, Violet Passage—-Coche.
{14 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

No. 2.
Addressed to Boehm, written presumably by Camus.

PARIS, the 19th April, 1838.
My DEAR SIR,

I have had the good fortune to dispose of the two last
flutes that you have sent me; unfortunately for me they
were purchased by professionals, but at least, I am
pleased on your account. The flute sent for Mr. Guibal,
of Epernon, turns out in this way to be sold to another
person, but he has not come to fetch it, and it has given
me a fright, for I know this man too well not to con-
gratulate myself on it: this flute had two heads, but I
have been obliged to give one of them to an amateur of
Bordeaux whose flute was completely cracked. Draw a
bill at five days’ sight on me for five hundred and forty
francs (540 frs.), or, if you must come here, you will find
this sum awaiting you—do as you please. I have again
had many contrarieties, in spite of all the steps I have
taken, and in spite of all your letters which I posted
myself, the intrigues have succeeded. Mr. Coche has
presented a perfected flute, he has played it at the
Institute, and in a report, it has been (stated) that defore
the discovery of Mr. Coche the flutes were defective, but
thanks to his discovery, &c., &c., he has got this inserted
in all the newspapers, and you and J are put aside.

ffis discovery consists, I believe, in making the key
for the fourth finger to be closed, as well as that for the
thumb.

Godfroy also has put one or two articles into the
newspapers, and I have taken care that he speaks of
you, and that he re-establishes that to which you are
entitled. But as regards the Institute, the mischief is.
done. I very much wish that you could come hither, but
I do not invite you, for, as for your interests, they would
gain nothing by your visit. Still, if you are going to
APPENDIX TO PART I, TI5

England this year, you must try to stay a short time in
Paris to make the newspapers say a few words, and to
try to give the lie to the liars and the intriguers.

Adieu, my dear Mr. Boehm; if you are not coming,
let me hear from you.

No. 3.
From Coche to Boehm.

PaRISs, ¢he 25¢h May, 1838.
SIR,

If I have not replied to your letter it is because I was
desirous of waiting for the result of the sitting of the
Institute at which your flute was to be judged. This
sitting, by successive adjournments, has postponed for
nearly three months the date at which your flute and
my work were to be judged; but you had already em-
powered Mr. Camus to make the most of your invention ;
you had in a manner withdrawn yourself behind him,
and as for me, there was nothing more than to produce
the report of the Institute and to play on the flute
enriched with my improvements in order that the public
could judge between Mr. Camus and me; an answer
would have been to no purpose. It is amongst pro-
fessionals that the question must be decided.

Just now, Sir, there arises a slight difficulty, of little
importance after all to the flautists who will play your
flute, but which interests in the highest degree the
inventor. It is said in professional society that the
flute which bears your name was discovered and in-
vented with all its present improvements by a person of
the name of Gordon, an old pupil of Drouet ; that this
Gordon after devoting several years to experiments and
labours, has given up on account of illness occupying
himself with his flute, and that your discovery, in one
word, is no other than his. I, Sir, who have corresponded
with you, exclaimed against such an assertion, because

I 2
116 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

your letters contain nothing to make it appear to me;
but at this conjuncture it is the amour propre of the
inventor which is involved, and I consider that I am
rendering you a service in writing to you to beg you to
put me in position to reply to all the wranglings by a
formal denial. I repeat, Sir, that it makes little differ-
ence to me whether the new flute is of your invention
or Gordon’s, the public will not adopt it less quickly
whether it bears your name or that of another ; but it is
to your interest to destroy all the suppositions, and that
is why I am writing to you. Any one else, perhaps,
would trouble himself very little about the dispute on
the subject of the invention, and would seek to substi-
tute himself in place of the one or the other inventor, or
of both of them together; but, Sir, I act more frankly,
and inform you of what is going on. I await then your
reply: up to the 15th of June next I shall make use of
it to put to silence the slanderers and to have justice
done you. But whatever may be the truth, do not keep
me waiting for your letter, for I feel sure that you will
not by your silence put me in a position to suppose that
your invention has an origin other than that avowed by
you. As you are the only person interested in the
question, be so good as to write me as soon as possible,
and be assured of the great Regard of

Your most faithful servant,

V. COCHE.

 
APPENDIX TO PART I. 117

BERTON’S REPORT

ON COCHE’S IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
BOEHM FLUTE.

THIS report is so little creditable to those concerned, and
so derogatory to the Institute of France whose great name
it drags into the mire, that in the two previous editions
of this work I quoted it only in the original French ;
but, as it is now brought more into prominence owing to
the circumstances under which it was obtained having
been made public, I purpose turning it into English.
The writer, Henry Montan Berton, though not so
well known as either of the five other distinguished
musicians, Cherubini, Paér, Auber, Halévy, and Carafa,
who signed the report, was nevertheless a man of mark.
He was reared in a musical atmosphere, his father being
a singer, an operatic composer, and a celebrated con-
ductor. He entered the orchestra of the Italian Opera
as a violinist, according to Fétis, at the age of fifteen ;
when he was nineteen some of his earlier works, consisting
of oratorios and cantatas, were publicly performed, and
in his twenty-first year his first opera was brought out.
The numerous operas he afterwards produced, though
not rising to the first rank as compositions, gave proof
of his ability for skilful treatment, and contained passages
of great melodic beauty. He at one time wielded the
baton at the Italian Opera, and he was for many years
professor of Harmony in the Conservatoire of Music.
Nor was He unknown in the field of literature. He
wrote for newspapers, contributed articles’ to an encyclo-
pedia, published an elaborate book on Harmony, and
drew up many reports on subjects connected with music,
to be brought before the Institute of France. He was
admitted to that distinguished body in 1815, when the
number of its musical members, or the Section of Music
118 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of the Institute, as
they were collectively termed, was raised from three to six,
Berton was born in 1767, so that when he wrote the
report on Coche’s improvements in the Boehm flute he
was upwards of seventy years of age. By that time
he had outlived his reputation ; his later compositions
had proved far inferior to his earlier works, whilst he
had been so ill advised as to indulge in an intemperate
attack on the music of Rossini, when the star of that
great genius was beginning to rise. Moreover, his
circumstances had been adversely affected by the failure
of the Opéra Comique, to which institution he had sold
the right of performing his works for an annuity of
3000 francs. An idea of his fitness for the task of ex-
amining and estimating the worth of the improvements
which Coche professed to have effected in the Boehm
flute, may be gathered from the’ circumstance that he
admits that he had obtained such information as he
possessed on the subject of flutes and flute construction
from a conversation with a scientist who was a tolerably
good amateur flute-player. It can occasion, therefore,
no surprise that he does not attempt to describe, much
less to criticise the improvements which Coche claimed
to have made, his method of judging being to take
Coche at his own valuation. Indeed, so bent was he on
eulogising his brother professor, that in a letter he wrote
when forwarding to him the certified copy of his report—
a letter which Coche, it is almost needless to say, did not
fail to publish—he does not even mention Boehm’s name,
but ascribes to Coche alone the boon the new flute had
conferred on the musical world. The letter runs thus :

« SIR, é

“T forward you the copy of my report to the Institute,
and I consider that you will take an useful step in
publishing the opinion of those who signed this report
‘on the importance of your work; not only have you
deserved well of your professional brethren in devoting
APPENDIX TO PART I. Tig

your energies and your lucubrations to the study and
the construction of the new instrument, but composers
will be infinitely indebted to you for rendering the use
of this flute more easy, so that for the future they will
not be stopped by obstacles of old insurmountable. Now
one will be able to employ the flute without misgiving
or restriction throughout the extent of the chromatic
scale, because we find in every part of it equality of tone,
perfect intonation in all the keys, improved mechanism
which is not more noisy than that of the other wind
instruments, a possibility of executing the music of your
illustrious master Tulou and all the shakes, high and low,
on your instrument. These advantages were more than
sufficient to induce the Academy to ratify the report of
which you can feel proud.

“Tam, yours with regards,
H. BERTON.”

1 The contents of Berton’s letter were, for the most part, a re-
flection of statements made by Coche in the pamphlet he had
presented to the judges. The allusion to the alleged impossibility
of executing the music of Tulou on the Boehm flute had reference
to the: following passage (p. 15): “It is evident that, after my
changes, the keys, which were easy on the old, remain easy on the
new flute, and that no music is excluded, as many professional
players have sought to make believe, asserting that the greater
part of the compositions of our celebrated flautist M. Tulou could
not be executed on the new flute. Moreover, only two-thirds of
the notes of the diapason are made with the old fingering, and in
those which have undergone some changes there still remains a
very great analogy with the primitive fingering.”

To understand Coche’s meaning, it should be borne in mind
that the greater part of Tulou’s solos, as well, indeed, as those of
other composers for the old flute, were written in keys in which there
was no G sharp or A flat (such as C major, G major, F major). When
playing in such keys on the Boehm flute with the open G sharp it
was necessary to keep the little finger of the left hand employed in
pressing on the G sharp key, but by restoring the closed G sharp key
of the old flute, where the work of closing the key was done by the
spring, Coche, like Dorus and Mr. Radcliff, set the little finger at
liberty, and thus got rid of the cramping effect produced on the
second and third fingers—a subject already discussed in note, p. 56.
120 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

The report, as published by Coche, was headed by a
certificate, as follows :—

“INSTITUTE OF FRANCE.

 

RoyaL ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS.

 

The permanent Secretary of the Academy certifies that the
following is an extract from the proceedings of the sitting of
Saturday, the 24th of March, 1838.”

It is addressed to the members of the Academy of
Fine Arts, before whom it was read. The following is a
translation :—

“ GENTLEMEN,

“Tn compliance with the request which has been made
you by the Minister of the Interior, you have referred to
your Section of Music the examination of the improve-
ments introduced into the construction of the flutes,
called ‘Flutes on the Boehm system, by M. CocHE,
flute professor in our Conservatoire de Musique, and
author of a method intended to facilitate the teaching
and the study of this new instrument. We have applied
ourselves to this examination, and I am about to have
the honour of reading to you the report in which your
Section of Music has embodied its opinion on the merits
of this flute, and those of the method written by
M. Coche.

“The musical instrument to which the name of flute
is given is unquestionably one of the earliest invented of
instruments, and, from the Pan flute down to those now
in use, which are called ¢vansverse flutes because they are
played ¢ransversely, the form and the means of execution
have continually undergone great changes, and it cannot
be a matter of doubt that these various changes had no
other object than to endeavour to correct the faults of
APPENDIX TO PART I. I2I

intonation inherent in the construction of the ancient
flutes. We are of opinion that the inventor of this new
make has attained this object, and we are about to
acquaint you with the means he has known how to
employ for its attainment.

“The enlightened, men of science as well as artists,
have always been of opinion that it would be almost
impossible to succeed in’ constructing a flute which,
- according to the laws of acoustics, should be acknow-
ledged to be perfectly in tune throughout the whole
extent of its compass, and that it is only through the
skill of the gifted executant that it often appears to us
to be so ; and they ground this assertion on the following
reasons. One of them, the celebrated Charles, your
illustrious colleague of the Academy of Sciences, a dis-
tinguished amateur of music and a tolerably good flute-
player, told us, in conversing with us, that he greatly
regretted having studied this instrument rather than the
violin, an instrument on which one can succeed in play-
ing strictly in tune, whereas on the flute this would
appear to him to be impossible, for the reason that its
construction was defective in several points. First, that
the embouchure presented a great difficulty to be sur-
mounted, that of filling (/’¢xsuffation), for in introducing
the column of air into the tube one. could not avoid
losing a part of it, which passes to the outside, and that
in this way a portion of the power of the tone and the
means of controlling it with certainty were unavoidably
destroyed ;? secondly, that the boring of the holes was,

2 The statement that the column of air, of the “fractions” of
which Coche had discoursed in his pamphlet, was introduced into
the flute by the performer is too much even for Mr. Rockstro, who,
as I have already mentioned, writes, “It will be seen from this
remark that the illustrious Charles did not quite understand the
subject on which he was conversing, or else that his words were
imperfectly reported.” Coche, though he did not speak of intro-
ducing the column of air through the mouth hole, had written
thus: “ With a view of facilitating the respiration and the formation
122 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

mathematically and acoustically speaking faulty, for the
position assigned to the holes was only calculated with re-
ference to the possible extension of the human fingers, and
not according to the immutable laws of physics ; thirdly,
that throughout the whole extent of its compass there
was a great number of vague sounds, especially those
that one desires to bring out in the deep part, and that
those of the acute region were often too much so; in
short, that the sounds of the different registers of the
flute did not appear to be all of the same family;
fourthly, that it was impossible to make on such or such
a note shakes, improperly termed cadences; and that of
a certainty, notwithstanding its flexibility, notwithstand-
ing the sweetness of its tones, the flute would continue
to be an imperfect instrument until the time should come
when a man of ingenuity should find the means of
remedying all these defects, and artists possessed of
skill and of sufficient courage to relinquish their old
habits, and to make the inventions conspicuous—inven-
tions of novelty, and of use in cultivating the fine
arts.

of the tone Boehm has made at the side of the embouchure an
excavation where the lower lip rests. Whence the pencil (rayon)
of air is more concentrated, and one succeeds in a short time in
avoiding the troublesome hissing caused by the lost particles
(parcelles perdues) of this pencil, which in the ordinary flute is
too much extended, and is spread far and wide.”—Examen
Critigue, p. 15.

It was once considered to be of essential importance for the
production of a good tone that the stream should so pass through
the embouchure into the flute as to fill the interior of the instru-
ment, the wheezing and feebleness of a poor tone being taken to
indicate that the tube was not duly filled. This old notion still
survives in our language. A flute-player with a good tone is spoken
of as being able “to fill the flute,” whilst a flautist whose tone is
inferior is said to fail in filling the instrument. The expression,
which is even now sometimes heard in conversation, is used by
Gerock and Wolf in the prospectus of their flute, quoted at p. 86:
they claim for it that it is easy to fill.
APPENDIX TO PART I. 123

“Gentlemen,—We believe that the aspirations of
the great physicist have at last been realised, and that
an end has been put to all the faults pointed out by
him. The flute that we have the honour of presenting
to you to-day was constructed according to the proce-
dure of M. Boehm by M. Buffet the younger, one of the
most skilful makers of the capital. Professor Coche has
presided at this construction, and has caused to be added
to it new ameliorations of his own invention.

“Impressed with the excellence of this discovery,
several of our most renowned vzrduosi are desirous of
applying it to the manufacture of the different instru-
ments on which they are distinguished—M. Brod, for
hautboys ; M. Berr, for the clarinets; M. Gebauer, for
the bassoons, &c. This concurrence of artistic approval
already guarantees the value of the invention ; but that
which ought, it seems to us, to more particularly deserve
our encouragement and our commendation is the reso-
lution, the tenacity displayed by M. Coche in causing
this auspicious invention to bear fruit. He took the first
prize for the flute at the Conservatoire ;* his fine talent
caused him to be appointed there a professor for the
flute class. Well, then! perceiving the importance of
the discovery, he has had the courage to devote himself
to the study of the new instrument, and to superintend
its manufacture, causing notorious improvements to be
made therein. And, above all, that which appears to us
to be a work of the most useful kind at this conjuncture
is the ‘Method’ which he has written ; it seemed to us
to be drawn up in a clear style, and the rules laid down
in it to be always supported by excellent examples.

“ We consider, then, Gentlemen, that in granting your

3 Notwithstanding the eulogies of Berton, Coche does not seem
to have come to the front as a flute-player ; indeed, compared with
his great contemporaries Tulou and Dorus, he is said to have been
a very indifferent performer. His wife, however, who was a pianist,
was a clever artiste and a charming woman.
124 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

approval to our report you will be doing an act of justice
and of utility to the art of music, as well as honourable
for M. Coche.

(Signatures to the minute)

CHERUBINI. PAER. AUBER.
HALEVY. CARAFA. BERTON,
Reporter.

“The Academy adopts the conclusions of this report.
“ Certified a true copy:

QUATREMERE DE QUINCY,
Permanent Secretary.”

 

COCHE’S ATTACK ON BOEHM.

Translated from his Pamphlet, entitled ‘Examen Cri-
tique de la fiite ordinaire comparée ad la fibte de
Béhm, Paris, 1838.

THE report of the Institute had come to sanction both
Boehm’s invention and the modifications which I had
applied to it, when, just as I was about to publish the
work! which had been the cause of this report, I learnt
that Boehm’s title to the invention could be disputed.
As a conscientious artist, I wished to decide in accord-
ance with precise information, and to render justice to
him who had really invented the new flute. I am well
aware that, as far as other considerations are concerned,
it made little difference whether the flute had been

1 The work which had been the cause of this report, that is,
Coche’s pamphlet, the Examen Critigue. The attack on Boehm
did not form part of the pamphlet when it was presented to the six
members of the Institute who were to report on Coche’s-flute. It
was added just before its publication.
APPENDIX TO PART I, 125

invented by this or that artist ; but as I came forward as
a propagator of the Boehm system, I was unwilling that
any one should be able to raise objections to the state-
ments made in my work, I therefore postponed its pub-
lication and wrote to M. Gordon, in Switzerland, to whom
many artists attributed the invention of the flute called
Boehm’s. M. Gordon was not in a state to return me an
answer. I received, however, a letter from his wife (see
No. 1) which seems to attribute the invention of the new
flute exclusively to M. Gordon (see at the end, Fig. 1).?
On receiving this letter I thought it my duty to write to
Boehm, and I made him understand the necessity of
giving me explanations which would enable me to draw
up my opinion of the case. Boehm replied (see No. 2)
that the invention was really his own, and that his in-
strument, which was already finished in 1832, could not
be compared to the attempts of M. Gordon, who was
making. experiments in Boehm’s house in 1834.

Nevertheless, in a letter dated from Munich on the
15th of July, 1833 (see No. 3), Gordon speaks of the flute
he had just had constructed by a skilful workman of
Boehm. In fact, Boehm himself says that before * this
time Gordon had passed nine months at his house for
the purpose of superintending the construction of his
flutes. In the midst of all these assertions, I cannot do
better than place before the public the evidence from
which conclusions can be drawn. It is a duty I owe to
myself to endeavour to ascertain the truth, let the public
then decide on the validity of the claims of each of the
two inventors.

2 A facsimile of the drawing here referred to is given on p. 148.

8 This is a direct perversion of what Boeim did say to Coche.
He said that Gordon spent nine months at his house, but he asserted
that it was not before, but after the time here mentioned (July
1833), stating (wrongly, it may be) that Gordon came to Munich
the year following (1834). See his letter to Coche, p. 130. As a
matter of fact Boehm had played in public on his new flute months
before Gordon entered his house. See p. 253.
126 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE,

A point which comes out as most evident is that in
1827 Boehm was not engaged in making flutes on the *
new system, as Ivan Muller ® asserts positively ; Gordon,
on the other hand, had already made them. The
priority of the invention is therefore secured to him;
and besides, he was the first to find the division of the
column of air ;® to make use of crescents, by means of
which one can obtain the effect of several movements
by one finger’ only ; to have recourse to the practice of
making an excavation to receive the lower lip with the
view of destroying the disagreeable effect of the blow-
ing.® Such are the general principles of the construc-
tion of the new flute, which Boehm has modified, chiefly
by the application of the keys for F sharp and the D
shake ; by replacing by rings the crescents invented by

+ There is a fallacy here resulting from the misleading use of the
article “the.” It is true that Gordon was the first to make a flute
on @ new system, i.e. his own system, but not on ¢he new system,
i.e. Boehm’s system.

If Coche had confined himself to saying that Gordon had
attempted, as early as 1827, to construct a flute on a system of
open keys, and that, in so doing, he had anticipated Boehm, no
objection could be taken to his statement. But still Boehm does
not seem to have been indebted to Gordon for the idea of this
system, for he appears to have been acquainted with it before he
knew him (see zz/ra, p. 231).

5 A clarionetist, born 1781, died 1854. In 1811 he invented the
thirteen-keyed clarionet.

® Boehm had made a flute in which the holes had been rearranged,
and so were placed according to what was believed to be the
division of the column of air before he made Gordon’s acquaintance
(see Fig. 8). Moreover, the same thing had been done more than a
quarter of a century before Gordon commenced his experiments.
Coche thought that Boehm had arranged the holes of his flute
according to a calculation based on the divisions of the monochord,
and that Gordon was the first to adopt this method, both ideas
being erroneous. See note 28, p. 202.

7 Boehm had obtained this effect by means of rings on his first
model before he saw Gordon’s crescents.

8 Recourse was had to the practice of making such an excavation
by Dr. Ribock long before Gordon was born (p. 201),
APPENDIX TO PART I. 127

Gordon,’ and by imparting much more strength and
simplicity to the mechanism, which, originally com-
posed of cranks and steel wire, provided no security for
execution.

 

CORRESPONDENCE.
No. I.

Sir, LAUSANNE, 20¢h May, 1838.

It is quite true that my husband, passionately fond of
music, to which he devoted every moment he could
possibly spare from his professional duties, and unable
to reconcile himself to the limits and imperfections of
the flute, endeavoured, during several years, to invent
an instrument, in which great accuracy of intonation
should be combined with a more extensive compass and
easy execution. He succeeded at length in 1830—a
year in which the Revolution of July deprived him of
his profession, of his expectations, and consequently of
his fortune. He thereupon conceived the idea, with a
view of recovering it, of turning this new flute to account
by playing on it in public in the principal towns of
Europe, then, on taking out a patent, by establishing
manufactories and introducing this beautiful instrument
into the musical world.

He began by going to Munich in 1833, to be near to
M. Boehm, whom he had known in Paris,‘ and one of

® However much obscurity there may be regarding the origin of
the ring-keys, there can be but little doubt that they were not a
modification of the crescents as here maintained by Coche
(pp. 41, 234). Moreover, the crescents were not invented by
Gordon, but by Dr. Pottgiesser.

1 T have no hesitation in saying that Madame Gordon is in error
here. It was not in Paris, but in London that Boehm had known
her husband. Boehm speaks precisely on this point (see pp. 21, 1 30),

and I know no valid reason for calling in question the accuracy of
his statement. Fétis follows Madame Gordon into this mistake.
128 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

whose workmen was the only person who could assist
him in the construction of the flute which he had invented.
I could not tell you at present, Sir, if M. Boehm owes to
my husband the idea of the flute which he has sent you,
or if he has only perfected it after his, or if, perhaps, he
has sent you my husband’s. I could write to obtain
this information, if you would advise me, to the work-
man with whom he made, it, and would send you his
answer. But what I know is this, that after having
passed some months at Munich for constructing his
flute, he then went to London to carry out his plans;
but as he was very shy, without introductions, without a
knowledge of the world and of the way to set to work
to succeed in it, he saw his pecuniary resources diminish
and come to an end before he had been able to make
himself known ; so that he returned hither to his family
ill and disheartened. Afterwards there happened an
accident to fill to the brim the cup of his troubles; this
instrument, which had cost him so much pains and study,
became cracked in consequence of another improvement,
which he wished still to make on it. Though terribly
cast down, he set to work to make another of the same
kind; for he had acquired by his perseverance a skill
far superior to that of the workmen who surrounded
him. But the earnestness which he brought to bear on
the work, and the difficulty of executing it without any
assistance, added to the crosses of all sorts which his
designs had brought upon him, have by degrees altered
his intellectual faculties, before he was able to finish his
work, and he has been obliged to break it off com-
pletely, and to keep at a distance every idea which
could bring it to his mind, in order to give his head the
repose of which it stands in need; and it is for this
reason, Sir, that I take the pen in his stead without
having been able to mention to him that which forms
the subject of my letter.

Perhaps M. Boehm, who must have been informed
APPENDIX TO PART I. 129

this winter by his workman of my husband's state, may
have thought that, since my husband was suffering from
a mental malady, he could, without showing a want of
delicacy, appropriate to himself an invention, which,
without him, would remain useless to the public. What
makes me suppose this is the coincidence between
M. Boehm’s invention and my husband’s attack.2, How-
ever, M. Drouet, of whom M. Gordon is an old pupil, and
who has seen and admired his flute, will be able to tell
you what he thinks of it, and at what period it was
made. M. Tulou must also have seen it.

I add to this letter the drawing of this instrument as
well as its fingering, just as my husband had drawn it
out, and since Providence has permitted that you should
interest yourself in this affair, and that a delicate senti-
ment has made you desire to be able to render justice
to him to whom it belongs, be so kind, Sir, as to honour
me with your advice, and tell me what proceedings I
could take to maintain for my husband those rights,
which if it should please God to restore him to health,
may be of use to him some day. I need not say, Sir,
how entitled you will be to my gratitude, and to my
highest esteem.

M. GORDON.

No. 2,

Municu, Fune 2nd, 1838.
SIR,
I am very much obliged to you for your letter, dated
the 25th of May, and I hasten to return you an answer.
I know Mr. Gordon very well; he was formerly Captain

2 It is, of course, unnecessary to point out that this coincidence
existed only in the imagination of the writer. Had she belonged
to the responsible sex, it would have been more than reprehensible
on her part to place on paper such a suspicion. As it is, a double
disgrace attaches to Coche, who did not shrink from publishing in
a lady’s name, without comment or explanation, what he well knew
to be an abominable calumny.

K
I30 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

in the Swiss Guards at Paris. I made his acquaintance
in London six years ago,* and he had at that time a
flute, which was very different in its construction from
other flutes, but which was out of tune, and of little
practical use. He had heard that I was in London,
and, knowing that I was a manufacturer, he came to
call upon me, to consult me respecting flutes. At that
time I had already made in London the model of my
new flute, and I showed him everything that I had done.

Mr. Gordon would not adopt my flute, because it was
not of his own invention,* and he laboured so much to
find a different construction, that his efforts almost turned
his brain. In 1834 he wrote to me from Lausanne, say-
ing that he admired very much the workmanship of my
flutes, and requesting me to make one according to his
ideas.5 I consented, and he came to Munich, where I
put one of my workmen at his disposal.

According to my advice, he adopted for the most part
the position of the holes of my flute, but he persisted in
following out his own ideas as to the mechanism of the
keys ; and, after having laboured nine months with my
workman, and after having constructed and tuned
several flutes, he at last completed one, which resembled
mine in some points. I last saw him in London in
1836. He was then in great difficulties, and he told me
that he intended to give up his fruitless efforts, and
play on my flute. Some time after, he wrote to me at

’ Boehm made Gordon’s acquaintance in 1831, seven, not six
years before the time at which he was writing.

* “T asked him,” said Boehm to me, speaking of Gordon, “why
he did not take my flute, and he said, ‘because I wish to have a
flute of my own.’”

° This letter, which was afterwards published by Boehm, was
written in 1833, not 1834. There is no allusion in it to Gordon
having admired the workmanship of Boehm’s flutes ; we may there-
fore conclude that Boehm did not refer to it when writing to Coche,
but trusted to his memory. This may account for the inaccuracy
regarding its date.
APPENDIX TO PART I 131

Munich to send him one of my flutes for his own use.
I wrote to him, stating on what terms I would let him
have one, but I received no answer; and afterwards,
one of his countrymen told me that he had quite given
up playing on the flute, that he had thrown his instru-
ment into the Lake of Geneva, and was in bad health.
Last year he wrote again to the workman in my em-
ploy who made his flute, wishing him to join him in
establishing flute manufactories in Paris, London,
Vienna, &c., and at the same time there came a letter
from his family, stating that he was very ill and that
they wished no answer to be sent to his letter.

I assure you, Sir, that I felt very much for Mr.
Gordon, whom I esteemed on account of his character.
It is unfortunate that this gentleman, who was held in
high estimation as a brave officer of great talents and
merit; should have lost his time and money in the vain
desire to be the inventor of an instrument for which
neither his knowledge of acoustics nor his skill in me-
chanics was sufficient, and that he should have incurred
so much expense and experienced so much anxiety
that it affected his mind as well as his worldly affairs.
If you wish to have certificates that my flute was com-
pleted in 1832, and that Mr. Gordon was having his
flutes made in my manufactory in 1834, I will send
them to you immediately. In 1834, there was an article
respecting my new flute in the ‘Gazette Musicale de
Leipsig,’ No. 5. In 1833, MM. Farrene, Camus, and
Laurent, manufacturers of flutes (Palais Royal) who
knew Mr. Gordon, were already acquainted with my
new flute,® and the reason that it was not then more

® Coche excused himself for making assertions calculated to ruin
Boehm’s character as an honourable man by stating that he was
actuated by justice, conscientiousness, and the duty he owed to
himself of ascertaining the truth; but these motives do not seem
to have been strong enough to induce him to write to Boehm for
the certificates he offered to produce that Gordon was having flutes
made in his manufactory in 1834, nor does he appear to have taken

K 2
132 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

generally known, was, that I was too much occupied
during three years with ironworks in England, and also
I played very little myself. But I shall now publish a
history of my flute in the musical and political journals.
At the same time accept, Sir, my friendly salutations,’
&c., &c. 2
THEOBALD BOEHM,

First Flute of the Chapel Royal at Munich,
and instrument maker.

No. 3.

MUNICH, 15th Fuly, 1833.

Sir,—Having long known how obliging you are, I
make bold to ask you to do mea service. It relates to
the delivery to the undermentioned of some copies of
the papers, which I direct to you from Munich, where I
have just had made by a skilful workman an excellent
instrument on my model. I shall start shortly for
London, where my address is 22 Mewcastel (sic) Street,

the trouble to inquire if Messrs. Farrene, Camus, and Laurent, of
the Palais Royal, could confirm or contradict Boehm’s statement
that they were acquainted with his flute in 1833. Boehm, as
already mentioned (p. 49), had spent some days in Paris on his way
home from London in that year.

7 It will be observed that, although Boehm does not assign any
share of the invention to Gordon, but speaks disparagingly of his
knowledge of mechanics and his scientific attainments, and seeks
to convey the impression that his flute, with the exception of the
keys, was founded on his own (compare p. 93), yet this letter
contains no passage in which Boehm denies categorically that he
derived any ideas from Gordon, and I know of no such denial in
any part of his works. However, in a private letter dated May 2oth,
1878, published in AZusical Opinion of March Ist, 1890, in forward-
ing a copy of his pamphlet of 1847, he wrote: “ You will find in the
pages 5,7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, marked with red ink, that I never had
used anything of M. Gordon, but that he had to thank me for what
I had done for him.”
APPENDIX TO PART I. 133

Strand. Beso good as to send me a line thither on
receiving the papers, which I have prepaid as far as I
could. We will settle, later on, for what you have to
pay. You might leave your address with some of those
mentioned below, so that, if any amateurs should appear,
you would be able to let them have mine in London.

For M. Pleyel, at the Music Warehouse, Boulevart des
Italiens, 6 copies; for Paccini, idem, No. 11; M. Frey,
No. 8 Place des Victoires; Schlesinger, No. 97 Rue
Richelieu; M. Laurent, Flute Maker, 65 Palais Royal;
M. Tulou, No. 27 Rue des Martirs ; M. Drouet, No. 28
Rue de l’Arcade; M. Farrene, No. 21 Rue S. Marc;
M. Camus, Rue Montmartre, opposite the Rue Mont-
orgueil; M. Lemoine, No. 9 Rue de Il’Echelle; Jeannet
et Cotelle, 123 Rue St. Honoré; at the office of M.
Fétis, editor of the ‘Journal of Fine Arts,’ No. 31 Rue
S. Lazare. °

With thanks, which pray accept in advance, and with
my kind regards, and to your family as well,

Your faithful servant,
GORDON.

This letter is addressed to M. Mercier, 2 Rue St. Nicaise.

 

THE following is the original French of the letters and
other documents of which a translation has been given.

No. I.

Paris, de 6 novembre, 1837.
Mon CHER MONSIEUR,

Je ne puis vous exprimer toute l’admiration que
j’éprouve chaque jour en travaillant votre magnifique et
riche instrument, qui est appelé a faire une révolution
134 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

des plus remarquables dans les instruments a vent.
Aussi c'est avec beaucoup d’ardeur que je le cultive ;
puissai-je un jour étre digne par mon exécution de par-
tager les suffrages qui appartiennent de droit a cette
belle invention.

Je doit vous prévenir, mon cher Monsieur, qu’un
facteur d’instruments du nom de Clair Godefroy ainé
vient de copier exactement votre instrument, et de plus
y a mis son nom comme s'il en était l’enventeur ; je
crois donc qu’il serait de votre intérét de venir 4 Paris
pour prendre un brevet d’invention et d’importation, et
alors vous seriez le seul facteur pouvant confectionner.

Jignore tout a fait quelles sont vos intentions 4 ce
sujet; peut étre cela vous est-il égal que l’on fasse des
contrefacons, mais dans le doute j’ai mis toute la discré-
tion possible pour que cela n’arrive pas; ainsi vous
pouvez juger de mon étonnement quand j’ai vu votre
instrument copié et exposé dans un passage de la
capitale.,

Je vous prie donc de garder cette lettre Secréte, de
me dire a quels artistes, et 4 quelles personnes vous avez
envoyé votre flite, et quelles sont vos intentions au sujet
de la contrefagon.

Je Vai fait entendre aux membres de l’institut, Mrs.
Cherubini, Paér, Auber, Berton, Halévy ; je crois avoir
entre les mains la possibilité de faire adopter votre
instrument, et si des arrangemens particuliers peuvent
vous étre agréables, en supposant que vous ayez l’inten-
tion de faire un dépét a Paris, nous pourrions nous
entendre a ce sujet.

Croyez a l’admiration de votre.dévoué,
V. COCHE.

N’oubliez pas, je vous prie, la musique de votre com-
position que vous m’avez promise.

Passage violet No. 1.—Coche.
APPENDIX TO PART I. 135

No. 2.
PARIS, Ze 19 avril, 1838.
MON CHER MONSIEUR,

J’ai eu le bonheur de placer les deux derniéres flites
que vous m’avez envoyées ; malheureusement pour moi,
ce sont des artistes qui en ont fait l’acquisition, mais au
moins, j’en suis content pour vous. La flite envoyée
pour Mr. Guibal d’épernon, se trouve de cette maniére
vendue a une autre personne, mais, il n’est pas venu la
chercher, et il a bien fait peur, car je connais trop cet
homme-la pour ne pas m’en féliciter : cette flite avait deux
tétes, mais j’ai été obligé d’en donner une a un amateur
de Bordeaux dont la flite était fendue complétement.
Tirez une Traite a cing jours de vue sur moi de cing cent
quarante francs (540 fr.). Ou, si vous devez venir ici,
vous y trouverez cet argent—faites comme vous voudrez
—j’ai encore eu beaucoup de contrariétés, malgré toutes
mes courses, et malgré toutes vos lettres que j’ai postées
moi-méme, les intrigues ont réussie. Mr. Coche a pré-
senté une fifite perfectionnée, il l’a jouée a l'Institut,
et dans un rapport, il a été qu’avant la découverte de
Mr. Coche \es flites étaient vicieuses, mais que grace a
sa découverte, etc. etc.—il a fait mettre cela dans tous
les journeaux, et vous et moi sommes mis a I’écart.

Sa découverte consiste, je crois, a faire fermer la clef
du 4° doigt, ainsi que celle du pouce:

Godfroy aussi a mis un ou deux articles aux journeaux
et j’ai eu soin qu'il parle de vous, et qu'il rétablisse ce
qui vous revient, mais pour l'Institut, le mal est fait—je
_souhaite bien que vous puissiez venir ici, mais je ne vous
y engage pas, car pour vos intéréts ils n’y gagneraient
en rien—cependant, si vous allez cette année en Angle-
terre, il faut tacher de rester un peu 4a Paris, pour faire
parler un peu les journeaux et tacher de démentir les
menteurs et les intrigants.

Adieu mon cher Mr. Boehm, si vous ne venez pas,
donnez-nous de vos nouvelles.
136 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

No. 3.

PARIS, Ze 25 maz, 1838.
MONSIEUR,

Si je n’ai pas répondu a votre lettre c’est que je
voulais attendre le résultat de la séance de l’institut ot
Yon devait juger votre flite. Cette séance successive-
ment ajournée a reculé de prés de trois mois l’époque
4 laquelle votre flite et mon travail furent jugés, mais,
déja vous avez donné pouvoir 4 Mr. Camus de faire
valoir votre invention, vous vous étiez en quelque sorte
retiré derriére lui, et quant 4 moi, je n’avais plus qu’a
produire le rapport de institut et a jouer la flate, enrichie
de mes perfectionnemens, afin que le public pat juger
entre Mr. Camus et moi ; une réponse efit été sans but :
cest entre artistes que la question doit se vider.

Aujourd’hui, Monsieur, il s’éléve une petite difficulté,
peu importante au fond pour les flitistes qui joueront
votre instrument, mais qui intéresse 4 un haut degré
Vinventeur. On dit dans le monde artistique que la
fliite qui porte votre nom a été découverte et inventée
avec tous ses perfectionnemens actuels par un nommé
Gordon, ancien éléve de Drouet ; que ce Gordon ayant
employé plusieurs années d’essais et de travaux, a
renoncé pour cause de maladie a s’occuper de la flite,
et que votre découverte, en un mot, n’est autre que la
sienne; moi, Monsieur, qui ais correspondu avec vous,
je me suis récrié contre une telle assertion, parceque vos
lettres ne contiennent rien qui me le prouvent; mais
dans cette conjoncture c’est l’amour-propre de l’inventeur
qui est en jeu, et je crois vous rendre service en vous
écrivant pour vous prier de me mettre en position de
répondre a toutes les clabauderies par un démenti formel,
je vous le répéte, Monsieur, il m’importe fort peu que la
nouvelle fldte soit de Gordon, ou de vous, le public ne
Vadoptera pas moins vite, qu'elle porte votre nom ou un
autre ; mais il est de votre intérét de détruire toutes les
APPENDIX TO PART I. Lay

suppositions et ¢’est pourquoi je vous écris, Tout autre
peut-étre se soucierait fort peu de ce conflit au sujet de
l'invention et chercherait 4 se substituer 4 la place de ’'un
ou de l'autre inventeur, ou de tous les deux ensemble;
mais, Monsieur, j’agis plus franchement et je vous avertis
de ce qui se passe. J’attends donc votre réponse:
jusqu’au 15 juin courant je m’en servirai pour fermer la
bouche aux médisants, et vous faire rendre justice.
Quelle que soit d’ailleurs la vérité, ne me faites point
attendre votre lettre, car je pense bien que vous ne me
mettrez point par votre silence, dans la position de sup-
poser que votre invention a une autre origine que celle
avouée par vous. Comme vous étes le seul intéressé
dans la question, veuillez m’écrire le plutét possible et
croire 4 la haute considération de votre tout dévoué
serviteur
V. COCHE.

REPORT OF THE ACADEMIE ROYALE DES
BEAUX-ARTS ON COCHE’S FLUTE.

Letter from M. Berton, the writer of the Report, to
M. Coche.
MONSIEUR,

Je vous fais parvenir la copie de mon rapport a I’In-
stitut, et je pense que vous ferez une chose utile en
publiant V’opinion des signataires de ce rapport sur
importance de votre travail ; non seulement vous avez
bien mérité de vos confréres en consacrant vos soins et
vos veilles A l’étude et a la construction du nouvel
instrument, mais les compositeurs vous sauront un gré
infini d’avoir rendu plus facile l’'usage de cette flite sans
étre désormais arrétés par des obstacles jadis insurmon-
tables. Maintenant on pourra employer sans crainte
et indifféremment la flite sur tel ou tel degré d’échelle
chromatique, parce qu’on trouve toujours égalité de son,
138 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

intonation parfaite dans tous les tons, perfectionnement
du mécanisme qui ne fait plus que le bruit ordinaire
des autres instrumens a vent, possibilité d’exécuter la
musique de votre illustre maitre Tulou, et tous les trilles
sur tous les degrés de votre instrument: ces avantages
étaient plus que suffisans pour motiver l’adhésion de
l’Académie au rapport dont vous pouvez vous honorer.

Je suis avec considération,
H. BERTON.

INSTITUT DE FRANCE.

ACADEMIE ROYALE DES BEAUX-ARTS.

Le Secrétaive perpétuel de (Académie certifie que ce qui
suit est extrait du Proces-verbal de la Séance du
Samedi, 24. Mars 1838.

MESSIEURS,

D’aprés Vinvitation qui vous a été faite par M. le
Ministre de l’intérieur, vous avez renvoyé a votre section
de Musique l’examen des perfectionnemens apportés
dans la confection des Flites, dites Fldtes selon le
systéme de Bohm, par’ M. COcHE, professeur de flite a
notre Conservatoire de Musique, et auteur d’une Méthode
ayant pour but de faciliter l’enseignement et |’étude de
ce nouvel instrument. Nous nous sommes occupés de
cet examen, et je vais avoir ’honneur de vous donner
lecture du rapport dans lequel votre section de musique
aconsigné son opinion sur les mérites de cette flite et
ceux de la méthode composée par M. Coche.

Liinstrument de musique auquel on a donné le nom
de fifite est sans contredit, ’un des instrumens le plus
anciennement créés, et, depuis la fldte de Pan jusqu’a
celles en usage maintenant, et que l’on nomme fees
traversieres, par la raison qu’on les joue en ¢ravers, la
forme et les moyens d’exécution sur cet instrument ont
APPENDIX TO PART I. 139

continuellement éprouvé de grands changemens, et 1’on
ne peut douter que ces divers changemens n’aient toujours
eu pour but celui de chercher a corriger les vices d’into-
nation inhérens a la construction des anciennes flites.
Nous pensons que l’inventeur de cette nouvelle facture a
atteint ce but ; et nous allons vous donner connaissance
des moyens qu ‘il a su employer pour y parvenir.

Les personnes éclairées, savantes: ou artistes, ont
toujours pense qu’il serait presqu’impossible de parvenir
a construire une flite qui d’aprés les lois de l’acoustique,
fat reconnue parfaitement juste dans toute l’étendue de
son diapason, et que souvent elle ne nous paraissait l’étre
que par Vhabileté du virtuose exécutant, et ils appuyaient
cette assertion des raisons suivantes. L’un d’eux, le
célébre Charles, votre illustre confrére 4 ]’Académie des
sciences, grand amateur de musique et jouant assez bien
de la fifiite, nous disait, en causant avec nous, qu'il avait
grand regret d’avoir étudié cet instrument plutét que le
violon, instrument sur lequel on peut parvenir a jouer
rigoureusement juste, au lieu que sur la flite cela lui
paraissait impossible, par la raison que sa construction
était vicieuse en plusieurs points. 1°. Que l’embouchure
offrait une grande difficulté 4 vaincre, celle de l’insuffla-
tion, car pour introduire la colonne d’air dans le tube, on
ne peut éviter d’en perdre une partie qui passe a l’exté-
rieur, et que par ce fait, inévitablement on détruisait une
portion de l’intensité du son et les moyens de la maitriser
avec sireté; 2°. que la perce des trous était mathé-
matiquement et acoustiquement parlant, vicieuse, car le
placement des trous n’y a été calculé que sur l’extension
possible des doigts de l’homme, et non d’aprés les lois
immuables de la physique ; 3° que dans toute l’étendue de
son diapason, il y avait beaucoup de sons vagues, surtout
ceux que l’on veut faire entendre dans la partie grave de
Vinstrument, et que ceux de l’aigu l’étaient souvent par
trop ; enfin que tous les sons des divers registres de la
flate ne semblaient pas tous étre de la méme famille ;
140 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

4°. quil y avait impossibilité de faire sur telle ou telle
note des trilles, improprement appelés cadences ; et qu’en
définitive, malgré la légéreté, la douceur de ses sons, la
flate resterait un instrument imparfait jusqu’au moment
ot un homme ingénieux trouverait les moyens de corriger
tous ces défauts, et des artistes habiles et assez courageux
pour abandonner leurs vieilles habitudes et mettre en
lumiére les inventions nouvelles et utiles dans la culture
des beaux-arts.

MESSIEURS :

Nous croyons que les veux du grand physicien sont
enfin exaucés et que tous les vices signalés par lui sont
détruits. La fldte que nous avons lhonneur de vous
présenter aujourd’hui fut construite d’aprés les procédés
de M. Béhm par M. Buffet jeune, l'un des plus habiles
facteurs de la capitale ; le professeur Coche a présidé a
cette construction et y a fait ajouter de nouvelles amélio-
rations de son invention,

Pénétrés de l’excellence de cette découverte, plusieurs
de nos virtuoses les plus renommés veulent en faire
Vapplication 4 la facture des divers instrumens sur les-
quels ils se sont illustrés, M. Brod, pour les hautbois ;
M. Berr, pour les clarinettes; M. Gebauer, pour les
bassons, etc. Ce concours d’approbations artistiques est
déja une siireté des mérites de l’invention ; mais ce qui
nous semble devoir plus particulitrement mériter nos
encouragemens et nos éloges, c’est la constance, la téna-
cité que M. Coche a mises a faire fructifier cette heureuse
invention, Il a remporté le premier prix de fiaite au
Conservatoire ; son beau talent |’y fit nommer professeur
dans la classe de flite. Eh bien! sentant limportance
de la découverte, il a eu le courage de se livrer 4 l’étude
du nouvel instrument, d’en surveiller la fabrication en y
faisant faire de notoires perfectionnemens, et surtout ce
qui nous parait étre un travail des plus utiles en cette
circonstance, c’est la Méthode qu'il a composée ; elle
APPENDIX TO PART I. 141

nous a paru étre rédigée avec clarté et les préceptes y
étre toujours appuyés par d’excellens exemples.

Nous pensons donc, Messieurs, qu’en accordant votre
approbation a notre rapport, vous ferez une chose juste
et utile 4 l’art musical autant qu’honorable pour M. Coche.

Signé a la minute :

CHERUBINI. PAER. AUBER.
HALEVY. CARAFA. BERTON, rapporteur.

L’Académie adopte les conclusions de ce rapport.
Certifié conforme :

Le Secrétaire perpétuel,
QUATREMERE DE QUINCY.

COCHE’S ATTACK ON BOEHM.

Le rapport de l'Institut était venu sanctionner et
Vinvention de Béhm et les modifications que j’y avais
apportées, lorsqu’au moment de publier le travail qui
avait motivé ce rapport, j’appris que la qualité d’inven-
teur pouvait étre contestée 4 Béhm. En artiste con-
sciencieux, je voulais fixer mon opinion. d’aprés des
renseignemens exacts et rendre justice 4 celui qui avait
véritablement découvert la nouvelle fifite. Je sais bien
quil importait fort peu d’ailleurs que la flite edt été in-
ventée par tel ou tel artiste; mais moi, qui me donnais
comme propagateur du systéme. de Béhm, je ne voulais
point qu’on pat réclamer contre les assertions contenues
dans mon travail; j’ajournai donc la publication et
j’écrivis A M. Gordon en Suisse, auquel l’opinion de
plusieurs artistes attribuait invention de la flfite dite de
Béhm. M. Gordon étant hors d’état de me répondre, je
recus néanmoins de sa femme une lettre (Vozr N. 1) qui
142 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

semble attribuer exclusivement 4 M. Gordon? linven-
tion de la fltite nouvelle. A la réception de cette lettre,
je crus devoir écrire 4 Béhm, et je lui fis comprendre la
nécessité de me donner les éclaircissemens d’aprés les-
quels je pusse formuler mon opinion. Béhm me ré-
pondit (V. N. 2) que invention était véritablement de
lui, et qu’en 1832 son instrument déja complet ne.
pouvait étre comparé aux essais de M. Gordon qui en
1834 faisait fabriquer chez lui Béhm. Cependant, par
une lettre datée de Munich du 15 juillet 1833 (V.N. 3),
Gordon parlait de la flfte qu’il venait de faire construire
par un habile ouvrier de Béhm. En effet, Bohm dit
lni-méme qu’avant cette époque Gordon avait passé neuf
mois chez lui pour surveiller la construction de ses
flates. Au milieu de toutes ces assertions, je ne puis
mieux faire que de mettre sous les yeux du public les
pieces de conviction, au moyen desquelles il pourra
tirer des conséquences. Je me devais 4 moi-méme de
chercher la vérité; qu’on juge donc la validité des pré-
tentions de l’un ou de |’autre inventeur.

Ce qui ressort de plus évident, c’est qu’en 1827 Béhm
ne s’occupait pas de la fabrication des flfites d’aprés le
nouveau systeme, Iwan Miller l’affirme positivement ;
Gordon, au contraire, en avait déja construit ; lantério-
rité de linvention lui est donc acquise; et d’ailleurs, il
fut le premier 4 trouver la division de la colonne d’air ;
a faire usage de croissans, au moyen desquels on peut
obtenir le résultat de plusieurs mouvemens par un seul
doigt; 4 pratiquer une excavation pour recevoir la lévre
inférieure dans le but de détruire Veffet désagréable
produit par le souffle. Telles sont les bases générales
de la construction de la nouvelle fltite que Béhm a
modifiée, notamment par l’application des clés de fa
diese et du trille de 7éen remplacant par des anneaux
les croissans inventés par Gordon, et en donnant beau-
coup plus de solidité et de simplicité au mécanisme

? Voir & la fin, Fig. 1.
APPENDIX TO PART I. 143

qui, dans le principe, se composait de crochets et de fil
dacier qui n’offraient point de sécurité pour l’exécution.

No. 1.

MONSIEUR, LAUSANNE, Ze 20 maz, 1838.

Il est trés-vrai que mon mari, passionné de la
musique, a laquelle il a consacré tous les momens que
son état ne réclamait pas impérieusement, et ne pouvant
prendre son parti des bornes et de l’imperfection de la
flate, a cherché, pendant plusieurs années, 4 en inventer
une qui réunit 4 une grande justesse de son une plus
grande étendue et une exécution facile. Il y réussit
enfin en 1830, époque a laquelle la révolution de juillet
l’a privé de sa vocation, de ses espérances, et par consé-
quent de sa fortune. Il eut alors lidée de tirer parti
de cette nouvelle flfite, pour la rétablir, en se faisant
entendre dans les principales villes de l'Europe, puis
en obtenant un brevet d’invention, établissant des fabri-
ques et introduisant ce bel instrument dans le monde
musical.

Il commenga par aller A Munich en 1833, auprés de
M. Bohm, qu'il avait connu a Paris, et dont un des
ouvriers pouvait seul l’aider 4 la confection de la flfite
qu'il avait inventée. Je ne pourrais vous dire A présent,
Monsieur, si c’est 4 mon mari que M. Béhm doit lidée
de la flate qu’il vous a envoyée, ou s’il l’a seulement per-
fectionnée d’aprés la sienne, ou si, peut-étre, il vous a
envoyé celle de mon mari; je pourrais écrire pour le
savoir, si vous me le conseillez, a l’ouvrier avec lequel
il l’a faite, et je vous enverrais sa réponse. Mais ce que
je sais, c'est qu’aprés avoir passé quelques mois 4 Munich
pour la facture de sa flite, il est allé ensuite a Londres.
pour l’accomplissement de ses projets; mais comme il
était fort timide, sans recommandation, sans connaissance
du monde et de la maniére de s’y prendre pour y réussir,
il y a vu diminuer et finir ses ressources pécuniaires avant
144 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

d’avoir pu se faire connaitre; en sorte qu'il est revenue
ici, dans sa famille, malade et découragé. Puis un acci-
dent est venu compléter tous les chagrins qu’il avait
essuyés: cet instrument, qui lui avait cofité tant de
peines et de veilles, s’est fendu par suite d’un perfec-
tionnement qu'il a voulu encore y faire. Quoique désolé,
il s'est remis 4 louvrage pour en faire un autre; car il
avait acquis par sa persévérance une habileté bien
supérieure aux ouvriers qui l’entouraient. Mais l’ardeur
qu’il a mise a ce travail, et la difficulté de l’exécuter sans
aucun secours, jointes aux contradictions de tout genre
que ses projets lui avaient suscitées, ont peu a peu altéré
ses facultés intellectuelles avant qu'il ait pu achever son
ouvrage, et il a da l’interrompre enti¢rement et éloigner
toute idée qui pit s’y rapporter, afin de laisser reprendre
a sa téte le calme dont elle a besoin; et c’est ce qui fait,
Monsieur, que je prends la plume a sa place, sans avoir
pu lui parler de ce qui fait le sujet de ma lettre.

Peut-étre M. Béhm, qui doit avoir appris cet hiver
par son ouvrier l'état de mon mari, aura-t-il cru que,
puisque mon mari était atteint d’une maladie mentale, il
pouvait, sans manquer 4a la délicatesse, s’approprier une
invention qui, sans lui, restait inutile au public. Ce qui
me le ferait supposer, c’est la coincidence de l’invention
de M. Béhm avec la maladie de mon mari. Du reste,
M. Drouet, dont M. Gordon est un ancien éléve, et qui
a vu et admiré sa fifite, pourra vous dire ce qu'il en
pense, et 4 quelle époque elle a été faite. M. Tulou doit
l’avoir vue aussi.

Je joins a cette lettre le dessin de cet instrument
ainsi que sa tablature, telle que mon mari l’avait confec-
tionnée ; et puisque ia Providence a permis que vous
vous intéressiez a cette affaire, et qu’un sentiment délicat
vous a fait désirer de pouvoir faire rendre justice a celuia
qui elle appartient, veuillez m’honorer de vos conseils,
Monsieur, et me dire quelles démarches je pourrais avoir
a faire pour conserver 4 mon mari des droits qui, si Dieu
APPENDIX TO PART I. 145

permet sa guérison, pourraient lui étre utiles un jour. Je
n'ai pas besoin de vous dire, Monsieur, tous les titres
que vous acquerrez a ma reconnaissance, ainsi que toute
ma considération.

M. GORDON.

No. 2.

MONSIEUR, MUNICH, Ze 2 juin, 1838.

Je vous suis bien obligé pour votre lettre du 25 mai,
et je m’empresse de vous donner de suite une réponse.
Je connais trés-bien M. Gordon, ci-devant capitaine dans
la garde suisse a Paris. Je fis sa connaissance 4 Londres
il y a six ans, et il avait dans ce tems une fldte d’une
construction différente des autres flfites, mais qui était
fausse et peu praticable. II avait pris connaissance
de mon séjour a Londres, et vint me visiter pour me
consulter sur des fitites, parce qu'il savait que j’en
fabriquais moi-méme. Dans ce tems, j’avais déja fait a
Londres le modéle de ma flite nouvelle, et je lui montrai
tout ce que j’avais fait.

M. Gordon ne voulut pas prendre ma flite parce
qu'elle n’était pas de soz invention, et il travailla tant
pour trouver une construction différente, que ses efforts
lui tournérent presque la téte. En 1834, il m/’écrivit
de ‘Lausanne qu’il admirait beaucoup l’ouvrage de mes
flites, et me demanda si je ne voudrais pas lui faire une
flite d’aprés ses idées ; je consentis, et il vint 4 Munich,
ou je mis un de mes ouvriers a sa disposition.

D’aprés mon conseil, il adopta, pour la plus grande
partie, la position des trous de ma flite; mais il voulait
absolument suivre ses idées quant au mécanisme des
clés, et aprés avoir travaillé pendant neuf mois avec mon
ouvrier ; aprés avoir construit et réglé plusieurs flates, a
la fin il en eut une qui ressemblait en quelques parties a
la mienne. Je le vis pour la derniére fois 4 Londres en
1836, trés-embarrassé, ou il me dit qu il voulait aban-
donner ses occupations inutiles et jouer de ma flite.

L
146 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Quelque tems aprés, il m’écrivit 4 Munich de lui envoyer
une de mes flites pour s’en servir. Je lui écrivis mes
conditions, sur quoi je ne recus plus de lettres de lui;
et plus tard, un de ses compatriotes me dit qu'il avait
renoncé entiérement a jouer de la flite; qu’il avait jeté
son instrument dans le lac de Genéve, qu’il était malade.
L’année passée, il écrivit encore une fois 4 mon ouvrier
qui avait fait sa fifite, pour l’engager a s’associer avec lui
pour établir des fabriques de fiites a Paris, a Londres,
Vienne, etc., et en méme tems il arriva une Icttre de sa
famille, informant qu'il était bien malade, et temoignant
le désir qu’on ne lui fit point de réponse.

Je vous assure, Monsieur, que j’eus beaucoup de
compassion pour M. Gordon, que j’estimais a cause de
son caractére, et il est bien dommage que cet homme,
qui était estimé de beaucoup comme un brave officier,
possédant de grands talens et de beaucoup de mérite, ait
perdu son tems et son argent en ayant la folie de
vouloir étre l’'inventeur d’une chose pour laquelle ni sa
connaissance dans l’acoustique ni son habileté dans le
mécanisme n’étaient suffisantes, et qui lui donnait tant
de peine que les efforts dérangérent sa téte et sa fortune.
Si vous désirez avoir des certificats que ma flite était
déja compléte en 1832 et que M. Gordon faisait faire
ses flates dans mon établissement 4 Munich en 1834,
je vous les ferai parvenir tout de suite. En 1834, il y
avait un article concernant ma nouvelle flite dans la
‘Gazette Musicale de Leipzig, No. 5. En 1833, MM.
Farrene, Camus et Laurent, facteurs de flites (Palais-
Royal), qui connaissent M. Gordon, connaissaient déja
ma nouvelle fifite, et la cause qu’elle n’était pas encore
connue plus généralement, était parce que j’étais trop
occupé pendant trois ans avec les fabrications de fer en
Angleterre, et que je jouais trés-peu moi-méme ; mais a
présent je ferai mettre dans les gazettes musicales et
dans les journaux politiques une histoire détaillée de
ma flite.
APPENDIX TO PART I. 147

En méme tems recevez, Monsieur, mes salutations
amicales et ma plus haute considération.

THEOBALD BOEHM.

No. 3.

MONSIEUR, MUNICH, 15 juddlet, 1833.

Connaissant depuis long-tems votre obligeance, je
ne crains pas de vous demander un service. II s’agit de.
faire remettre aux ci-aprés nommés quelques exem-
plaires des imprimés que je vous adresse de Munich, ot
je viens de faire exécuter par un habile ouvrier un
instrument excellent d’aprés mon modéle. Je partirai
prochainement pour Londres, ot mon adresse est Vew-
Castel street Strand 22. Veuillez m’y adresser un mot
sur la réception des imprimés, que j’affranchis aussi loin
que je puis. Nous compterons plus tard vos déboursés.
Vous pourriez laisser votre adresse chez quelques-uns des
ci-dessous nommeés pour que, sil se présente des ama-
teurs, vous puissiez leur indiquer la mienne a Londres.

Pour M, Pleyel, au magasin de musique, boulevart
des Italiens, 6 exemplaires ; pour Paccini, idem, No. 11 ;
M..Frey, place des Victoires, No. 8; Schlesinger, rue
Richelieu, No. 97; M. Laurent, facteur de flites, Palais-
Royal, 65; M. Tulou, rue des Martirs, No. 27; M.
Drouet, rue de l’Arcade, No. 28; M. Farrene, rue S.-
Marc, No. 21; M. Camus, rue Montmartre, en face la
rue Montorgueil ; M. Lemoine, rue de I’Echelle, No. 9 ;
Jeannet et Cotelle, rue S.-Honoré, No. 123 ; au bureau
de M. Fétis, rédacteur du journal des Beaux-Arts, rue
S.-Lazare, No. 31.

Recevez d’avance mes remercimens et mes compli-
mens trés-affectueux, ainsi que votre famille.

Votre dévoué serviteur,
GORDON.

Cette lettre est addressée 4 M. Mercier, rue St. Nicaise, No. 2.

L 2
(1) Malgré les améliorations apportées 4 cet instrument, le prix en est moins élevé que celui de Ja Flite ordinaire 4 patte d’st.

| Se; Be. SV OD ©  O1Sq Se
oe Be eee )@ |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 1.

 

Fic. 13.—Cory oF THE ENGRAVING IN CocHE’s PAMPHLET.
APPENDIX TO PART IL. 149

EXTRACTS FROM BOEHM’S PAMPHLET,

“ De la Fabrication et des derniers Perfectionne-
ments des Flites.”

DANS cette derniére ville, j’avais été frappé du volume
de son de Nicholson, alors dans toute la vigueur de son
talent. Cette qualité résultait de la largeur extraordi-
naire des trous de sa flite, mais il fallait son habileté
merveilleuse et son excellent embouchure pour masquer
le défaut de justesse et l’inégalité de son, résultant d’une
disposition de trous incorrecte et condamnée par les
principes élémentaires de l’acoustique. Je vis aussi a
Londres, a cette époque, un amateur, M. Gordon, qui
avait déja fait de nombreux essais de perfectionnement,
d’abord a Paris, puis 4 Londres,

Le trou de mi de sa flite était percé plus bas et plus
large que d’usage, et pour éviter le levier du fa, il avait
adopté une clef 4 anneau ; il avait en outre fait faire une
quantité de clefs et de leviers ingénieusement imaginés,
mais trop compliqués pour offrir jamais un grand
avantage a sa flite, construite du reste en dehors des
bases de l’acoustique; et destinée, par conséquent, de-
meurer imparfaite. Tout cela me confirma dans cette
conviction, fruit de mes longues recherches, qu’on n’ob-
tiendrait aucun perfectionnement complet sans réformer
le systéme de doigter.

Je résolus donc de consacrer mes veilles 4 la construc-
tion d’une fifiteentiérement nouvelle, qui réunit la justesse,
égalité et la puissance de son, et sur laquelle toute
musique, écrite dans son étendue, pit s’exécuter. De
retour 2 Munich, je me mis a l’ceuvre, Aprés un mar
examen et de nombreuses expériences de perces'et de
mécanismes, je me fixai au systéme des clefs 4 anneaux
comme répondant le mieux 4 toutes les exigences,
systéme que j’avais déja médité dés avant 1831.
150 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Malgré ce succés, dont je me réjouis, je confesse que
je n’ai jamais fait grand cas de mon invention, ni sous le
rapport du mérite, ni sous le rapport du produit. Je me
contentais de l’approbation de quelques connaisseurs
impartiaux ; je n’avais pas méme songé a prendre de
brevet ; mais je sais qu’on a cherché 4-me contester ma
découverte, pour en parer un homme aussi honnéte que
modeste, et quine peut plus protester. . ., car il est mort.
Je crois donc devoir donner quelques explications sur
mes rapports avec M. Gordon.

Dés 1832, ma nouvelle fifite était achevée ; je l’avais
fait entendre maintes fois, j’en avais livré au public une
grande quantité, quand je regus de M. Gordon la lettre
suivante, dont l’original est entre mes mains :—

““ LAUSANNE, 15 février, 1833.
“MON CHER MONSIEUR,

“Je suis depuis quinze jours de retour chez moi, a
Lausanne, aprés un séjour assez long a Paris, ot je suis
venu de Londres peu aprés vous y avoir vu, lorsque vous
en étes partis pour Munich. Je n’ai pas perdu mon temps,
et j’ai travaillé avec persévérance a une flite nouvelle que
jai faite moi-méme aussi bien que j’ai pu et que je viens
de terminer.

“Je ne vous ai point oublié, et j’ai toujours attendu
que vous m’enverriez une flite perfectionnée que vous
vous proposiez de chercher a faire 4 votre retour en
Allemagne. Selon votre offre 4 Londres, je veux vous
envoyer ma fifite, en vous priant de m’en faire une belle
sur ce modéle, vu que je posséde entiérement le doigter
pour la jouer ; je vous enverrai en méme temps la tabla-
ture pour le doigter.

“ Je n’ai pas voulu vous envoyer ma flite avant d’avoir
regu de vos nouvelles. Veuillez donc m’écrire A
lYadresse ci-aprés :

A M. Gordon, & Lausanne, Suisse,
et me dire la manicre que vous croyez la plus stre de
APPENDIX TO PART I. I51I

vous la faire parvenir sans accident, et si vous pourriez
m’en faire une semblable et vous en occuper le plus tét
possible. Dans l’espérance que ma lettre vous trouvera
a Munich, je vous l’envoie 4 l’adresse que vous m’aviez
donnée, :

“ Acceptez l’assurance, etc., “GORDON.”

Sur ma réponse, M. Gordon vint quelques mois aprés
a Munich, et il reconnut les imperfections de son instru-
ment. Il rejeta donc complétement son systéme pour
en essayer un nouveau. Ce qu'il cherchait, c’était un
mécanisme simplifié qui lui permit de conserver plusieurs
des doigters ordinaires.

Javais mis asa disposition mes ateliers et mes ouvriers,
et c’est au bout d’une année, aprés avoir entiérement gaté
deux flites par ses essais de modifications continuelles,
qu'il termina la flite représentée par la figure 1,? avec
laquelle il quitta encore Munich.

Il appelait sa flite, bien a tort, flite datonigue, car il
n’y a que l’ancienne flite 4 6 trous qui soit telle.
Toutes celles faites depuis, et pourvues de clefs, sont
chromatiques.

Il fit faire, pour le doigter de sa flite, une lithographie
quil publia en 1834.

Dans cette tablature, que je regus de lui-méme, il dit,
entre autres choses relatives a la description de sa flite :

“La suppression des deux clefs de fa naturel, et leur
remplacement par une clef de fa ditse est une idée dont
l'application offre de grands avantages. L’idée de cette
clef de fa diése, communigquée par M. Th. Boehm, de
Munich, a été, avec son agrément, adoptée pour la présente
fiite dont elle compléte les moyens d’exécution.”

Du reste, personne, que je sache, n’a ni imité ni joué
la flite de Gordon. Plus tard, quand je le rencontrai a
Londres, il me manifesta le désir d’avoir une de mes.
flites, la sienne ne le contentant nullement.

2 See Fig. 9 of this work (p. 90).
152 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

J’ai entre mes mains la preuve de ces faits. Comment
donc, ma flite, antérieure 4 celle de Gordon, pourrait-
elle lui avoir emprunté quelque chose, ainsi qu’on l’a
prétendu?

M. Gordon a fait usage des parties essentielles de mon
instrument pour construire le sien; mais il l’a toujours
loyalement reconnu.

La preuve la moins douteuse de l’authenticité de mon
invention résultera de l’exposé des motifs et de l’expli-
cation des principes d’acoustique et de mécanique par
moi mis en usage, car celui-la seul est capable d’une
ceuvre rationnelle qui peut rendre compte du pourquoi et
du comment dans l’exécution de chaque deétail.

 

OBITUARY ARTICLE ON BOEHM.
From the London‘ Figaro’ of December 28th, 1881.

I RECENTLY announced the death, at his birthplace,
Munich, at the advanced age of 88, of Theobald Boehm,
celebrated as the alleged inventor of the Boehm method
of fingering for the flute. This gentleman must not be
confounded with Joseph Boehm, once a celebrated
violinist, who died in 1876. Joseph Boehm is now well-
nigh forgotten, and his name is only recollected by a few
as that of the teacher of two of the most celebrated
violinists of modern times—Ernst and Joachim, Forty-
three years ago! Theobald Boehm came out in Londonas
a flautist. He was considered an excellent performer ;
and it was here that he made an acquaintanceship which
was destined to render his name famous. It is an old
tale and, it is believed, a true one, that the Boehm method
of fingering was really the invention of Captain W.

' Boehm came out in London as a flautist in 1831, or fifty years
before this article was written,
APPENDIX TO PART I. £53

Gordon (an Anglo-Swiss), Captain of the Swiss Guards
in the Paris garrison, and the pupil for the flute of
Drouet. Gordon conceived his idea of flute improve-
ments as far back as 1826, and in the following year
flutes—imperfectly showing his invention, it is true—
were made to his designs in Paris. The Revolution of
1830 deprived him of his position, and Captain Gordon
believed he would be able to support his wife and family
by his new flute. In an unlucky day he showed it to
Boehm, then on a visit to London, and Boehn, finding
Gordon poor,” at once “annexed” the idea for himself.
Gordon heard that Boehm had begun the manufacture of
flutes at Munich, and he followed him to that town. He
arrived there in 1833, and spent six months in, perfect-
ing two instruments. Satisfied that his invention had
reached perfection, he printed a prospectus of the new
instrument, and published it in Great Britain, France,
and Germany. He expected that orders for the new
flute would pour in upon him. But the world is slow to
accept improvements, and the unhappy Gordon retired
heart-broken with his family to Lausanne. Maddened
at seeing the results of his own talent attributed to
Boehm, his brain became affected, and in 1836 it was
necessary to confine him in a lunatic asylum.? A fierce
war arose in 1838 on the question of the invention of the
flute, Gordon’s claims being stoutly championed from
Paris, while Boehm replied from Munich. Although,
therefore, the invention of the so-called “ Boehm method ”
cannot in justice be attributed to the Bavarian flautist,
there is no doubt the method was perfected by Boehm.
In 1849 he introduced a genuine improvement in the tube

2 This, I believe, is the first time that Boehm’s alleged annexa-
tional proclivities were said to be stimulated into activity by
Gordon’s poverty. Gordon’s insanity had long before (p. 128) been
brought forward as the supposed exciting cause. — 5

-8 A very different account of the origin of his insanity is given

at p. 33) 7 U-
154 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of the flute, giving it a conical instead of a cylindrical
head. At the Great Exhibition of 1851 the following
report of the jury was published, signed by the late Sir
Henry Bishop, the reporter :—

“M. Boehm’s inventions may be briefly described as
follows: First, he brought the acoustical proportions
of tubes and the finger-holes of wind instruments into
correct numbers and measurement, by which means
flutes, oboes, clarionets, bassoons, &c., can be theoreti-
cally constructed. Secondly, he has invented mechanism
for the keys, which gives facility and precision to the
execution, and by which the former difficulty of reaching
or stopping the holes at great distances or of large sizes
is now surmounted. As by these means the holes may
be made correct in size and position, M. Boehm has
acquired not only a perfection in tone and tuning never
before attained, but also a great facility in playing in
those keys which were hitherto difficult and defective in
sonorousness or intonation.”

At the Paris Exhibition of 1855 M. Feétis, the reporter
of the jury, expressed himself in similar terms. The
French writer was, however, moré honest than the
English reporter in giving our own Captain Gordon his
share of the credit.

Mr. William Pole, the reporter at the London Exhi-
bition of 1862, alluded to Boehm as follows :-—

“ Boehm extended brass and other metals as materials
for flutes, clarionets, and hautboys, at the same time that
he introduced an entirely new and scientific system of
construction, which has done more than anything else to
lift this class of instruments to their present degree of
perfection both of intonation and of timbre.

“Boehm, of Munich, the celebrated regenerator of
flutes, clarionets, hautboys, &c., was appointed one of the
jurors of this class, but for some reason he has not visited
London. He has, however, sent for exhibition a geo-
metrical diagram, with explanations, by which makers of
APPENDIX TO PART I, 155

tubular instruments can, with the greatest readiness and
accuracy, construct their instruments according to any of
the recognised pitches. Having been applied to by many
factors for new models, M. Boehm desired to give his
diagram and explanation the greatest publicity and
usefulness by sending them to this exhibition.”

Boehm wrote several compositions for the flute, with,
however, very little success. In 1847, Messrs. Schott of
Mayence published from his pen a pamphlet ‘On the
Construction of the Flute and its new Improvements,’

LETTER FROM MR. W. S. BROADWOOD.
From the London ‘Figaro’ of Fanuary st, 1882.

I am glad, says ‘ Figaro,’ to publish the following in-
teresting letter from Mr. Walter Broadwood in defence
of the late Theobald Béhm. The letter will speak for
itself; and I will merely add that the question which
Mr. Walter Broadwood thinks “not very material,”
whether Bohm did, or did not, originally annex or borrow
his ideas or first notions from Captain Gordon, really
formed the text of my remarks. Nobody doubts the
ability with which Béhm subsequently developed those
ideas, or his scientific or mechanical skill. The question
of Gordon’s claims was taken up by the late M. Feétis,
and even more strongly in a pamphlet? on Bohm’s in-
vention printed forty-three years ago, soon after Bohm
wrote his letters? of defence. Within the last week or
two, those claims have been again advanced by the French
and Belgian critics. I can, of course, only speak second-
hand ; and I have great pleasure in giving the parole

1 That by Coche.
2 There is only one letter of defence, that given at p. 129.
156 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

instead to Mr. Walter Broadwood, who not only knew
Bohm well, but who has made a special study of every-
thing connected with the flute :—

“ CABALVA, RADNORSHIRE,
Fan. 1882.
« Sir,

“My attention has ‘been called to an article in your
journal, in which the writer brings charges against the
late Theobald Bohm, of Munich, which are, as I think,
both inaccurate and misleading.

“Your correspondent seems to consider that the main
feature in Béhm’s improvement of flutes was a system of
fingering generally (he says erroneously) attributed to
him, but in reality ‘annexed’ from one Captain Gordon.
This it was, says your correspondent, which made
Béhm’s name famous. Gordon, we are told, invented
and perfected this fingering ; and after vainly advertis-
ing it throughout Great Britain, France, and Germany,
he died of a broken heart, maddened by his failure to
sell his invention, and by Boéhm’s ‘annexation’ of it.
We are not told why what in the one case failed so
signally, succeeded in the other so completely.

“In justice to Theobald Bohm, whom I knew very
well for nearly forty years, I venture to suggest an
explanation.

“ He was a man of very considerable scientific, as well
as technical, attainments. Originally a gold- worker, he
subsequently became an inspector of mines, besides
being for many years first flute in the principal orchestra
in Munich. Whether he did, or did not, borrow (‘annex,’
if your correspondent prefers that term) the first notions
of what Sir H. Bishop in his 1851 Exhibition report
calls a system ‘for reaching or stopping the flute-holes
at great distances, is not very material. Bohm always
claimed the invention of the fingering known by his
name ; and I am not aware that it has ever been proved
that Gordon’s fingering was identical with it. The
APPENDIX TO PART I. 157

question which your correspondent begs, and on which
he founds very serious charges, has, as he admits, been
very ‘fiercely debated,’ but not conclusively settled.
Be that as it may, Bohm soon perceived that the really
essential points to be determined, with a view to the im-
provement of his instrument, were :—

“1, The shape and proportion of the tube, more par-
ticularly of that part known as ‘the head,’ where sound
is generated.

“2. The exact position and proportion of the em-
bouchure and finger-holes,

“In order to solve these problems, Béhm set himself
to study acoustics, under the well-known Professor
Schafhautl, and after several years’ labour produced, as
a result, (1) ‘a cylindrical tube with conical head’ ;
(2) ‘a geometrical diagram’ (I now quote from Mr. Pole’s
report, 1862) ‘with explanations by which makers of
tubular instruments can with the greatest accuracy
construct their instruments according to any of the
recognised pitches.’

“It is upon these calculations, and upon their practical
application, that Bohm’s fame rests. It is no exaggera-
tion to say that their publication produced a revolution
in the manufacture of wind instruments. So little did
the merit of Bohm’s invention depend on any one system
of fingering, that it was applicable not to flutes only, but
also to oboes, clarionets, and bassoons, which are fingered
quite differently. At the exhibition (1851) competent
and impartial musical judges pronounced it to be ‘an
entirely new and scientific system of construction, which
has done more than anything else to lift this class of
instruments to their present degree of perfection, both
of intonation and of timbre.’

“If Bohm, originally like Captain Gordon, a poor
man, had, like him, relied solely on a novel system of
fingering, he would, probably, have been unsuccessful.
In our days nearly every flautist has his own pet system
158 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of fingering, of which he proclaims the superiority,
and which at all events suits Zim best. Several of these
have been adapted to Béhm’s tubes, with more or less
success.

“That Bohm did not ‘annex’ his scientific knowledge
may easily be proved. His letters, of which I have still
a considerable number, prove it conclusively. The head
of the Pulteney Street firm, whose intimate practical
knowledge of everything connected with the manufacture
of pianofortes will be contested by no maker, whether
English, French, or German, has repeatedly and un-
grudgingly acknowledged the assistance afforded him
years ago by Bohm when calculating what is termed the
scale of grand pianofortes. He told me that he found
Bohm very well versed in the acoustical bearings of that
subject.

“But, to quote your correspondent’s words, ‘it is an
old tale,” that of disputed inventions. A crude idea
occurs to one man; it is developed and carried out,
perhaps, by another. The former may have had neither
the knowledge nor the perseverance necessary to mature
his notion into practical utility. Yet he eventually
claims, or his friends claim for him, all the merit of the
invention.

“ The French point triumphantly to Papin, the inventor
of steamboats, as they assert, in Louis XV.’s time. My
friend Mr. Hipkins, in his very able and interesting
paper (see Grove’s ‘Musical Dictionary’), shows with
more probability that Cristofori invented pianofortes.
For the sake of argument, let us associate with them
Gordon as the alleged inventor of the Bohm fingering :
originator, if I rightly understood your correspondent, of
the most material modern flute improvement.

“What would any of these, in their very different
degrees of importance, say to their bantlings now full
grown? Would they even recognise them? And what
are we to say to those—if such indeed there be—
APPENDIX TO PART 1. 159

who would claim for the putative progenitors all the
merit ?

“T am, Sir,
“Very obediently yours,
“WALTER STEWART BROADWOOD.”

 

ARTICLE BY DR. SCHAFHAUTL FROM THE
‘MUSICAL WORLD’ OF FEB. 18, 1882.

To the Editor of the’ Musical World?

CABALVA, RADNORSHIRE,

Sir, feb. 13th, 1882.

The German manuscript of. the accompanying paper,
with a translation by himself, which I have since re-cast,
was sent me by Mr. J. P. Triggs, flutist, of Glasgow.
He tells me that he received the manuscript, corrected
and signed in Dr. Schafhautl’s handwriting, from Mr.
Schmidt, the publisher, of Heilbronn. I do not know
whether it has been published in Germany, but I believe
that it contains matter likely to interest English flute-
players, and settles authoritatively the much-debated
question as to the invention of the Bohm flute.

I am, Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
W. S. BROADWOOD.

THEOBALD BOHM, AND THE FLUTE CALLED
AFTER HIM,

MUNICH, Yanuary 23, 1882.

It seems that the old dispute as to who was the
real inventor of the “Bohm Flute” has again cropped
up. It originated in Paris. The celebrated flutist,
160 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

V. J. B. Coche, who was one of the first to play the Bohm
flute, who contributed more than any one to bring it into
use in France, and who explained its merits ina pamphlet
of his own composition (Paris, 1839), writes to Bohm,
May 25, 1838: “On dit dans le monde artiste, que la
flate qui porte votre nom a été découverte par un
nommé Gordon, ancien éléve de Drouet.”

The Gordon in question was a Swiss, who had served
as an officer in the Gardes du Corps of Charles X., and
had been pensioned after that king’s abdication. He
heard Bohm play upon his ring-keyed flute at a concert
in London (1831); made Béhm’s acquaintance ; and
conceived the idea of himself making a new flute that
should be free from the defects of the old flute! We
shall become better acquainted with this “new flute.”
Gordon worked at it in Paris indefatigably with his own
hands, and showed it to his teacher, Drouet. In a
letter dated Feb. 15, 1833, he writes to Bohm: “ J’ai vu
Drouet a Paris ; mais il recule devant un changement
dans le doigté. Tulou en est 1a aussi.” ?

That Drouet and Tulou should have remembered
Gordon when Béhm came forward with his own flute
is easily to be accounted for; but that they should dis-
tinguish what was the fundamental principle on which

* The instrument on which Boehm played in his public perform-
ances, during his visit to London in 183: was, as he states in his
pamphlet, not a ring-keyed, but an improved old flute. He cer-
tainly showed Gordon a flute on which there was a ring-key, and
Gordon appears to have conceived the idea of making an instru-
ment which should be an improvement on that which Boehm
showed him (see p. 89).

It is to this, I presume, that Dr. Schafhautl here alludes, for
Gordon had conceived the idea of making a perfected flute long
before he knew Boehm, and had been engaged in endeavouring
to carry it out for four or five years, and, when he made Boehm’s
acquaintance, he showed him the result of his experiments in the
shape of an ingenious instrument of novel construction.—C, W.

* This passage does not appear in this letter as published by
Boehm (p. 95), but in a postscript to it—C. W.
APPENDIX TO PART I. 161

the flutes of Gordon and of Béhm were constructed is
more than could be expected cf most artists ;. besides
which they were reluctant to acknowledge that the new
was more and more superseding the old flute; for
Coche had already won over all musicians by his per-
formances on the new Bohm flute.

I have frequently written concerning its origin ; for
instarice, in the Official Reports of the London In-
dustrial Exhibition, 1851 (Berlin, 1852, pages 882-884) ;
again, in the Report of the Jurors’ Committee, Munich.
Industrial Exhibition, 1854 (Munich, 1855, pages 444-
446); and finally, in greater detail, in the ‘Allgemeine:
Musikalische Zeitung, Leipsic, 1879, No. 39, pages
643-646.

Now that Gordon and Bohm are both dead, the
former long since, the latter only towards the end of last.
year (November 25), I feel myself doubly compelled to
make it clear to the musical public that Theobald Bohm
is indeed the inventor of the flute which bears his name.

The eminent flutist, Theobald Bohm, was gifted not
only with musical talent, but possessed also a genius
for mechanism. After his appointment to the Royal
Bavarian Orchestra in 1816, he made several cleverly
designed flutes, with a special arrangement of key
mechanism, for himself and for his master, Rapelle, also
a member of the Royal Orchestra; and, finally, in the
year 1828, he set up a flute manufactory of his own in
Munich. From this period dates the gradual adoption
in England and France of the excellent system of key
mechanism, designed and made by Bohm himself. The
great success which Bohm achieved as a flutist in
Munich and in Switzerland inducéd him at length to
visit Paris and London, where the artistic refinement of
his style, the fluency and certainty of his execution
commanded general admiration. In London the extra-
ordinarily large tone of the flute-player Nicholson, at
that time so celebrated in England, surprised Bohm

M
162 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

who hastened-to make his acquaintance, and soon found
that the secret of the power of the Nicholson flute lay
in the unusual size of the holes. But even so, the
capabilities of the instrument were very limited, for,
except that of F, no scale was quite in tune. The
scales on the Béhm flute were all in better tune than
those upon the Nicholson flute, as at that time manu-
factured by the English makers. Bohm had long been
thinking of making a flute which should combine fulness
of tone with accuracy of intonation; but he foresaw.
that this could not be accomplished without a change
of fingering, and he knew how difficult it would be to
induce musicians, who had practised one system all
their lives, to take to another. During this visit to
London, however, he finally resolved to carry out his
long cherished purpose.

In December of the year 1832, his new flute with its
new scale was finished. He soon mastered the new
fingering, and in the succeeding year, 1833, played it
in Paris, and also in London, with great success.

Savart, the professor of acoustics, at first received
Bohm very coldly, and declared that to play the scale
on the flute in tune in all keys was impossible, but
when he heard Bohm do this he was so astonished that
he himself introduced Bohm to the Academy.

In London Bohm created quite as great a sensation
as in Paris. He particularly impressed Gordon, a retired
colonel of the Gardes du Corps of Charles X. Gordon,
who was a pupil of Drouet, and an enthusiastic flute-
player, at once comprehended the advantages of the
Bohm flute, renewed his acquaintance with Bohm, and
was initiated into his system.2 He induced Bohm. to

3 Dr. Schafhautl does not appear to have been furnished
with correct information respecting Gordon’s movements. He
is evidently not aware that, when Gordon visited London in
1833, he came from Munich, bringing with him the flute made

there in Boehm’s workshop, and that the object of his journey to
England was to bring it out. We must either believe this or else :
APPENDIX TO PART I. 163

have a flute tube made for him at Munich by his best
workman, but without keys; for he believed that the
Bohm mechanism could be simplified so as to require
eight keys only. To this notion he clung till the end of
his days; undeterred by constant failure, or by Béhm’s
warning that to obtain power, equality, and freedom of
tone, together with fluency of execution and accuracy of
intonation, with a flute having thirteen sound holes and
only eight keys, was an impossibility. This notion of
Gordon’s had already become a sort of monomania. He
clung to it to the end of his life—a very sad end, as we
are told.

Gordon left London “ peu de temps aprés votre départ
pour Munich,” as he writes in a letter of the 15th Feb-
ruary, 1833.4. He was then working, as we have seen,
at a flute, with the thirteen holes of the Bohm system,
but with only eight keys, which, as he wrote, he himself
had made. This flute was barely playable in slow move-
ments. In rapid passages, the very unequal tone fre-
quently missed altogether. Gordon, however, ascribed
these ever recurring difficulties of execution to bad
workmanship; so that he lcoked upon the flutes he had
made thus far as mere models.

In a letter from Lausanne, dated February, 1833,
which lies before me at this moment, he requests Bohm
to have a flute made by one of his very best workmen
on his (Gordon’s) model. Bohm answered that it would
be better that Gordon should come to Munich. He

reject the evidence furnished by the letters of Gordon and his wife
(pp. 132, 127).—C. W.

* Gordon is here referring to his departure from London after
his visit in 1831, not after that in 1833. It is impossible that he
can refer to that of 1833; because, when the letter, from which the
extract is taken, was written, the visit of 1833 had not yet been
paid. Gordon passed the January of 1833 in Paris, whence he
went to Lausanne, as he states in this letter, arriving there about
the 1st of February, and on the 15th of the month he wrote the
letter (see p. 29).—C. W.

M 2
164 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

followed this advice, and arrived in Munich, July 1833,°
where he remained till March 1834; Béhm placing at
his disposition one of his most skilful workmen, but
being himself away in London.

Model after model was made and rejected one after
another. I myself at first witnessed these unsuccessful.
attempts. At length a well-made flute upon Gordon’s
model was finished, and he at once brought his invention
before the public. In 1834 Gordon advertised his new
flute in Paris, under the name of “La Flite Diatonique,”
and brought out a lithographed ‘Table of Fingering’
for it.

In the introduction appended to his Table of Finger-
ing for the “ fltite diatonique, fabriquée dans les ateliers
de Bohm,” he says:

“La suppression des deux clefs de Fa diéze, [sce] est
une idée dont l’application offre de grands avantages.
Lidée de cette clef de Fa didze, communiquée par M. Bohm
de Munich, a &é avec son agrément adoptée pour la présente.
Flaite, dont elle compléte les moyens d’exécution.” This
diatonic flute had, of course, the thirteen holes of the
Bohm system; five of which remained open for the
fingers (E, F, F sharp, B, and C sharp).

Gordon’s eight keys intended for the other eight holes
were connected with each other by contrivances of all
sorts—a very puzzle of levers. Above the D sharp hole
were the ends of three keys close together. Five keys
had ends shaped like hackers (like the crescent of the
moon five days before new moon), and these were for
the shakes.° They were placed in the shape of a sickle

® Dr. Schafhautl is here at variance with Gordon, who, in his
letter to M. Mercier, dated July 15th, 1833, states that he was
about, not to arrive at, but to leave Munich for London, his new
flute being already finished (p. 132).—C. W.

5 In this description the Doctor seems to have confused the two
Gordon flutes, of which drawings have come down to us. The

eight keys and the five holes mentioned as remaining open for
the fingers (those for E, F, F sharp, B natural, and C sharp) are
APPENDIX TO PART I. 165

‘round the holes, so that when one key was pressed down
‘it closed two adjoining holes. Gordon worked on with
Bohm’s best workman (Béhm himself being again
away) with great perseverance, but none of his diatonic
‘flutes satisfied him.” At length despairing, he went back
to Switzerland, and we have no reliable account of what
‘became of him and his: flute. It was reported that he
‘threw it into the Lake of Geneva, and died in a mad-
house. His own fixed idea appears to have completely
over-mastered the intellect of that gallant and amiable
gentleman.

In that same year (1833) Bohm went again to London,
and created so great a sensation that the celebrated
Dorus, then a young man, at once laid aside the old
flute, and with his wonted energy and talent soon
mastered the Béhm flute. In 1837 the Bohm flute
was introduced into the Paris Conservatoire, after a
committee—of which Savart, Prony, and Dulong were
members—had borne the highest testimony to its merits.

In 1846 Bohm crowned his invention by substituting a
cylinder for the old conical bore ; he also introduced that
parabolic curve in the head ising which is necessary for
correctness of intonation in the high notes. This flute
obtained the Gold Medal at the Universal Exhibition

seen in the flute represented in Fig. 9 (p. 90), while the five
crescents, “like the crescent of the moon five days before the new
moon,” appear in Gordon’s other flute (Fig. 12, p. 107), four of them
being “ placed in the shape of a sickle round the holes.” So, too,
the flute represented by Fig. 9 was styled by Gordon Fldze
diatonigue, but the words fabriguée dans les ateliers de Bohm do
not occur in the announcement of this flute (see the facsimile, p. 102).
We are thus led to infer that Schafhautl has taken his quotation
from the ¢aélature of Gordon’s other flute, that figured by Coche.
Flute-players will, of course, understand that the crescents were
not for the shakes, any more than are the rings of the Boehm flute.
But now that we are in possession of the text of Gordon’s
announcement we can understand what gave rise to the Doctor's
remark. Gordon speaks of five branches communicating with keys,
and serving for the shakes (see the facsimile of the ¢ab/ature).—C. W.
166 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

(London 1851), Berlioz taking an active part in the
decisions of the jurors. Also at the Paris Exhibition,
1855, it carried off the Gold Medal, to which was added
a most flattering acknowledgment of the merits of
Bohm’s system. At the present time the Bohm flute
is played upon all over the civilised world.

Those who know how great is the distance which
separates the conception of even the happiest ideas from
their realisation and introduction in a practical form, will
see a proof of the value of Bohm’s system in the fact
that it has at length established its position in the musical
world, notwithstanding the long-continued opposition of
many leading artists. In a letter to Bohm, already
quoted, Gordon writes that Drouet and Tulou approved
of his flute; but would not hear of a change of
fingering.

Béhm’s flute would have been rejected for the same
reason had not its superiority been such as to throw into
the shade all others—old or new. Thus I have again
related in its general outlines the history of the invention
and development of the Bohm flute. Probably I am
the best witness as to the whole matter; for I lived
over fifty-two years with my friend Bohm; under my
guidance he devoted himself most perseveringly to the
study of acoustics. I witnessed his innumerable experi-
ments, which embraced all wind instruments, and which
could only be carried out by one who united in his own
person a practical knowledge of technical mechanism
and of acoustic ‘science.

That such a man should have borrowed from others
the ideas upon which he founded the construction of his
instruments is what no one can seriously believe.

In later years B6hm extended the compass of the
flute, carrying it down from C to the low G, thus adding
a new powerful and effective instrument to the resources
of musical art. His key mechanism, now used upon all
wind instruments of the better class, has already secured
APPENDIX TO PART I. 167

for Béhm a permanent place in the history of musical
instruments. The keys upon the foot joint of the flute,
formerly supported by “cheeks” cut out of the wood
and having a brass pin for axle—also the equally clumsy
metal cups—were replaced by small pillars and slender
steel rods and axles, revolving in the ball-shaped extre-
mity of the pillar, and working with the accuracy and
precision of a chronometer. The delicate steel springs
of the mechanism furnished the means of uniting the
action of keys placed at opposite extremities of the flute
tube, and enabled the performer to cover a distant hole
as perfectly, and with the same certainty, as if the key
lay beneath the finger. Keys are indispensable for the
large holes of the Bohm flute; they cannot be covered
by the unaided finger. Upon the old flute the keys
opened small holes; upon the Bohm flute the keys her-
metically closed large holes. Bohm made with his own
hands the first batch of his flutes, and he accustomed
both his workmen and his successor to such finish of
mechanism as has seldom been equalled and never
surpassed.

(Signed) CARL VON SCHAFHAUTL,

Doctor and Professor in the Royal Bavarian Academy,
University, and Conservatorium.
PART II.
In summing up what Boehm has effected for the Flute, and not
only for the Flute, but, as before observed, for all the fingered Wind
Instruments, we can scarcely, I think, estimate this eminent man’s
services too highly. We see, from the sketch before given, the
successive steps by which the ordinary Flute, as well as the Oboe,
Clarionet, and Bassoon, have progressed from their primitive,
single diatonic scale, to their present capacity of giving all the
@iatonic and chromatic scales, and that this was piling error upon
error, the foundation being erroneous. It was Boehm who stood
Jorward to oppose the deeply-rooted prejudices engendered by this
long continuance in a wrong course ; it was the enduring patience
and perseverance of Boehm, that opened the eyes as well as the ears
of those most blinded by former prejudices, to the value and im-
portance of equidistant holes and open keys. He convinced their
Judgment as well as their senses. Many who at first opposed the
movement from interested motives, as well as from prejudice, have
at length yielded to the force of the truth. His senses must be
indeed obtuse who cannot hear the superiority of the free tones
gained, by the open-keyed over the muffled tones of the close-keyed
system, and who has not discernment enough to see that various
sized holes must produce notes of various guality. Itwas Boshm
who rendered these principles palpable; and if, in what I have to
advance respecting the Flutes I have myself patented, I shall have
to record some strictures upon Bochm’s flute, they will be strictures,
not so much on what he has done, as upon what he has left un-
done——RICHARD CARTE.
AN. EXAMINATION OF

MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION

OF

THE BOEHM-GORDON CONTROVERSY.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.

“BOHM was not the ignorant impostor I once heard him
called by a gentleman whose claim to celebrity rested
on the invention of a key, which Bohm (a plagiarist by
anticipation) had already used for his oboe fingering
some years before.”

These words are taken from the preface to a little
book, issued in 1882 by Messrs. Rudall, Carte, & Co,
entitled, ‘An Essay on the Construction of Flutes, giving
a History and Description of the most recent Improve-
ments, with an Explanation of the Principles of Acoustics
applicable to the Manufacture of Wind Instruments,
originally written in 1847 by Theobald Bohm, and now
first published. Edited, with the addition of correspond-
ence and other documents, by W. S. Broadwood.’

This literary production is an English edition of a
pamphlet issued by Boehm when he brought out his
cylinder flute. This pamphlet was translated at the
time from the original German into French, and pub-
lished in Paris. It was Boehm’s wish that it should
also appear in England. With this view he wrote the
manuscript and presented it to Messrs. Rudall and
Rose, who had purchased the right to patent the mewly-
172 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

invented instrument. Boehm was well versed in col-
loquial English, but he had not mastered the language
sufficiently to be able to prepare a work for the press ;
the manuscript therefore required revision, and Messrs,
-Rudall and Rose did not bring it out ; indeed, it would
never have seen the light had it not been for Mr. Walter
Broadwood.

The ‘ Essay on the Construction of Flutes’ cannot with
propriety be called a translation of the German pamphlet ;
it is a new version of the work. There is scarcely a page
in which it does not differ more or less from the original.
In some places Boehm has introduced new matter ; in
others he has omitted whole paragraphs, whilst sentence
after sentence is altered and remodelled. In editing
the work, Mr. Broadwood has confined himself strictly to
passages in which Boehm has either not written idiomatic
English, or else has expressed himself in such a way as
not to make his meaning clear. A comparison of the
manuscript with the published text shows that not a
single sentence has been either added or omitted.

Boehmr’s treatise, however, does not occupy much more
than half of Mr. Broadwood’s drvochure. The other part
consists of a preface by Mr. Broadwood, partly devoted
to the Boehm-Gordon controversy, and partly to flute-
gossip ; of a collection of letters from Boehm to various
English correspondents ; of an English translation from
Mr. Broadwood’s pen of Boehm’s explanation of his
“diagram” for tuning wind instruments, and of an
appendix containing an article in defence of Boehm by
his friend Professor Schafhautl.

As to the person the foundation of whose claim to
celebrity Boehm, in the capacity of “a plagiarist by
anticipation,” had thus sapped before it was laid, no one,
I believe, but Mr. Broadwood knew who was meant,
and, as no one thought it worth his while to inquire,
nothing more would have been heard of the matter had
not a gentleman come forward, put on the cap, and pro-
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 173

ceeded to proclaim that it was a good fit. This. was

Mr. R. S. Rockstro, whose voluminous work on the flute

was issued from the press last year." Mr. Rockstro is of
opinion that Mr. Broadwood intended to insinuate that

Boehm’s oboe key was identical with his great invention,

“the Rockstro F sharp lever.” He proceeds to defend

the statement he has attributed to himself respecting:
Boehm’s capacity and character, declaring that Mr.

Broadwood’s book is alone sufficient to justify the asser-

tion that Boehm was an ignorant impostor. To use his.
own words: “the publication of this pamphlet (the ,
‘Essay on the Construction of Flutes’), Professor Schaf-
hdutl’s letter (also printed in Mr. Broadwood’s work),
and the hysterical adulation of extravagant partisanship
have effectually disposed of the last remnants of Boehm’s
reputation as a scientific man.”

We should naturally expect that Mr. Rockstro, hold-
ing such views as these, would do all he could to induce
his readers to peruse the work in which the “ignorant
impostor” is thus so completely pulverised by himself
and his “hysterical” friends. This, however, it would
seem, is far from being the case. Although he tells
them that an English edition of Boehm’s pamphlet
“ with some additions and many omissions,” was “ unfor-
tunately” published in 1882, and that “much error was
thereby disseminated,” he quite forgets to give such
information as would enable any one, who wished to
possess the book, to order it of his bookseller, with-
holding the title under which it appeared, the name of
the editor, and also that of the publishers.

The little work which the reader holds in his hand
has been consigned by Mr. Rockstro to a still greater
obscurity. It is true that the author’s name has not
been entirely excluded, like that of Mr. Walter Broad-

1 A Treatise on the Construction, the History, and the Practice
of the Flute. By Richard Shepherd Rockstro. Rudall, Carte, &
Co., 1890.
174 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

wood. It is mentioned, and mentioned in very good
company, for it appears amongst the subscribers to
Mr. Rockstro’s literary undertaking ; but it has not been
admitted to the list of writers to whom that gentleman
acknowledges himself to be indebted, nor is the book
itself thought worthy of a place in the catalogue, a cata-
logue which fills no less than twenty pages, of the works
which Mr. Rockstro has consulted in the compilation of
his opus magnum. Nevertheless, Mr. Rockstro has done
me the honour of making himself well acquainted with
the contents, but so zealous is he for the welfare of flute-
players, that when going over ground which I have
already trodden, rather than be the means of dissemi-
nating error even indirectly, he prefers to allow it to be
thought that he is exploring fresh woods, and roaming
over the virgin soil of pastures new.

It seems, then, that it has been my misfortune to
be the unconscious agent in casting another slur on
Mr. Rockstro’s “claim to celebrity” by repeating a state-
ment to the effect that Captain Gordon was also, like
Boehm, a “ plagiarist by anticipation,” inasmuch as the
“Rockstro F sharp lever” was to be seen depicted in
the drawing of his flute.

I blush to say that I must so far argue myself
‘unknown as to admit that when I thus unwittingly
reflected on its inventor’s reputation, I knew nothing of
the celebrated lever which sheds such lustre on the
name of Rockstro. My offending was on this wise. I
was acquainted with Augustus Buffet the younger, who
has been so often mentioned in the first part of this
work. Buffet’s father was attached in the capacity of
musical instrument maker to Charles Xth’s Swiss Guards,
in which regiment Captain Gordon held a commission.
The King and the Court used frequently to move from
Paris to Versailles and back again, just as our sovereign,
in earlier and brighter days, was in the habit of going
fo and fro from London to Windsor. The Swiss Guards
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 175

accompanied the King, and Buffet the elder accom-
panied the Guards. Gordon, who was busy with his
project for improving the flute, passed much of his
time, when off ‘duty, in Buffet’s workshop, where his
engaging manners and his tall and handsome person
rendered him a welcome visitor.

As young Buffet (when I knew him an old man of
eighty) worked under his father, he was constantly
brought into contact with Gordon, and so was perfectly
familiar with his earlier efforts in flute-making. More-
over, he informed me that he had in his possession
for many years a copy of Gordon’s ‘ Tablature,’ or Table
of fingering, When Coche published the drawing of
Gordon’s flute he did not give the ‘Tablature,’ and the
drawing without the ‘Tablature’ to explain it was a
puzzle to us in England. Some of its complexities
seemed inexplicable. Neither Mr, Richard Carte, nor
any one else with whom I was acquainted, was able to
understand how the mechanism was intended to act.
When on a visit to Paris I took the opportunity of ask-
ing M. Buffet to help us out of our difficulties, and he
readily complied with my request. In the course of his
remarks he- pointed to an appearance in the drawing
indicated by the letter ¢ (see Fig. 12, p. 107), and said in
French (in which language we were conversing) that it
was a button for making F sharp without using either
of the crescents.

I was so weak as to believe that Buffet was quoting
Gordon’s ‘ Tablature ;’ it never occurred to me to suspect
that he was only supposing, and so I reproduced his
words in this little volume. It was not long, however,
before I discovered what a mistake I had made. In the
year following, Mr. Rockstro issued a manifesto in the
shape of a pamphlet,? “hastily written and compiled,”
as he tells us in the preface, “to meet what is believed to

2 4 Description of the Rockstro-Model” Flute, by Richard S.
Rockstro. Keith, Prowse, & Co.
176 HISTORY OF THE ROEHM FLUTE.

be an immediate and pressing requirement, already far
too long unsatisfied.” In this pamphlet, after warning
his readers not to confound the “Rockstro F sharp
lever” with the key on Boehm’s oboe, he proceeds to set
Buffet right by adding “nor should it be supposed that
the button in the diagram of Gordon’s flute was intended
for asimilar purpose, the crescents by the sides of the
holes leaving nothing of the kind to be desired.” More-.
over, in his great treatise on our instrument he has
“ventured” to draw up a scale of fingering for Gordon’s
flute, from which it appears that Gordon did not know.
how to finger the instrument he had invented. The
kindhearted Mr. Rockstro comes to his assistance, and.
shows the poor benighted man that when, according to
Buffet, he used to put his finger on the button, he ought.
to have placed it on one of the crescents.?

It is, of course, intelligible that Mr. Rockstro should
endeavour to cover with an extinguisher those who.
seem to'him to be thus plucking the laurels from his
brow, but it is not so apparent why he should wreak his’
vengeance on the unfortunate Boehm. What has the’
poor man done that he should be so rudely disturbed in
his long sleep? Even if, as Mr. Rockstre alleges, he
adopted certain of Mr. Rockstro’s improvements, he was
not alone. These improvements we are told “have
been placed on so many different kinds of flutes, and
have been appropriated by so many makers, that scarcely
an open-keyed flute is now made on which some of them
do not appear.”* Here, then, is legitimate food for,
powder and shot ; not defunct brigands, but poachers
still in the flesh, busily engaged in hunting in Mr.
Rockstro’s preserves. If Mr. Rockstro is eager for a
fray, why does he not point out and pepper the rascals
that are thus purloining his ideas? They are alive and
can defend themselves, and would, perhaps, return his fire.

° Rockstro on the Flute, section 575, p. 317.
+ [bid., section 679, p. 392. ,
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 177

Instead, however, of attacking these marauders, Mr.
Rockstro follows the example of Sir John Falstaff, and
leaves the living to discharge himself upon the dead.
Indeed, he far outdoes Sir John; for when the doughty
knight immortalised himself by his unparalleled exploit
of killing a corpse, he was satisfied with inflicting on his
prostrate foe a single stab. Not so Mr. Rockstro. He
slashes, hews, and hacks away till his arm aches. Then
we breathe more freely, for the fight seems to be over.
But no; he is only pausing to take breath; he soon
returns to renew the combat, and so the battle rages for
round after round. At last he gets the corpus of his
battered antagonist on the dissecting table, and having
flayed it, proceeds to illustrate the old adage that
“beauty is but skin deep” by pointing out how utterly
unlovely he is (save in one small region, the left little
finger) from the crown of his head to the sole of his foot.

Before Boehm was thus anatomised, although he was
‘known to have a bad memory for: dates, and, like
Mr. Rockstro, a fondness for talking about science, it was
never suspected that he was a blockhead. Indeed, the
charge brought against him was that he was too clever
by half. His eagle eye was said to have taken in at a
glance all that was worth having on Gordon’s flute, and
in a few months’ time, whilst Gordon was still “labour-
ing” at his invention, he had brought the instrument
out as his own, having metamorphosed it so completely
that the inventor did not recognise his bantling.

But if Boehm’s detractors thus threw doubts on the
originality of his flute of 1832, his admirers pointed to
that of 1847, the cylinder with the parabola head, which
is supplanting the cone as surely as the pianoforte sup-
planted the harpsichord.’ Not one of the most jealous

8 “Tf ] were a younger man,” Boehm once said to me, “I would
make a flute to be played like this,” holding up his hands as if he
were playing on a hautboy or clarionet. “I dare say,” he added,
“some one will do it when I'am gone.” Seven years after his death

N
178 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of his rivals ever hinted that in the construction of this
instrument he was indebted for a suggestion to a single
soul. Messrs. Gerock and Wolf, who had a good oppor-
tunity of judging of Boehm’s capacity, pronounced him
to be a man of “uncommon powers of mechanical
“invention.” The Society of Arts, when he was but a
humble stranger in a strange land, recognised and paid
a graceful tribute to his inventive talent by presenting
him with their silver medal for a method of communi-
cating rotatory motion.® A railway carriage in which he
was once travelling having been set on fire by a lighted
ember from the engine (wood was used as fuel in Bavaria
in the early days of railways), when the burning cushions
had been thrown out of the window, he thought out a plan
for so constructing the locomotive that such accidents.
could be prevented. Again, whilst working for a short
time, when a young man, in a musical box manufactory
at Geneva, he invented a labour-saving machine by
means of which an important part of the mechanism
of the musical box could be constructed in one-fourth
of the time required for the hand process. In fact he
seems to have left his mark on almost everything he
touched. The production of iron is an industry of such
vast importance that men of great ability give up their
lives to it, and many of the best intellects of the time
are engaged in furthering its aims; yet Boehm, a mere

an instrument so constructed was shown at the Italian Exhibition
at Earl’s Court.

& The following is from the Transactions of the Society of Arts
for 1834-35, vol. 50, p. 82 :—“ The Silver Medal was presented to
Mr. Theobald Boehm, Member of the Royal Chapel of Munich, in
Bavaria, for his Method of communicating Rotatory Motion, a
model of which has been placed in the Society’s Repository. The
usual modes of communicating rotatory motion from the first
mover,” the report goes on to say, “are either by means of
wheels and pinions, or of two plane cylinders connected by a band.
Mr. Boehm has suggested another method.” A description of the
method and two drawings of the apparatus are given.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 179

outsider, devised an improved method of manufacturing
steel which an iron-master in the North of England con-
sidered sufficiently valuable to be worth purchasing.’

Strangely enough, Boehm himself seems to have
thought but little of the successful efforts of his con-
structive ability. Speaking, for instance, of his flute
of 1832, he tells us that he had never placed a high
value on it as an invention. On the other hand, he was
fully conscious that he was exceptionally gifted. “Iwas
never at a loss for an idea,” he says, “and have often
helped others on to success.” In confirmation of this
statement it may be mentioned that the Pohlmann wire,
which is still used in the manufacture of pianofortes of
the highest finish, is said to owe its uniform excellence
to advice given to Herr Pohlmann by Boehm.

There is another invention of Boehm into which I
shall enter more in detail, for it is connected with the
story with which this work professes to deal, the origin
of the Boehm flute. I mentioned in the first edition of
this work that Fétis states that Boehm invented a new
kind of pianoforte. The particulars of this invention
have since come to light, and it appears that it was
Boehm who first introduced the principle of overstringing,
or stretching the bass over the treble strings so as to gain
greater length of string without enlarging the case of
the instrument; an idea which has been adopted by
pianoforte-makers, and is now in use all over the world.
The following account of it is taken from a paper on the

History of the Pianoforte,’ read before the Society of
Arts by Mr. A. J. Hipkins, and published in the Society’s
Journal of March oth, 1883.

“ Almost simultaneously with it (the harmonic bar)
has arisen a new development in America, which, be-
ginning with Conrad Meyer, about 1833, has been
advanced by the Chickerings and Steinways to the well-
known American and German pianoforte of the present

7 Essay on the Construction of Flutes, Append, Pp. 53.
N 2
180 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

day. It was perfected in America about 1859, and has
been taken up by the Germans almost universally, and
with very little alteration. Two distinct principles have
been developed and combined—the iron framing in a
single casting, and the cross or overstringing. I will
deal with the last first, because it originated in England,
and was the invention of Theobald Boehm, the famous
improver of the flute. In Grove’s ‘Dictionary, I have
given an approximate date to his overstringing as
1835, but reference to Boehm’s correspondence with
Mr. Walter Broadwood shows me that 1831 was really
the time, and that Boehm employed Gerock and Wolf,
of 79 Cornhill, London, musical instrument makers, to
carry out his experiment. Gerock being opposed to an
oblique direction of the strings and hammers, Boehm
found a more willing coadjutor in Wolf. As far as I
can learn, a piccolo, a cabinet, and a square piano were
thus made overstrung. Boehm’s argument was that a
diagonal was longer within a square than a vertical,
which, as he said, every schoolboy knew.”

It was on the authority of such data as these that
Boehm was once considered to be possessed of some
little ingenuity. Since, however, he has been so com-
pletely laid bare by Mr. Rockstro, scales have fallen
from our eyes. Now that we know that he was nothing
but an impostor, we see what a waste of time it was to
debate the question, whether he did, or did not invent
the flute called after him. He could not have invented
it, had not his crass intellect been illumined by “an
intelligence far superior to his own.” We are thus
“led irresistibly to the conclusion” that he stole it from
Gordon. Being an impostor he must have stolen it; as
he stole it he must have been animpostor. The meanest
capacity would acknowledge that such an argument is
irresistible.

And, on what a vast number of persons he contrived
to impose! So many prize medals and similar distinc-
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 181

tions did he succeed in obtaining, that he had a drawer
specially devoted to them. The old man seemed quite
pleased, when, only a few weeks before his death, he
opened it, and showed me his trophies, He little knew
that even then the pen was at work which would unmask.
the gigantic imposture, and make it known that a prize
medal when presented to Boehm, instead of being an
honour to the recipient, “tells against” those by whom it
is awarded.* Did they not give him a gold medal at
the Paris Exhibition of 1855, and another in London in
1851, for the ill-tuned instrument he exhibited on these
occasions? Pretty jurors, indeed, they must have been
to offer a gold medal to an impostor. To such lengths
can folly go that Berlioz, who was one of them, himself
a flute-player,® assured his brother jurymen that the
eight-keyed flute, the instrument on which he was accus-
tomed to play, when compared with Boehm’s, was only
fit to be heard ata fair. Berlioz, however, did not suc-
ceed in climbing the pinnacle of absurdity. “It was
reserved for an amateur of Plymouth,” we are told, “to
perpetrate the crowning folly. ‘The Boehm flute,’ wrote
this gentleman, ‘is as superior to the old eight-keyed
instrument, as is the latter to the one-keyed flute.’”
Yet the Plymouth amateur was but an usurper. Justice
requires that the crown should be taken from his head,
and placed on that of one whom Mr. Rockstro regards
“with feelings akin to reverence,” M. Victor Coche, Pro-
fessor of the flute in the Paris Conservatoire of Music.
M. Coche makes the comparison with a twelve instead

8 Rockstro on the Flute, section 911, p. 617.

® Berlioz was not, like most composers, a pianist ; his two instru-
ments were the flute and the guitar. When he was a young man,
his father, who wished him to enter the medical profession, suc-
ceeded in inducing him to learn his bones by the bribe of a brand
new flute with all the latest keys.

10 Rockstro on the Flute, section 645, p. 368. The amateur of
Plymouth was Dr. Kelsall. The letter in which he makes the
statement quoted by Mr. Rockstro will be found at p. 339.
182 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of an eight-keyed flute, and pronounces the difference
to be not only as great, but even still greater.

But if Boehm must be regarded as an impostor when
viewed in the light of an inventor or a man of science,
' Mr. Rockstro admits that in the character of a pirate he
gives proofs of genius of the highest order. Indeed, his
skill in appropriating the ideas of others was only
equalled by the effrontery he displayed in feigning
ignorance of the source from which these ideas were
derived. He copied more suo, we are told by Mr.
Rockstro, most of the improvements that had been intro-
duced in England and France, but except in one
instance, and that was in a private letter, he “invariably
failed to acknowledge his obligations.” He seems to
have been ever on the. look out all over Europe for
improved flutes, just as a gigantic octopus stretches out
its arms in search of the crustacea on which it preys,
seizes them, draws them in, sucks them dry, then throws
aside the empty shells, and passes them by in disdain.

Mr. Rockstro is smarting under a sense of a personal
slight of this kind which he believes he has suffered at
the hands of Boehm. It appears that on examining
flutes sent out from Boehm’s factory since the year
1864, that great epoch in the history of our instrument
when “the Rockstro Model” made its appearance on
this planet, Mr. Rockstro is under the impression that
he has detected traces of his own improvements; so
much so, that he avers that Boehm did not scruple to
copy him in many particulars. Yet “the ruling passion,”
we are told, “was strong within him almost to the end
of his long life” ; for when he had entered his eighty-
fifth, if not his eighty-sixth year, and so was standing

1 “Si Pon prenait pour point de comparaison la fitite vulgaire 2
six trous et a une clef, on pourrait dire que la différence entr’elle et
notre fliite 4 douze clés, est moins grande que celle qui existe entre
cette derniére et la fiite de Bohm.”—Coche’s Examen Critique,

p. 3.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 183

on the brink of eternity, he confessed that he had com-
mitted the offence (a crime of which Mr. Rockstro will
not admit that he was guilty) of never having heard of
the “Rockstro Model.” Indeed, he added insult to
injury, and proceeded to declare that the perfection
which he had been informed by a correspondent had
been claimed by Mr. Rockstro for his flute could be
“nothing than humbug,” on the ground that “anybody
who understands anything of acoustics or mechanism
knows that nothing is perfect.” ?

Even in this stage Mr. Rockstro’s portrait of Boehm
is not very pleasant to contemplate, yet it is quite bright
and attractive in comparison with the hue it is to assume
before it is finished. It is not till Mr. Rockstro comes
to the Boehm-Gordon controversy that he begins to
put on his more lurid colours. Up to this time Boehm
is only represented as an impostor, a thief, and a lying
and contemptible hypocrite ; he now begins to appear
as a veritable fiend.

The charge which used to be brought against him
was that he was deficient in a sense of truth and honour.
It was alleged that he took “ideas” from Gordon’s
invention when shown to him in London on the occasion
of a call, and embodied them in the Boehm flute, but
that when called upon by a rival to admit that the
instrument which bore his name was the discovery of
a gentleman of the name of Gordon, he declined to
give that gentleman the credit of the so-called dis-
covery. This was the old story; but now Boehm be-
comes a monster of perfidy from whom we recoil with
disgust and loathing. The “ignorant impostor,” it
seems, was far too stolid to take in Gordon’s ideas when
that gentleman’s flute was shown to him in London ;
but he saw enough to sharpen his appetite. Accord-
ingly the scene of the robbery changes from London to
Boehm’s house at Munich. The spider has invited the

2 Rockstro on the Flute, sections 911, 912, pp. 615-19.
184 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

fly to walk into his parlour, and the invitation has been
accepted. Here Boehm, whilst pretending to assist
Gordon in his efforts to complete his invention, with
the malignant cunning of a Mephistopheles induces him
to reject the system which he is at the same time
slowly, silently, and secretly appropriating."

If, during his researches into the history of the flute,
Mr. Rockstro had lighted upon what seemed to be in-
disputable proofs of the truth of such allegations as
these, he would have acted wisely had he sought the
advice of his friends before publishing them to the
world, seeing that all the actors in this little drama
have gone to their long rest, and charges against the
dead are from their very nature er parte statements.
But what are we to say when we have good reason for
knowing, as we have, that this repulsive story is purely
fictitious; that the loathsome scene here depicted is
but the riot of a too exuberant imagination; when,
Mr. Rockstro himself adduces evidence, if other evidence
were wanting, which shows that the Boehm flute was
finished before Gordon entered Boehm’s house, and
that, whilst he was staying there, Boehm, instead of
acting the nefarious part here assigned to him, was
engaged in the harmless occupation of learning to play
it? It is true that Boehm was not a man of high
position ; but to a flute-player his good name is as
much the immediate jewel of his soul as it is to a Lord
Chancellor or an Archbishop. For my own part I would
rather steal the design of a dozen flutes, and be twice
as untruthful as Mr. Rockstro represents Boehm, than
I would allow myself to blast the character of one rest-
ing in the grave, however safe and easy the task might,
be, even if he were the humblest clodhopper that ever
followed the plough.

It is only fair towards Mr. Rockstro to say that he
shows some compunction for what he has done. He

“ Rockstro on the Flute, section 608, p. 340 ; section 629, p. 354.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 185

tells us that he has reopened the discussion with much
regret. Commenting on this expression, a critic writes :
“He may discover that it will be closed to his greater
sorrow.” To defend himself he raises the cry, so often
heard before, of “Justice to Gordon!” As if ample
justice had not been done to Gordon long ago by
Boehm himself, who speaks of his talents, of his inge-
nuity, of his courage, of his modesty, of his high sense
of honour, and of his loyalty to his engagements, bears
testimony to the respect, in which he was held, and
sums up by declaring that he was “a gentleman in every
respect.” Gordon was not aware that he had been
wronged. When he saw Boehm’s flute, so far from
invoking justice or showing resentment, he asked and
obtained Boehm’s permission to make use of some of
the ideas it suggested. It was not Gordon who was
aggrieved, but the would-be flute-inventors, and their
grievance was that Boehm towered high above them all.
Does Mr. Rockstro suppose that his readers are so
stone-blind as not to perceive that this petty but
acrimonious dispute is the outcome of trade rivalry,
and flute-constructors’ jealousy? That “Justice to
Gordon!” when translated from the language of flute-
makers into plain English is “Down with Boehm !”

At this point, if we could believe Mr. Rockstro to be
given to jesting, we should credit him with treating us to
an excellent joke. He offers to produce a witness who
he assures us is “absolutely disinterested.” The “abso-
lutely disinterested ” gentleman steps into the box, when
whom do we recognise but one of the most ambitious
of Boehm’s would-be rivals, a rival, however, over whom
his triumph was complete, our old friend Mr. Cornelius
Ward. In 1831 Gordon employed Ward to make a
flute; but instead of giving him a second order, he
transferred his business to Boehm. Some years after-
wards, Ward brought out a flute of his own “which
should afford greater mechanical facilities than had been
186 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

attained by Gordon, Boehm, or Coche ;”* in other words,
to oust the Boehm flute from the market. This revolu-
tion Mr. Ward believed to have commenced as soon as
his flute made its appearance, for he informs us that it
at once had the happy effect of “ directly displacing the
Boehm in several instances.” *® How this gentleman can
be said to have contemplated the scene from the dis-
interested pinnacle of philosophic indifference we are not
told.

Unluckily Ward’s evidence is as unsatisfactory as his
disinterestedness is questionable. He deals in opinions
and generalities. There is an instance, it is true, in
which he gives us a specific statement, and that is when
he informs us that the holes of Gordon’s flute “were
placed consistently with the proper length of tube
required for each fundamental note in the chromatic
gamut”; but we are told by Mr. Rockstro that on this
point he was not competent to give evidence, for the
holes of his own flute were so badly arranged that his
judgment was worthless..* Ward states that Gordon
had “contrived a method of acting upon the additional

 Rockstro on the Flute, section 640, p. 364.

© Ward’s letter to the Musical World, see Appendix, p. 329.

© See Rockstro on the Flute, section 568, p..311, and compare
the passage with another to be found in section 599, p. 335, of the
same work. According to Mr. Rockstro, Ward, like Boehm, placed
his holes too far apart (Rockstro on the Flute, section 642, p. 365),
both he and Gordon, following Pottgiesser, having determined the
position of the holes by the divisions of the monochord (section 599,
p- 335), a method which Mr. Rockstro in another place (section 348,
p. 168) pronounces to be fallacious. Yet, although he declares this
method to be fallacious, when Boehm stated that Gordon’s flute
was out of tune he is charged with injustice ! (section 590, p. 328).
Indeed, we are informed by Mr. Rockstro that it was not until he
himself took up the subject that what he believes to be “the first
attempt to arrange the positions of the holes of a wind instrument
according to any rational system” was made (section 669, p. 384).
This being the case, the circumstance that Ward was blundering,
and poor Boehm groping in the dark, becomes more intelligible.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION, 187

apertures beyond the number of fingers,” !” but he gives
no account of the mechanism by which he accomplished
his purpose. He says that he heard Boehm play ona
flute “very similar in principle” to that which he made
for Captain Gordon, but he does not attempt to show
that the means employed for carrying out the principle
on the two instruments were identical. He gives us his
“decided opinion” that Gordon was entitled to more
credit than Boehm, but he omits to give us the facts on
which his opinion rests. If instead of giving us his
“decided opinion” he had given us a drawing, or even a
close description of the instrument he made for Gordon,
he would have furnished us with valuable evidence. He
tells us, it is true, that it closely resembled a drawing of
a different instrument, but he fails to inform us where
the resemblance is to be found.

In private he appears to have made use of language
which he was either afraid or ashamed to publish, We
are told that his printed statements were studiously
moderate in comparison with the latitude of expres-
sion he allowed himself in his conversations with
Mr. Rockstro. But whilst he was thus shouting “Stop
thief!” at the top of his voice, the “absolutely dis-
interested ” gentleman was quietly walking off, without
the shadow of an acknowledgment, with Gordon’s
original idea, the crank and wire mechanism. Nor was
Gordon’s the only invention he appropriated. If we
may believe Mr. Rockstro, he collected together the
proposals of the greater part of the flute-reformers of
the preceding sixty or seventy years, and converted
them into his own property. The specification of his
patent included no less than seven flutes, on examining
the drawings of which Mr. Rockstro has discovered
embodied in them not only the ideas of Boehm, Gordon,
Coche and Buffet, but even those of the earlier German

17 See note 12, p. 26 of this work.
18 Ward’s letter to the Musical World, Appendix, p. 329.
188 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

workers Pottgiesser,’® and Tromlitz. Nay, more; not
content with annexing the inventions of the past, this
seer-eyed kleptomaniac turned his attention to the
discoveries of the future, and devised a crescentic touch

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 14.—Ward’s crescentic E flat key. From the specification of his patent.

for the E flat key ; a contrivance which Mr. Rockstro
“designed” ° ten years afterwards. Yet the “disin-
terested ” Ward cries “ Shame!” on Boehm who, instead
of taking out a patent, had made the world a present
of his invention,”*

 Rockstro on the Flute, section 640, p. 363.

2 Tbid., section 670, p. 386.

*1 An idea of the nature of Ward’s disinterestedness may be
gathered from a perusal of the following extract from his
pamphlet :—

“ Our patent was obtained, and our flute adopted by many of the
first amateurs, who speedily demonstrated its superiority. A little
previous to this time no small stir and commotion had existed in
the flute world, both of makers and performers, in reference to our
invention, then only partly disclosed. As its qualities, however,
became developed, it became very soon evident, both to makers
and to players, that the days of the old flute were numbered, no
person of the smallest musical sensibility hesitating a moment in
opinion ; the performers who had attained eminence by genius or
indomitable industry might indeed wear their hard-earned laurels
without descending to go to school again; but it was clear that the
new flute would become the instrument of the rising generation.
Flutes of the costliest description were sold for a third or fourth of
their cost, and were replaced by the new invention; and the
demand on the old makers was suddenly interrupted. Othello’s
occupation was gone. The result was anticipated. Experiments
had been instituted, invention put into requisition, to produce
something original, and mysterious rumours were circulated, on
the monies parturiunt system, of some forthcoming wonder. All
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 189

But it is not only as an absolutely disinterested
witness that Ward is held up for our admiration ; he
is pronounced to be “Boehm’s superior in every way
except in the matter of musical attainments.” Still,

these attempts proved abortive. On the completion of our patent,
embracing, as it was found to do, the results of almost all possible
experiments and desiderata, all these schemes and pretensions were
dissipated to the winds; and the expedient at last resorted to,
because nothing else was left, was to fall back upon the formerly
reviled and persecuted Boehm ; to discover, all at once, that it was
perfection, and to confess how very unjustly and ignorantly they
had condemned it. The praise of these parties is worth as much
as their former censure, and, in its turn, may have to be revoked.”

Having thus made known what, in his opinion, were the motives
which induced Messrs. Rudall and Rose to take up the manufac-
ture of the Boehm flute, the “ absolutely disinterested” gentleman
turns his attention to Mr. Card, who had also crossed his path by
bringing out an improved flute.

‘* Other parties,” he continues, “not prepared to proceed so far
(wulgo ‘to go the whole hog’), attached bits and morsels of the
Gordon or other flutes to their own. Indeed; as we have mentioned
the ‘ANIMAL,’ the whole affair brings forcibly to mind the pro-
ceedings described by Cowper, after Mahomet’s mysterious edict
against the porcine genus :—

‘ Much controversy straight arose ;
These chose the back,—the belly those.
By some ’twas confidently said,

He meant not to forbid the head.

Whilst others at that doctrine rail,
And piously prefer the tail’

This hotch-potch, piece-meal affair, the appropriators do not
hesitate to name their ‘New Patent Flute’—patent, forsooth !
‘because it retains the old patent tuning head of Potter.

“ But it is time for us to return. We should not have troubled
our readers with these matters, but that they form the strongest
species of evidence, that of rivals in trade, as to the amount of
importance attached to our invention, as well as to the certain fate
of the old flute. How otherwise can be explained the bustle, the
inventions or rumoured inventions, the pilferings or appropriations,
the false announcements, and deceitful appellations we have de-
scribed? How are men brought to eat their own words, and to
bepraise as immodestly a mediocre instrument, as they before
immoderately condemned it?”—Ward, The Flute Explained, p. 15.
I90 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

notwithstanding his superiority, the flute he made for
Gordon only added another to that gentleman’s list of
failures, nor was it until he had recourse to the “ignorant
impostor” that Gordon succeeded in producing an instru-
ment which he could venture to bring before the public.
Ward’s own flute, too, quickly died a natural death,
whilst that of his inferior in every respect has been
advancing from strength to strength for nearly sixty
years. Then again, Mr. Rockstro himself showed his
appreciation of Ward’s superiority in a singular way.
In his younger days he was on terms of friendship with
Ward, and played on his flute, but he deserted his friend
and abandoned _ his instrument for that invented by the
“ignorant impostor.” And yet, judging from Mr.
Rockstro’s description, it was not possessed of charms
which Mr. Rockstro found himself powerless to resist.
At this time the Boehm flute was, he tells us, “an in-
herently imperfect thing,” *? with mechanism which, not-
withstanding “its apparent simplicity, was constantly
out: of order” ;** its tone was “lamentably inferior” to
that of the best patterns of the English eight-keyed flute ;
whilst its holes were placed so “extravagantly ” out of
their proper position, that it was “ outrageously ” * out
of tune. Still, in spite of all this, it was the means of
seducing Mr. Rockstro from the path of loyalty to his
friend.

The story of Mr. Rockstro’s seduction is quite
romantic ; it adds another to the many proofs we already
possess of the gigantic power of fascination. The ser-
pent is not an attractive beast, still the little bird, after
hovering for a while round its ugly head, flies straight
into the repulsive reptile’s gaping mouth. The fox is
not an animal to which a fat turkey would desire to have
an introduction, but the poor creature turns giddy, loses
its balance, flutters down from the tree in which it is

22 Rockstro on the Flute, section 643, p. 367.
% Thid., section 594, p. 331. * Ibid., section 644, p. 367.
ae ena

EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. IQI

securely perched, and falls a helpless victim at Reynard’s
feet, as he gazes at her in silence from below.

Mr. Rockstro seemed to have a foreboding of his
approaching fall ; he therefore took precautions. Before
entering into temptation, he made “a stipulation that no
persuasion should be used.” > But what did this avail ?
The moth might as well make a stipulation on approach-
ing the candle. The stipulation was loyally kept, but
all to no purpose. Mr. Rockstro’s powers of resistance
quickly evaporated, his virtuous resolve melting away as
melts the snow before the sun. It was not long before
he threw himself, uninvited, into the tempter’s arms, and,
like the fair but frail Julia,

“whispering ‘I will ne’er consent ’—consented.”

“My determination,” he writes, “soon began to waver,
and before the expiration of six months I sold my flute,
a proceeding for which poor Ward never quite forgave
me, and began to practise steadily on”—on what ?—on
the “lamentably,” the “extravagantly,” the “outrage-
ously,” the “inherently imperfect thing,” produced by
Ward’s inferior in every respect, except in the matter of
musical attainments.

And now comes a grand display of the wonders of
science—of real, genuine, Rockstro science, not the
spurious Boehm article. Indeed, the sequel, more
marvellous even than science, reads like a fairy tale; it
is a modern version of the story of “Beauty and the
Beast.” I shall not avail myself of the fairy’s spell to
transform Mr. Rockstro, as he has thought proper to
transform Boehm, into Ward’s inferior, or into an inferior
of any sort or kind, but into a loving and compassionate
being in whose pure unsullied breast no poison of envy,
hatred, or jealousy has ever rankled ; a gentle maiden
whose disposition is as sweet as perfume of the roses

2 Rockstro on the Flute, section 925, p. 633.
192 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

amongst which she dwells ; whose heart is as soft and
tender as the strains she draws from the harpsichord on
which her fingers stray. No sooner, then, had Beauty
been united to the Beast than the “inherently imperfect
thing” began to yield to the magic of the fairy’s wand.
Its holes, placed so “extravagantly” far apart, drew
themselves miraculously together; a re-born crescent
rose to gleam from the touch of the E flat key ; whilst
the dry old stick, like Aaron’s rod, put forth a bud,
and soon the “Rockstro F sharp lever” blossomed on
the parent stem. In fact, to cut a long story short,
the “most wretched” 7° old monstrosity, which Beauty

7 “The earlier metal flutes made after the model of Boehm
were most wretched in tone, as well as in intonation, and it was
only after a series of improvements, culminating in 1864, that they
became the charming drawing-room instruments they are at
present.” So we are told by Mr. Rockstro in the 320th section
(p. 145) of his Treatzse on the Flute. But a gentleman who devoted
himself exclusively to drawing-room playing, and was acknowledged
to be the most finished drawing-room player of his time, writing to
Boehm in the name of the firm of which he was the head, and
underscoring the words here italicised, expresses himself as follows :
“The French seem to be going from your original intention, and
their instruments are not equal to your silver flute in our pos-
session; there is not the slightest doubt as to the vast superiority
of your metal flute over every other. Indeed, we think that there
is no wind instrument that possesses so many charms.” Referring
to a metal flute of Boehm’s make, he adds: “The Mame of the
Flute has been suggested by a Gentleman of Classical Knowledge
and a Flute-Player of great Taste, as the most expressive of its
perfections, viz. che Stren Flute.” This was not written in the year
1864, when the silver star was

“Riding near her highest noon ”

in the meridian of the Rockstro model, but on the 2nd of September,
1847, just after the new luminary had appeared above the horizon,
it having emerged from the creative brain of Boehm in the previous
year. The gentleman who wrote thus of this “most wretched”
drawing-room instrument was Mr. George Rudall. Whether
Mr. Rudall was, or was not, qualified to judge of the tone and
intonation of a drawing-room flute may be gathered from the
following account of his playing given by Mr. Rockstro: “It was °
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 193

“again and again” had striven to love, but had
“always” relinquished “in disgust,” 2? vanished, and
there burst upon the gaze of an astonished and delighted
world a new and “charming” model; a model whose
birthday, we are told, ought never to be forgotten by
him who is about to select a flute, for the name of this
peerless form is Perfection.

But we must descend from the region of fancy to the
prosaic sphere of historical fact. The spring of 1831
found Boehm and Gordon both in London. Boehm

always a source of regret to his friends that Rudall could never be
induced to play in public; he even declined an invitation to play
before George the Third, but as a drawing-room player he was
immensely popular. I well remember my delight on first hearing
him play; I thought that he produced the most charming music I
had ever heard. Though his tone was not powerful, it was so
clear, so sweet, and so indescribably sympathetic, that, once heard,
it was not likely to be forgotten. His expression was absolutely
enchanting, and his execution, as far as it went, perfect.”

Mr. Rudall does not confine himself to his own opinion. In
another letter he mentions the effect the “wretched” instrument
produced on those who heard it. “You know,” he writes, “that I
am not a player of difficult passages, but I have played in my own
style in a great number of parties, and your metal flute has
astonished and delighted every one. They all exclaim that they
had no conception of the flute being brought to such perfection.”
He admits, however, that one of the notes was not satisfactory.
“There is some little imperfection about the D, which Clinton says
that you are aware of; if so, there is no fear of your capacity to
remedy it.” :

27 Rockstro on the Flute, section 668, p. 383. So convinced were
musicians in Paris of the superiority, for orchestral purposes, of the
instrument (Boehm’s cylindrical flute with the parabolic head joint)
which excited Mr. Rockstro’s disgust, that they brought about its
compulsory adoption, to the exclusion of all other flutes, in those
orchestras for which there was a State subvention. Moreover, it
was rendered obligatory on the players engaged to use metal flutes,
yet Mr. Rockstro tells us that flutes made of metal “are, and must
be, eminently unfitted for orchestral performance” (section 320,
p. 145).

% Ibid., section 703, p. 413.

*G
194 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

appears to have come to England on a musical errand,
if we may judge from the circumstance that he was
engaged to play the flute at the Philharmonic and other
concerts. But whatever might have been the primary
object of his visit, he soon had an opportunity afforded
him of employing his talent for invention.

Gordon was on his travels in search of a flute-maker.
After devoting some years to his project of improving
the flute, he considered that he had succeeded in the year
previous, 1830. But though satisfied with his invention,
he was very much dissatisfied with those he employed to
carry out his design ; for not one of their instruments
was playable. Parisian flute-makers having failed, he
tried Swiss watch-makers, but in vain. Thus foiled on
the Continent,- he determined to have recourse to the
flute-playing island, and accordingly he came to London
and put his model into Mr. Ward’s hands. Ward’s
efforts only resulting in another disappointment, he
decided on consulting Boehm, who, as we have seen,
was busy with his inventions at Gerock and Wolf's, in
Cornhill.

It was during the call which Gordon made on Boehm
for this purpose that the theft of his invention is alleged
to have been perpetrated.27 We have it, however, on
the authority of Gordon himself that Boehm told him
on this occasion that it was his intention on his return
home to try to make an improved flute (une fifite per-
fectionnée), and that he promised to send him one of these
perfected instruments.2° Now if Boehm had not in his
mind the intention of making such a flute before Gordon
entered the room, we must credit him with a rapidity of
conception simply superhuman. The idea of appro-
priating the design Gordon was showing him, of bring-
ing it out as his own, and of crowning his piratical
achievement with the daring stroke of genius of sending

% Supra, p. 153. %° Infra, p. 419.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 195

Gordon his own invention in a new dress, must have
flashed through his brain with more than the speed of
lightning.

It is, of course, unnecessary to point out that the
accusation brought against Boehm was a defamatory
libel. It affected his character for honour, honesty, and
trustworthiness, and so was calculated to injure him as
a man of business. It should not be forgotten that
Coche, Clinton, and Ward, by whom the defamatory
statements were put forth, were all of them men who
had set themselves up in opposition to him as rivals
in the flute trade; and it is significant that Coche did
not make the discovery that the Boehm flute was
invented by Gordon until he became a flute-maker,
whilst Clinton was loud in his defence of Boehm as long
as he taught and sold the Boehm flute, but no sooner
had he put on the market a flute of his own, than he
joined the hue and cry against him. Moreover, not one
of these gentlemen comes into court with clean hands.
Each of them had taken what suited him from Boehm’s
invention ; Coche boasting that he had copied the Boehm
flute with the most scrupulous exactitude, whilst both
Ward and Clinton had adopted the ring mechanism of
that instrument. Nor was this all. Clinton openly
acknowledged that he had taken the idea of one of his
keys from Gerock and Wolf’s flute, which was the pro-
duction of Boehm; whilst Ward, in addition to his
annexation of Boehm’s ring-keys, had secretly ap-
propriated Gordon’s crank and wire system. The
spectacle of Boehm hunted by such pursuers as these on
the ‘ground that he was a bigger wolf than either of
themselves, with Mr. Rockstro as huntsman to the pack,
lustily winding his horn, and waving aloft his model flute,
as he follows in the chase, is truly edifying.

In endeavouring to ascertain whether or not there is
any foundation for the allegations put forward by the

O 2
196 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

libellers of Boehm, the first thing we should wish to see
would naturally be a drawing of the flute which Gordon
showed Boehm on the occasion of the interview to which
reference has just been made, it being the instrument from
which the ideas were alleged to have been stolen. Ward,
had he thought proper, might have furnished us with
such a drawing, but for reasons best known to himself
he has left us in the dark. But, although the flute from
which Boehm was alleged to have derived his ideas was
gone for ever, on looking into the case I saw that there
was available evidence of still greater value. Before the
interview took place, “I had already made in London,”
says Boehm, “the model of my new flute, and I showed
him (Gordon) all that I had made.” I was able to point
out that a drawing of this model which Boehm showed
to Gordon was still in existence.

It came to light in the following way. The overstrung
pianoforte was not the only invention on which Boehm
was engaged at Gerock and Wolf’s; he undertook to
make for this firm an improved flute. This flute was
finished, and Mr. Wolf was endeavouring to introduce it
to the English players whilst Ward was still engaged in
constructing Gordon’s instrument. An engraving of the
instrument survived, for Gerock and Wolf had published
a ‘Scale and Description of Boehm’s Newly-invented
Patent Flute, manufactured and sold by the Patentees
only, Gerock and Wolf, 79 Cornhill; and a copy of this
publication, believed to be unique, was in the possession
of Mr. Richard Carte. Now, on comparing two expres-
sions used by Boehm in his letters, it became apparent
that this instrument was the model which Boehm showed
Gordon on the occasion of the call to which I am
referring.”

This discovery threw a new light on the subject; a
light which, as will be seen, proved very disastrous to the

31 See Ward’s letter to the Musical World, p. 329.
82 See p. 85.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 197

libellers of Boehm. It enabled us to examine the case
from a better standpoint than that of mere assertion and
denial ; it being obvious that any ideas we find embodied
in this model, from whatever source Boehm might have
obtained them, could not have been taken from Gordon’s
flute, inasmuch as the model was finished before he saw
that instrument.

How does our historian deal with all this? He does
me the honour of repeating my quotations, which identify
Gerock and Wolf’s flute with Boehm's first model, and
he acquiesces in my conclusion that they are one and the
same; but the use to which he and I put the instrument
is very different. Mr. Rockstro converts it into a stick
with which to beat Boehm. He declares Boehm to have
been “ particularly reticent” about the rod he had thus
unwittingly put into pickle for his own back, and ignoring
the circumstance that hundreds of copies of the engraving
of it had been struck off and scattered over the world in
this little book, he treats Gerock and Wolf’s pamphlet
as a thing specially preserved by good fortune and
Mr. Carte for his own purpose. Taking the ‘Scale of
Fingering,’ which he reprints, as a handle, he proceeds
to belabour the poor old man with all his might.

Judging from Mr. Rockstro’s representations, the in-
strument was a disgrace even to an impostor. It is true
that he does not profess to have either seen or heard it,
but this drawback presents no difficulty to him. En-
dowed with the gift of clairvoyance, he enjoys the use
of spiritual eyes and ears, and what they reveal to him
“must be” as reliable as Gospel-truth. Indeed, in his short
description of this flute we are called upon to swallow
no less than five musts. Unless there was a mistake in
the scale, the high E “must have been” horribly flat, and
much worse ‘than the same note on a one-keyed flute ;
the high F “must have been” at least three-quarters
of a tone higher than the next semitone below, although
the fingering for this note “may be a misprint ae
198 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

the fingering given for the high G “must have” ren-
dered that note nearly a quarter of a tone too flat as
compared with next two notes below; the instrument
itself “ must have been” far inferior, on the whole, to the
ordinary eight-keyed flute as generally made in England ;
whilst the notes of the third octave especially “must
have been more out of tune than on any well made one-
keyed flute, or any eight-keyed flute ever constructed.”
In addition to all these must-have-beens, one of Boehm’s
vent-holes was “most improper,” and the holes of his
foot-joint, if the engraving is to be trusted, were “shock-
ingly” ill-placed. Nor does Mr. Rockstro confine his
slashing blows to Boehm. He flies at Gerock and Wolf,
who were guilty of the crime of encouraging the “ ignorant
impostor,” and administers a stinging backhander, de-
nouncing their flute as an imposture, and by implication
branding these gentlemen as impostors because they
did not carry out their design of taking out a patent;
Boehm having, as we have just seen, announced his
intention of constructing a flute with still greater im-
provements soon after this instrument was completed.*

83 In the extract given in this work from Gerock and Wolf’s
pamphlet announcing their new flute, I commenced in the middle
of a sentence, and Mr. Rockstro, to make amends for ignoring my
existence, has paid me the flattering compliment of beginning at
the very same word. In the pamphlet, however, the extract was
preceded by an historical sketch, as follows :—“ The flute, in its
earliest and most simple state, was recognised and appreciated as
one of the most effective of musical instruments, but, from the
peculiarity of its construction and consequent irregularity of its
scale, remained long intractable, even in superior hands, except in
the two or three keys that were natural to it, and into which keys
all music intended for it was necessarily transposed.

“The mellifluous quality of its tone, however, created so general a
desire that it might be rendered more extensively. available that
invention had a powerful stimulus to improvement, and ingenious
men succeeded in attaching keys, that amounting in the end to
eight or nine in number, widened in a surprising manner the sphere
of its usefulness in skilful hands; and then it was found to possess
EXAMINATION OF MR, ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 199

But whilst we are watching Mr. Rockstro as he is thus
engaged in kicking the dead lion, we are losing sight of
matters of greater importance. Leaving what Gerock
and Wolf’s flute “must have been” to Mr. Rockstro, let
us consider what it was. Whether it was better or worse
than a one-keyed flute, we know “that Mr. Wolf dis-
played considerable talent in his performance upon it.” *

capabilities for expression as well as tone that were not previously
supposed to belong to it. Hence the practice of the flute became
universal, so as to supersede in a great measure that of the violin,
from which only had hitherto been expected accuracy of intonation
and variety of expression, which it was now found might be
elicited, though probably in a minor degree, from the flute.

“The sanction of public favour on its behalf attracted the talents
of first-rate masters, and original compositions for this interesting
instrument increased in number and in science until it was found
unequal to all the variety that was required from it, and deficient
in accuracy upon some passages, more or less, according to the
abilities of the performer who drew forth its powers; and, both in
the orchestra and in the drawing-room, desires for still greater
perfection, especially in concerted music, became generally’
manifested.

“ Acting on this impression, the patentees, Messrs. Gerock and
Wolf, having availed themselves,” &c. For a continuation of this
extract see p. 85 of this work, and section 583, p. 323, of Mr.
Rockstro’s Treatise on the Flute.

There is no date to this pamphlet, but we learn from Ward’s
letter to the Musical World (p. 131) that it was published by
Messrs. Gerock and Wolf at the time they made the flute—that is in
the year 1831. Mr. Rockstro, however, gives 1832 as the year in
which it was issued (Rockstro on the Flute, section 582). It turns
out, however, that the authority for this date is of the must have
been kind. The pamphlet was reviewed in the Harmonicon of
April 1832 ; ego, according to Mr. Rockstro, it must. have been
issued in that year. Mr. Rockstro’s 7veatise on the Flute was
reviewed in Musical Opinion of February 1891, so if we are to
trust such logic as this, the work was issued in 1891 ; but if this is
the year in which it must have been issued, as a matter. of fact,
it was distributed to the subscribers in the summer or early in the
autumn of the preceding year 1890.

3 Ward’s letter to the Musical orld, see Appendix, p. 329.
200 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Whether or not it was inferior to any eight-keyed flute
ever made, it was an instrument on which English
flute improvers (with the exception of Mr. Ward, who,
Mr. Rockstro has ascertained, adopted ideas of German
origin) lived for twenty years ; it being the source from
which Card,®= Clinton, Siccama, and through him Pratten,
drew their inspiration.

To us, however, its chief value lies in the light it
throws on the charges brought against Boehm by his
libellers. These libellers I now purpose bringing to
trial. But in their trial I will not confine myself to the
information to be obtained from the drawing of this
flute; I will avail myself also of the facts brought to
light by Mr. Rockstro. Indeed, we will engage this
gentleman in a double capacity ; we will subpcena him
as a witness for the prosecution, and at the same time
retain him as counsel for the defence. We shall find
his evidence strangely at variance with his advocacy.
The one is a continuous vindication of Boehm, the other
as constantly vilifies and loads him with ignominy. In
fact, like Balaam of old, whilst striving with all his might
to curse, Mr, Rockstro finds himself constrained at every
step to bless,

In the indictment under which the libellers wili be
arraigned there will be. five counts. They will be
charged with publishing statements to the effect that
Boehm took from Gordon, first, the idea of making an
excavation to receive the lower lip; secondly, the idea of
how to find the division of the column of air; thirdly,

%> Ward, in his letter to the AZuszcal World, pronounces Card’s
flute to be “a part” of Boehm’s first model, and in the extract just
given (note, p. 189) from his pamphlet he terms the instrument
a “hotch-potch affair.” But whilst he was thus throwing Card’s
“annexations” in his teeth, he was concealing so carefully the
chief source from which his own hotch-potch was derived that
Mr. Rockstro did not discover it for forty-four years. See his
Treatise on the Flute, section 489, p. 262.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 201

the idea of constructing flutes on a system of open keys ;
fourthly, the fingering of the Boehm flute ; fifthly, the
idea of the ring-key. We will see how far they can
defend themselves by establishing that their allegations
are true either in substance or in fact.

First, the excavation to receive the lower lip.

Was Coche's statement that Gordon was the first to
make such an excavation ®* true or false? Alas, poor
Coche! You little knew when you made this assertion
what occasion you would have to exclaim, save me from
my friend! We will put Mr. Rockstro into the witness-
box, and he will at once tell us that before Gordon was
born, Dulon, the blind flute-player, when on his travels,
visited Liichow, where he made the acquaintance of and
played duets with “a most engaging and intellectual
man, whose well-contrived flutes were far superior to
many manufactured by so-called masters.” This was
Dr. Ribock, an enthusiastic amateur, and a zealous
worker in the field of flute reform, who invented keys,
endeavoured to improve the bore, and wrote a treatise
on the instrument. Dulon mentions that the Doctor
had a fancy for “an excavation he was in the habit of
making in that part of the head-joint of a flute which
rests on the chin, thinking by that means to bring the
flute nearer the mouth, so as to prevent any slipping in
the event of the chin perspiring.” *”

As to the advantage believed to result from the use
of this excavation Coche held a different opinion to that
advanced by Dr. Ribock. He considered it to be a cure
for the hissing, which is as great a reproach to our instru-
ment, as is scraping to the fiddle. But however this
may be, the substitution of a flattened for a cylindrical
surface where the instrument is brought into contact
with the lip is certainly a pleasant change. Moreover,
the excavation can be so made as to cause the symphysis

36 Pi 126.
31 Rockstro on the Flute, section 868, p. 568.
202 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of the chin to share with the teeth the pressure of the
flute, a matter deserving consideration when we take
into account the vital importance of the lower incisors to
the flute-player.

Secondly, the statement that Gordon was the first to
jind the division of the column of atr..

The division of the column of air is a fine phrase, and
the use of it serves to show what a scientific man was
Coche. Asa matter of fact, however, as I will point out
before I have done, it is a disputed point whether science
has or has not succeeded, even to this day, in putting
her finger on the division of the column of air within the
flute.*8 One of the two principles on which the Boehm
flute is founded is that the holes should be equalised, or

38 Infra, p. 297. An erroneous notion was once prevalent that
the proper place for the finger holes could be discovered by a
calculation based on the divisions of the monochord, an instrument
on which a stretched string is furnished with a movable bridge, by
means of which the precise length of string required for each note
can be ascertained. Ward, whilst admitting the difficulties of the
calculation, does not seem to have the slightest doubt but that
“the apertures should be placed consistently with the ratio of the
divisions of the monochord.” He even goes into details, adding :
“The lengths of the tubes for each of the fundamental notes of the
flute must be each about one and a half inch shorter than the
monochord indicates.” Gordon had adopted this method of tuning
his flute, and Coche stated that he was “the first to” thus “ find
the division of the column of air,” but Mr. Rockstro has ascertained
that Pottgiesser had previously had recourse to this plan. Coche
fancied that Boehm also had employed this method. “ After he
(Boehm) had settled the proportions of the bore,” 1 am translating
from Coche’s Examen Critique (p. 13), “dividing the portions of
the column of air as those of the monochord, he assigned to the
holes a size and relative distance, calculated according to the
proportion of the tempered notes.” Boehm, however, who was
aware that this idea was illusory (see p. 463), had adopted a very
different way for fixing the approximate position of the holes of his
conical flute of 1832. He made a series of experiments for the
purpose. See his Essay on the Construction of Flutes, p. 19; also
infra, p. 415. It will be observed that Coche falls into a fourfold
error. He is under the belief first that the true place for the holes
of the flute can be ascertained by a calculation based on the
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 203
at least properly graduated in size. When this principle
was adopted, it became necessary, in order to tune the
instrument, to arrange them at distances from each other
diminishing from below upwards in a regular ratio.
Stripped of the jargon of science, it is this. equalisation
of the holes, and their consequent rearrangement, which
Coche here attributes to Gordon. In this Coche does
not stand alone ; Clinton followed him, and stated that
this “new principle” “resulted from the sagacity of
Captain Gordon.”

Now, Mr. Rockstro, you are under examination, will
you tell us if this statement is correct? Poor Coche!
Mr. Rockstro gives his revered friend another knock-
down blow ; but he is an iconoclast of so singular a kind,
that when he has smashed his idol, he still regards the
fragments with unabated reverence. He proceeds to
inform us that the German school of flute reformers, who
preceded Boehm and Gordon, were fully alive to the
importance of a rearrangement of the holes. Tromlitz,
the master of Dr. Ribock, and Dr. Pottgiesser, another
worthy son of Aésculapius, who had devoted his leisure
to the improvement of our instrument, had both at-
tempted to deal with the problem; indeed, Pottgiesser
had gone so far as to equalise the size of all but two of
the holes.2® The idea, then, was not new, nor did it
result from the sagacity of Captain Gordon.

But how came it to pass that the holes of the flute
were in so sada plight that a reformation was thus im-
peratively demanded? ‘The law of the survival of the
fittest, not having contemplated the contingency of man
becoming a flute-playing animal, had made no provision
for causing certain of his fingers to develop until they

 

divisions of the monochord; secondly, that Boehm had arranged
the holes of his flute on this principle; thirdly, that Gordon was
the first to make the calculation; and fourthly, that Boehm had
availed himself of Gordon’s discovery.

8° Rockstro on the Flute, section 543, p. 292.
 

 

* Fig. 15.-Eight-
keyed Flute.

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

had become long enough for his require-
ments, and the flute-makers, following out the
plan adopted with such signal success by
the prophet Mahomet in his treatment of the
mountain, as the fingers would not come to
the holes, had brought the holes to the fingers.
To borrow the beautiful language quoted in
Coche’s scientific and philosophical pamphlet :
“ The piercing of the holes was, mathematically
and acoustically speaking, vicious, for their
position was calculated only on the possible
extension of the digits of man, and not accord-
ing to the immutable laws of physics.”

The culprit amongst the digits to whose
charge the crime of misplacing the holes
must be laid, was the third; the finger of
Apollo, the god-who, finding himself worsted
in his musical contest with Brother Marsyas,
was not ashamed to take a mean and unfair
advantage, and having in this way obtained
an award in his favour, did not wait, as the
humane Mr. Rockstro would have done, until
our poor brother was dead, but proceeded to
tie him to a tree, and to flay him forth-
with.*¢

* What a farce was this so-called contest! At first
the umpires appear to have believed that it was to be
a bond fide competition, and so when Apollo and
Marsyas had each played an air, they did not attempt
to disguise the truth that the flute, which could sustain
tone, was better adapted for giving effect to a melody
than the lyre. Thereupon, Apollo began to sing as
well as to play, and Marsyas to protest, on the ground
that Apollo was using, in addition to the lyre, another
instrument, his voice. Apollo replied, that as Marsyas
was using his mouth, he was at liberty to do the same.
The jurors could not have failed to see through such
sophistry as this. It must have been as evident to
them as it is to us that the voice and the mouth are
very different things; that Apollo was at liberty to
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 205

A glance at an eight-keyed flute (Fig. 15) will show
that the third finger of each hand had drawn its hole

(2 and ¢), upwards far above its proper
place. Fig. 16 is a diagram showing the
relative size and position of the holes,
which are here represented in one line.
From this we see that in the worse case,
that of the right hand, this finger had
arrogated to itself a hole (¢) at least five
times as far from the next below as it
was from the next above, although the
musical interval was in each case the same,
that of a semitone.

Let us now turn to Boehm’s first model,
the flute designed for Gerock and Wolf,
the instrument which Mr. Rockstro does

 

use his mouth only if it would assist him in play-
ing the lyre. By this time, however, no doubt it
had become evident that the umpires dared not
give an honest judgment. No one can believe for
a moment that Apollo would have consented to
be flayed, if they had decided against him, The
glittering fellow would have reduced the whole
party to ashes, or destroyed them with pestilence,
as he did the subjects of Laomedon, who refused to
satisfy the demands he made on the occasion of the
building of the walls of Troy. That Marsyas had
the sympathy of public opinion may be inferred
from the circumstance that so many tears were
shed for him as to give rise to a river which was
called by his name.

41 “Tf we instance no farther than that from
the low E flat to the E natural (but one semitone)
there are nearly two inches and a half to cut off;
and for the next semitone only about half an inch ;
for the next about the same; and then for the next
about one inch and a quarter, and so on, we feel
sure we need not say another word to convince
every one of the excessive absurdities of its con-
struction.”—Ward, The Flute Explained, p. 5.

-

(@©@e@( ee@ © (ce ce eee

ps

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 16.—Diagram

of Holes of Eight-
keyed Flute, show-
ing their: Relative
Size and Position. *
206 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

 

 

 

 

 

not deny that Boehm had made before
he came into contact with Gordon.

To spare the reader the trouble of turn-
ing to a distant page, I have reproduced
the engraving of it (Fig. 17), and on ex-
amining it we see that Boehm, when he
constructed it, was no stranger to the im-
portance of remedying the mischief. He
had dealt with both of the offenders, the
third fingers, but he had not dealt. with
them both in the same way. In the case
of the right hand he had brought the
finger to the lowered and enlarged hole (9),
carrying down with it the whole hand.
The left he treated differently, keeping the
hand in its old place, but furnishing the
third finger with a key (a) to enable it
to act on its hole, now placed beyond its
reach. At present we will confine our atten-
tion to this key, leaving the mechanism
adopted for the right hand until we come
to the fifth count of the indictment.

® A special drawing, here reproduced, of this key
is given in Clinton’s Treatise on the Flute. We
owe it to the practice but too common, as we have
seen, amongst flute-makers of throwing discredit on
their rivals by endeavouring to make it appear that

 

Fig. 18.—Boehm’s Key, after Clinton.

their ideas are not original. Thus Clinton, in
attacking Siccama, published this drawing to show
that the key, which was characteristic of Siccama’s
Diatonic Flute, was taken from Gerock and Wolf’s

Vig.17—Boehm’s instrument.

First Model.

It will be observed that there is no bed for the
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 207

It should not be supposed that there was the slightest

novelty in Boehm’s proposal.

 

Fig. x9. — Flute
showing Valve
for closing ‘the
third hole.

been resorted to in the con-
struction of flutes of unusual size
long before it was applied to
the concert flute. It appears, for
instance, in Fig. 19, which repre-
sents an interesting instrument *

pad of the key, but that Boehm has
had recourse to another well-known
expedient for securing a stop. He has
lined the hole with a tube, the edge of
which rises above the level of the wood,
and thus forms what flute-makers call
a saddle. It may be conjectured that
Boehm also lined the holes ¢ and 4
(Fig. 17) with tubes, and that the rings
for these holes, being made a little
larger than the tubes, when pressed
down, passed outside of and encircled
the ends of the tubes, and thus the
fingers came into contact with their
projecting rims. What makes this not
improbable is the circumstance that it
was in this way that Boehm constructed
his metal flute when, in its earliest form,
the holes were so small that they could
be closed with the finger. In _ his
conical wood flute of 1832, however,
Boehm adopted a different plan. He
excavated a groove in the wood to

receive the ring when it was pressed.

down; an expedient which Pottgiesser
had previously adopted for his crescent
key. See the drawing, p. 83.

4 The material of this instrument is boxwood,
stained of a dark colour. It is 30 inches in length,
irrespective of the doubled portion (7 inches) of the
head. The head is made out of a single piece of
wood. The ascending and descending portions of
the bore are not united by a metal elbow, but open
directly into each other. The opening above their

This expedient had often

 

Fig. 20. — Base
English Flute,
with key for
the third hole.
208 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

belonging to a Belgian gentleman, Mr. Césare
Snoeck. Indeed, this key may be traced
back to the bass English ** flute, as shown in
@ Fig. 20, an instrument which is also the pro-
perty of Mr. Snoeck.

Now, although this key was quickly dis-
carded by Boehm, it is remarkable as having
formed the chief feature of a flute which
forty or fifty years ago bade fair to oust from
popular favour the eight-key flute, which,
though it subsequently yielded to the cylinder,
Boehm’s cone had failed to supplant. I allude
to Siccama’s diatonic flute, of which Fig. 21
isan engraving. It will be seen that Siccama

 

 

junction is closed by a large cork. The cork is con-
cealed by the brass cap which covers the upper end
of the instrument. The hole for the third finger of
the left hand, covered by the open key, is placed far
away from the hole above. The three holes for the
right-hand part are brought within reach of the fingers ;
the first finger hole, for tuning purposes, being made
very large and sloped upwards from the exterior in the
substance of the wood, whilst that for the third finger
is very small in proportion and is sloped downwards.
44 The performer on the bass English flute played
sitting, the wind being conveyed from his mouth to the
top of the instrument by means of a tube, which in this
case is a restoration. The instrument was often fitted
with a rod at the bottom, forming a foot to rest it on
the ground, as in that represented in the engraving.
The lower end of the instrument thus being closed,
a hole was provided, placed in this specimen at the
back, for the lowest note. The total length of the flute
here represented is 4 feet 6} inches; the instrument
itself measuring 42 inches, and the foot 14% inches.
It bears the maker’s name, J. Boekhont ; below it is a
lion rampant, above, a crown. It will be understood
that the key for the little finger of the left hand is an
open, not a closed key like that of the instrument
represented in Fig. 19. It appears closed in the
Fig. ao ea engraving, owing to the spring, which should keep it
Diatonic Flute, Open, happening to be broken,

 

 

 
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 209

did hot. confine the use of this key, like Boehm, to the
left hand, but that he had- recourse to it for the right as
well (Fig. 21, &, @.),

In borrowing this key from Boehm, poor Siccama,
like Gerock and Wolf,. has’ fallen under the ban of
Mr. Rockstro’s displeasure. He is held up to contempt,
and is made the subject. of an attack which I do not
hesitate to say is as unjust as it is uncalled for. His
want ,of inventive genius is represented to be only
exceeded by his ignorance of the flute; whilst we are
asked to believe that his motive in becoming a flute-
maker was the gratification of his vanity; his object
‘being to bring. out a flute associated with his name.
The popularity of his instrument is ascribed partly to
his commercial skill in. advertising, and partly to an
appeal he is stated to have made to the cupidity of
flute-players by presenting one of his flutes to any
professional flautist willing to take up his system. As
to the instrument itself, if it is not pronounced to be,
like the Boehm flute, “an inherently imperfect thing,”
it is stigmatised as “an unnatural and unphilosophical
combination of two incompatible things.” ** In short,
in Abel Siccama, as painted by Mr. Rockstro, we are
treated to another portrait, this time, it is true, only a
miniature, of an ignorant impostor.

I speak from personal knowledge of Mr. Siccama, on
whose flute Pass clayed, and with whom I have spent
many hours in conversation on the subject of flute-
making, when I say that this portrait is as unlike the
original as it is sordidly and ungenerously drawn.
Siccama was a German by birth. He was a good
classical scholar and an accomplished modern linguist.
Before he became a flute-maker, he was engaged in
tuition at Oxford. His enthusiasm for the flute was
unbounded. His chief aim was simplicity of construc-

4 Kockstro on the Flute, sec. 646 e¢ seg., p. 369.
*
P
210 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

tion ; the pet object of his ambition being to contrive a
chromatic flute without keys; an ideal which, however

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rig. 22.
Siccama’s One-keyed
Chromatic Flute.

visionary it may be, will be acknow-
ledged by all flute-players to be a
consummation devoutly to be desired.
He got so far with his project as to
design a flute with only one key, a
closed key for C natural played with the
first finger of the right hand (Fig. 22) ;
but he assigned one of the holes, that
for G, to the right thumb, an expedient
which has been a source of failure in
flutes made both before and since his
time, as this thumb cannot be spared
from its work of holding the flute.

The instrument by which Siccama
was known to the public is his diatonic
flute (Fig. 21, p. 208). It is perfectly
true that he claimed perfect intonation
for this flute; but here Mr. Rockstro,
who is in a glass house, cannot with
propriety commence throwing stones.
Whatever can be said against the dia-
tonic flute, it is unquestionable that in
its finish and workmanship the highest
degree of exccllence was reached, and
that its tone was of surpassing beauty ;

_indeed, Siccama, when preluding on it,

used to elicit notes which exceeded in
purity and sweetness any sounds I have
ever heard issue from a musical instru-
ment.

In accounting for the success of this
flute Mr. Rockstro imputes bribery to

Siccama and corruption to his brother artists. Perhaps
I may be allowed to say that I was well acquainted
with Richardson and Pratten, it having been my
EXAMINATION OF MR, ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 211

privilege to receive instruction from each of them, and
I have too high an opinion of them both to believe
that the present of a Siccama flute would have been
a sufficient inducement to either of them to adopt the
system, unless he honestly believed it to be superior
to that of the eight-keyed flute which he discarded for
its sake. Siccama’s diatonic flute, as I have said, is
pronounced by Mr. Rockstro to be an unnatural com-
bination of two incompatible things; yet for Pratten,
who attempted to perfect this unnatural combination,
the union of the old fingering with the new distri-
bution of the holes, there is nothing but praise, and
Mr. Rockstro confesses that he was highly gratified at
being asked by. that gentleman to assist in the work,
and that he had great pleasure in complying with the
request.’

In justice to Mr. Rockstro I ought not to omit to
mention that in his sketch of Mr. Siccama he assigns
to him one redeeming feature; he adopted the plan
Mr. Rockstro afterwards followed, and “avoided the
mistake of placing the holes generally too far apart.”
Indeed he had made a Boehm flute which I often saw
at his office in Fleet Street, for which he claimed that
the intonation was far more correct than that of the
instruments constructed with the holes placed where
Boehm recommended.

On the other hand, three of the four flutes included
in the specification of Siccama’s patent are pronounced
to be “absolutely worthless.” Yet on looking at the
engraving of these absolutely worthless instruments,
what do we see? Alas! poor Siccama, you are undone !
You have committed the unpardonable sin. You are
another plagiarist by anticipation. There is the oboe
key of the unhappy Boehm; the fatal button of the
luckless Gordon (43, Fig. 23). Stay; is there not a

46 Rockstro on the Flute, sections 671, 672, p. 386.
P 2
212 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

loophole through which you can escape? You have
shifted the hand a semitone upwards, so that your lever
does not close the hole for G like Mr. Rockstro’s, but
that for G sharp. But this will not avail you. Your
key is played, as the description too clearly shows,
by the same fingers of the same hand as that of

6* 6 F* F ES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig. 23.--Siccama’s Lever for closing the G sharp hole.

Mr. Rockstro, and its object is the same, to close the
valve without using either of the rings.*”

There is nothing new under the sun. When ex-
amining the wind instruments in the Museum of the
Paris Conservatoire, what should my eye light upon
but a bass flute on the Siccama plan made certainly
half a century, possibly a century before Siccama
was born. So little attention had this instrument '

“' The following is from the specification of Siccama’s patent
(p- 5): “37 is a valve over the G (G#) sharp hole; this valve
is kept open by the spring 38, except when closed by the
fingering, and it is affixed by an arm to the axis 39, which turns
in the bearings 40, 4o. 41, 42, 42", are rings affixed to and
forming arms on the axis 39, so placed, as that when the first
finger of the right hand closes the G (Gf) natural hole, one or
the other of these rings will be depressed, closing the valve 37;
or the valve 37 may be closed by either the second or the third
Singer of the right hand pressing upon the arm 43 on the axis 39.”
The italics are mine.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION, 213

attracted, that the maker’s name (J. Beuker)
had not been properly deciphered for the
catalogue, in which it was incorrectly
given, nor had it been observed that the
place where it was made (Amsterdam)
was branded on one of the joints.® I
happened to have in my pocket at the time
an ordinary inch measuring tape, with
which I took some measurements, whilst
M. Gustave Chouquet, the then Curator
of the Museum, kindly made for me a
sketch of the instrument—rough, it is true,
but still sufficiently accurate to show the
two Siccama keys. (Fig. 24.)

As to the date of this flute, opinions
differ. M. Chouquet believed that it was
made towards the close of the seventeenth
century; but M. Victor Mahillon, the
Curator of the Museum of the Brussels
Conservatoire, considers this date to be too
early. However, my description ** appears
to have had the happy effect of stimulating
Mr. Rockstro. He has been furnished by
M. Pillaut, M. Chouquet’s successor, with
further particulars and fresh measurements ;
he has also made many efforts to discover
the exact date of its manufacture, but
up to the time of the publication of his
‘ Treatise on the Flute,’ his labours had not

‘been crowned with success.

Thirdly, che substitution of open for closed
keys.

The closed keys: what a tale of preju-
dice, conceit, and obstinacy can these keys

unfold !

48 This was set right in a subsequent edition.
49 See p. 74 of this work, 237 of Mr. Rockstro’s,

 

 

Fig. 24.
Old Bass Flute on
the Siccama Plan.
214 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

 

‘First Flute.

 

Second Flute.

Fig. 25.—Angels playing a Flute Quartett. From a Manuscript Service Book
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 215

 

Third Flute.

 

Fourth Flute.

jn the Library of the Abbey of St. Gall (1562). The original is charmingly coloured.
HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

216

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

= f > LE AS EL? + FRETS: “Eee
edt cet a | armen oe
eth HS ES eee tee
See Pep hsdpa

 

“‘purwan py p srfnjq $3 anod anod ap sigr
217

EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION.

 

 

eee LE ele

Ze PSs ASE OD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘HIP
sae eee gS ee
[EEE ce Fret Seta peepee

‘aug

 

 

 

[Ere bree re oboe seer = ae ae SEES +99

EE be

|

 

 

 

 

(uOneION WOpoyl Ul) ‘puvuaygpy p SaypT Sal 4nog AnoD ap 417

 
218 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

In olden days our instrument was a
simple cylinder without a single key. Fig.
25 is a representation of four angels, two
of the masculine and two (judging by the
way the hair is dressed) of the feminine
gender, engaged, whilst dancing on the
clouds, in playing a quartett on these key-
less flutes. On the next page is an ‘ Air
de Cour’ specially written, Mersenne, from
whose work it is taken, tells us, as a short
illustration of the style of composition suit-
able for four such flutes, by the Sieur
Henry le Jeune, who, he says, is perfectly.’
familiar with their compass and their stave
(portée). To show what sort of music our
great-great-grandfathers and grandmothers
were accustomed to read, I have given a
facsimile of the original ; I give it also in-
modern notation, to which it has kindly -
been reduced by Dr. Turpin. The com-
poser, I should add, was possibly an
amateur, for Mersenne refers those of his
readers who may desire other examples: of
such music to the masters of the art.

An instrument of the kind on which the
angels are performing is represented in
Fig. 26. This precious relic, which formerly
belonged to Count Giovanni Correr, is now
in the Museum of the Brussels Conserva-
toire of Music. Its material, of a pale cof-
fee colour, is stated to be Cyprus (cypress ?)
wood, In front, above the embouchure, is
the maker's name, Rafi, associated with a
trefoil, whilst below it is a shield bearing a
griffin, a device which is repeated between
the third and fourth finger-holes. The
Fig. 26. — Key- instrument is 284 inches long, and the

less Cylindrical i % .
Flute. diameter of the bore is §ths of an inch.

 
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 219

These keyless cylindrical tubes were pierced with six
finger holes. These six holes, with the addition of that
which formed the open end of the tube, served to pro-
duce the seven notes of the scale for which the flute was
intended. There were no holes provided for accidentals.
When the player was in want of an accidental he had
recourse to an expedient from which we should naturally
imagine every. member of the celestial quartett party
would recoil with horror; he proceeded to murder the
note above the semitone required by smothering, chok-
ing, and suffocating it till it yielded an expiring murmur,
or dying groan, which did duty for the sound required.
It was the spurious notes thus produced, with their
feeble wheezing tone and defective intonation, which
brought the flute and those who played it into such con-
tempt with musicians; a circumstance which did not
escape the observation of Burney, but which Hawkins
failed to perceive,

Now it is a fact, that when the Sieur Henry le Jeune
composed his ‘ Air de Cour’ for four keyless flutes, closed
keys, so far from being unknown, had attained a develop-
ment which would be incredible were it not for the
drawings which have come down to us. It would seem
that closed keys first made their appearance on the bag-
pipe. But, however this may be, in Mersenne’s time
there was in existence an instrument, belonging to that
family, whose pipes Mersenne informs us “make all the
semitones like the organ.” -It was constructed on a
system of closed keys in comparison with which the
most elaborate modern clarionet is simplicity itself, The
instrument, which was of Italian origin, was called the
Sourdeline.

Not the least remarkable circumstance in connection
with the Sourdeline was the way in which the closed
keys were constructed; it is no exaggeration to say
that they put to shame the keys of the eight-keyed
flute as made 200 years later. The lever, instead of
working in a groove cut in a knob or projection of the
220 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

wood, was placed ‘between plates of metal soldered
together so as to form what is technically a box

 

 

 

Fig. 27.—Pipes of Sourdeline showing closed Keys (1637).

(a, Fig. 27), a contrivance still placed by Messrs. Rudall
& Co. on some of their piccolos, but only those of the
highest finish.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 221

When Mersenne wrote, it would appear that it was
only in Italy where the manufacture of closed keys was
understood ; for he mentions that a gentleman who had
invented an instrument ® based on a system of closed
keys, having failed to find any one in Germany capable
of carrying out his ideas, placed his invention in the
hands of Jean Baptiste Ravilius, a maker of Ferrara,
by whom his instrument was completed to perfection.
The sourdeline had not been introduced into France,
and so Mersenne, to enable his countrymen to construct
others like it, “because the said keys are difficult to
understand on the pipes,” gives a drawing of one sepa-
rate from the instrument; indeed, so minute is his
description, that he: does not omit to mention the little
piece of sheepskin which was to be glued to the flap to
secure a good stop.

In Mersenne’s time the German flute, though well
known, was not so much in favour as the /ldte. douce, or
English flute, yet this writer, with the extraordinary
acumen of which he gives so many proofs,®! seems to

50 This instrument appears to have been a sort of bassoon of
unusual compass downwards, blown, like a bagpipe, with bellows.
The following is an extract from Mersenne’s description of it :—

“Tl est composé de deux Bassons, dont les trous se ferment par
des ressorts, que l’on ouvre avec les doigts, comme ceux dont j’ay
parlé dans l’explication des instruments precedens : et que l’on use de
deux soufflets, ou plustot de deux peaux, dont l'une est accommodée
4 un soufflet, comme celle de la Musette, ou de la Sourdeline, que
Von met souz le bras droict, et l'autre est semblable 4 la peau des-
dites Musettes, qui sert pour envoyer le vent dans le Fagot, lequel
ne parle point si lon n’ouvre ses ressorts, comme il arrive A la
Sourdeline, que Von peut mettre entre les Fagots."—Harmonie

. Universelle, Book v. Proposition xxxiii. p. 305.

“ Mersenne, whose fertility in expedients was inexhaustible,
makes suggestions for overcoming the difficulty of manipulating the
bass German flute, and such is the tendency of flute-makers to dish
up old ideas and serve them as new, that the contrivances he pro-,
posed formed the subject of a patent taken out in England in 1810,
nearly two hundred years after his time (see p. 76). “ As the bass
(German) flute,” he says, “cannot be made sufficiently long to go
222 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

have recognised its superior capabilities, and to have
foreseen that it was destined to eclipse its more popular
rival. He was not slow to perceive what might be

down low enough, the sackbut, or the serpent, or some other bass
is used to take its place; for if the German flute was made long
enough to do this part, the hands could not easily be stretched as
far as the last holes whilst it was being held to the mouth, although
one could supply this deficiency in the basses of the said flute by
sundry keys, or by severing or doubling them back, as is done to
bassoons.”

The sackbut, now called the trombone, appears to have under-
gone little change, except in name since it was described and
figured by Mersenne. It must surely have been ill-adapted to form
the bass ina flute quartette. Yet it was so much used as a bass, not
only for flutes, but for instruments of other families, that Mersenne
states that it had obtained the name of the harmonic trumpet. The
serpent, one would think, was still less fitted for the purpose. The
anecdote told of Handel, that on first hearing this instrument, he
asked in amazement “what de tevel be dat,” and that on being
told that it was a new instrument termed the serpent, he exclaimed,
“Oh! de serbent; but it not be de serbent dat seduced Eve,”
is no doubt apocryphal, for the serpent was invented long before
Handel’s time ; but it conveys an idea of the repulsive effect of this
terrific instrument. So closely did its tones resemble the voice of
a calf deprived of its mother, that a west country farmer, who had
lost a calf, happening to pass a house in which a person was play-
ing the serpent, was so firmly persuaded that his property was
within, that the occupier, for the sake of his own character, allowed
him to satisfy himself by searching the premises. Its use in
churches roused the indignation of Berlioz, who declared that its
“ frigid and abominable blaring ” was better suited to the sanguinary
rites of the Druids than to a Christian service; but he admits
that “it seems to be invested with a kind of lugubrious poetry
when accompanying words expressive of all the horrors of death,
and the vengeance of a jealous God.” a.

It seems, however, that the serpent got the bad name it has left
behind through the want of skill of those who played it. The
instrument could be as soft and refined as it was coat'se and savage.
Mersenne says of it, that “though it is capable of sustaining twenty
of the loudest voices, it is so easy to play that a child of fifteen can
sound it as loud as a man of thirty,” but he adds, “its tone can be
so subdued that it will be suitable to blend with the sound of soft
chamber music, the delicacies (/es mignardises) of which it imi-
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION, 223

gained by having recourse to closed keys. He taunts the
musical instrument makers with the neglect with which
they had treated the German flute in comparison with the
pains they had taken to improve the organ, and giving
the reins to his fertile imagination, suggests that in
addition to the holes with which the instrument was
already furnished for the diatonic scale, others should
be bored, one set for the chromatic, another for the
enharmonic genus, and then, he triumphantly exclaims,
“one could easily execute all that the Greeks knew with
a little piece of wood: but,” he adds, “I ieave this
investigation to the makers.” ©

tates.” . Burney, too, who often heard it played in church during
his musical tours on the Continent, says, “it is in general over-
blown, and too powerful for the voices it accompanies; otherwise,
it mixes with them better than the organ, as it can augment or
diminish a sound with more delicacy, and is less likely to overpower
or destroy, by a bad temperament, that perfect one of which the
voice only is capable.”

52 Tt seems strange that this proposal of Mersenne should not
have attracted the attention of modern writers. To show how
clearly it was expressed I quote his own words. Referring to flutes,
he says: “Si l'on vouloit prendre la peine de les percer tellement,
que le genre Diatonic estant d’un costé, comme il est en effet, le
Chromatic et Enharmonic fussent des deux autres costez, lon
executeroit aysément tout ce que les Grecs ont sceu, avec un petit
morceau de bois: mais je laisse cette recherche aux Facteurs,
aussi bien que la recherche du Diapason necessaire pour les percer
justement, quoy que les precedens monstrent les endroits des trous
Diatoniques assez exactement pour en faire d’autres & limitation.”
—Harmonie Universelle, Book v. Proposition ix. p. 243.

So full was Mersenne of ideas to which the notion of applying
closed keys to the flute had given rise, that he imagined an organ
composed of four flutes with all their holes covered with these keys.
Each of them was to be pierced with a sufficient number of holes to
make nineteen notes, so that the three genera of music should be
heard in their perfection. The instrument was to be “so light that
any one could carry it as easily as a violin or a lute.” The flutes were
to be English, not German flutes ; each was to be of the compass of
an octave, one above another ; their heads were to be inserted into
a sound-board, and for portability they were to be made in joints.
224 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Now, if the makers, without troubling themselves
about the refinements of the Greek intervals, had only
bored the five additional holes which were required to
enable the flute to “ make all the semitones like the
organ,” the history of the “little piece of wood” with
which Mersenne’s sagacity had led him to perceive that
such great things could be done, would have been
shortened by something approaching a century and a
half. But though the holy father’s words were ringing
in their ears, and his drawings were before their eyes,

 

The way the keys were to be acted on was to be left to the makers,
but Mersenne favoured the idea of a little drum, which would
“make the diminutions and the cadences with greater exactness
and rapidity than the fingers of the most skilful organist.” In fact,
it was to be a barrel-organ. He describes it as follows :

“Jadiouste maintenant plusieurs choses qui n’ont pas esté
remarquées, dont la premiere consiste a faire un Orgue si leger que
chaqun le puisse porter aussi aysément que le Violon, ou le Luth:
ce qui arrivera si lon use de quatre Fleutes douces, dont chacune
ayt lestendué d’une Octave lune. par dessus autre, a fin de leur
donner estendué du clavier de l’Orgue, car l’on pourra ouvrir et
boucher leur trous par le moyen de petits ressorts doublez de cuir,
comme j’ay desia monstré dans le cinquiesme livre des instrumens,
lors que j’ay parlé de la Sourdeline, ou Musette de Naples, dans la
trentiesme Proposition, et parce qu’elles se peuvent couper en
plusieurs lieux, l’on pourra les assembler and les mettre en aussi
peu de lieu que le Cervelat, ou ’un des moindres Bassons, dont j’ay
traité dans ledit livre.

“ Quant au sommier, il suffit qu’il ayt quatre trous pour recevoir
les quatre testes des quatre Fleutes ; je laisse le reste a la disposition
des Facteurs, qui peuvent user d’un petit tambour, ou barillet, qui
fera les diminutions et les cadences plus justes and plus vistes que
les doigts des plus habiles Organistes : de sort que le mesme mouve-
ment du tambour levera les soufflets, et ouvrira les soupapes, et les
clefs de tous les trous des Fleutes, lesquels on peut faire en si grand
nombre sur quatre Fleutes, que chaque Octave aura dix-neuf sons
pour faire ouyr les trois genres de Musique en leur perfection: or
il seroit plus aysé d’accommoder ces Fleutes au Luth, ou a la
Viole, que les autre tuyaux des Orgues."—Harmonie Universelle,
Book vi. Proposition xxxix. p. 383.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 225

they made no attempt to follow out the investigation he
had commended to them. However, after
the lapse of thirty or forty years, one of
Mersenne’s countrymen summoned up
courage, and took a step forward. There
was one of the five semi-tones: for which
no wheezing substitute, good, bad, or in-
different, could be found, and for this he
had the temerity to construct a closed key.
In Fig. 28, which is a drawing of an ebony
one-keyed flute belonging to Mr. Snoeck,
we see the little stranger. We also observe
that the flute-makers, however little dis-
posed they might have been to attend to
Father’ Mersenne’s suggestions, were teady
enough to make changes of their own.
The instrument is no longer in one piece,
but is divided into three joints. The head
and the middle meet each other within a
massive ivory hoop, into a socket in which
the pin is thrust. The head, too, is sur-
mounted by an ivory cap, and the pear-
shaped foot is composed wholly of that
material. Vestiges of this use of ivory
have survived till our own time in the
tips and ferules with which the flute is
sometimes ornamented.

The changes the makers had introduced
were not confined to the exterior, nor to
the material of the instrument, they were
accompanied by an alteration in the bore.
In the head the bore stiil retains its
cylindrical form and its diameter of six-
eighths of an inch, but in the middle it ig, 28-pRaly

One-keyed Flute.
has begun to taper slightly, the upper end
of this joint being a sixteenth wider in the interior than
the lower, and it diminishes another sixteenth in the foot,

Q

 
226 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

 

Fig. 29.—One-
keyed Flute
by Rippert.

thus making a total difference in the dia-
meter of an eighth of an inch.

Fig. 29 is another one-keyed flute, the
property of Messrs. J. and R. Glen, on
which the new-comer is not constructed.
of brass, as in the last example, but is
honoured with the noble metal silver. In
this instrument, which is made of box-
wood stained, and bears the maker’s name,
Rippert, on each of its three joints, ivory
is more sparingly used. In Fig. 30 we
have a gentleman of the period (angel
flautists having become scarce) performing
on such a flute.

The introduction of this key, one would
think, must have been quickly followed by
that of its four brethren, whose presence
was so urgently needed. What deterred
the makers? They were frightened by an
apparition; the spectre of Perfection ap-
peared and raised her threatening arm to
stop the way. When an amateur timidly
ventured to give expression to the opinion
that the instrument placed in his hands
was not free from some trifling defects, his
professional master, a priest of Perfection,
would turn fiercely on him with the crush-
ing reply that it was not for the flute, but
for his own fingers and his own lips that
Perfection should be invoked ; * just as, at

The following extract will give an idea of the
way in which the pupil was addressed by his
master:—‘“ . . . in regard to its (the one-keyed
flute’s) supposed imperfections, they are absolutely
founded on false principles, attributing that to the

Instrument, which is in effect y° want of a good Ear or abilities in
the Performer, whose (those?) necessary requisites which only can
enable him to make it appear what it realy is, and which indeed to
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 227

 

 

Ezz

 

 

lace

=

 

 

 

Fig. 30.—Flute-player, from the ‘ Music Master,’ 1730.

Q 2
228 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

the present day, when a sound, the intonation of which
offends the ear, is heard to issue from Mr. Rockstro’s
model, we are told in language, if less drusgue, certainly
not less decided, that the note has been rendered false
by unskilful blowing.™

Time sped. Half a century had rolled by since the
key had seen the light, when the alarming discovery was
made that the poor solitary little fellow had given offence
to the hobgoblin that haunted the flute. The votaries
of Perfection were commanded by the great Quantz to
prostrate themselves before their fetish, and to go through
the solemn farce of fingering, where it was possible, the
buzzing apologies for the semitones which were as yet
unprovided with holes, in such a way as to make believe in
enharmonic differences; thus the muffled wail which
went by the name of B flat was to be fingered differently
from the stifled moan called A sharp; the strangled C
sharp known as B sharp, from the asphyxiated D flat

attain requires a closer attention than most Persons who undertake
this Instrument will bestow on it. But to obtrude these remarks
on the Judicious would be an affront to the understanding of those
who have already experienced its perfections, and the agreable
sensations it affords in the Hands of a skillfull Performer.” This
extract is taken from a code of instructions prefixed to a collection
of Duets for two German Flutes, published by J. & J. Simpson,
Sweetings Alley, Royal Exchange, which cannot have been printed
long before the extra keys for the semitones were introduced. The
same cry was raised when the perfection of the eight-keyed flute
was called in question. “It is not the flute that is at fault,”
exclaims Old Howling Stick (p. 327), “but the man who sits
behind it.” In the present day the outpourings of the believers in
the old system, who, like the battalions of Kosciusko, are
“... few, but undismay’d,”

breathe a spirit of pious resignation. “ Lord, forgive them, for they
know not what they do,” is the prayer of the sorrowful, but not too
teverent Terschak.

* Rockstro on the Flute, section 367, p. 186; also section 759,
Pp. 446. "4
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 229

styled C natural. Theunhappy key,
however, could only make D sharp,
whilst Perfection demanded E flat as
well.

Quantz came to the rescue of the
offender. He appeased the angry
spirit by introducing a second key to
carry out her behest,®* and again the

55 See the table of fingering given at the
end of Quantz’s Essay, or Rockstro on the
Flute, section 436, p. 233. For F natural,
one of the four notes for which holes were not
provided on the one-keyed flute, no alternative
fingering could be found. As regards the
three others, A flat was fingered by Quantz
differently from G sharp in the second, and
C natural from B sharp, and A sharp from
B flat, in both the first and the second
octave. In the third octave alternative
fingerings were not attempted. It will, of
course, be understood that. the alternative
fingerings were not confined to the fork-
fingered notes ; they were to be used, when
possible, in all cases where it was required
to distinguish between a major and a minor
semitone. Whilst admitting that such theo-
retical niceties of intonation could not be
produced by the harpsichord, on which re-
course was had to Temperature (szc) or Parti-
cipation, yet, as they could easily be observed
by singers and performers on instruments
played with the bow, Quantz maintained that
it was only right that they should be ex-
pressed on the flute. It should be men-
tioned that Quantz was not the first to pro-
pose alternative fingerings. In a table of
fingering for the one-keyed flute, published
by Louis Hotteterre in 1699, more than fifty
years before Quantz brought out his essay,
G flat was fingered differently from F sharp,
and D flat from C sharp.

5° The xaiveté with which Quantz informs
his readers that, as he learnt by little and

 

’ Fig. 31.—Flute of Quantz
showing separate Keys for
'* Di and Ep, enlarged from
the Drawing in his Essay.
230 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM YVLUTE.

tyrant reigned supreme. However, after wielding the
sceptre till the last two decades of the eighteenth century
were drawing near, Perfection yielded, and the four other
closed keys necessary to enable the “little piece of
wood” to “make all the semitones like the organ” were
allowed to take their places on the instrument.’ But
still the ghostly voice was not silenced; to this day
Perfection continues to force from time to time her fitful
accents on the ear, but her cry, like the song of the
banshee, is ill omened ; it tells of the death of progress
and improvement.

But we are forgetting our trial. The Court is sitting,
the libellers of Boehm are at the bar, and Mr. Rockstro
is in the witness-box.

The closed keys held their own for about sixty years,
when they were called upon to make way for their open-
standing successors. There are two principles which
underlie the Boehm system: one that the holes should
be fairly equal in size, the other that the keys should
remain open when not in use. The Boehm flute did not

little to understand the nature of the flute, he discovered that
there was still a trifling defect (“un petit défaut”) to be found in
this otherwise immaculate instrument, is truly charming (ch. i. 8).
Writing twenty years after he had remedied this defect by means
of his second key, he is puzzled to account for the circumstance
that his invention had not come into general use. LEither its
utility, he thinks, cannot have been recognised, or else players
were dismayed by the difficulty it involved—a difficulty which he
takes the trouble to prove to be little more than imaginary (ch.
iii. 9). What would he have said had he known that flute-players
were destined to encounter the difficulties of eight, and even four-
teen keys? As for the Boehm fingering, it would make him turn in
his grave.

% The precise date of the application of these keys to the flute is
involved in obscurity, nor is it known with certainty by whom they
were introduced. The subject is discussed by Mr. Victor Mahillon
(Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition, art. Transverse Flute),
and by Mr. Rockstro (Treatise on the Flute, sections 452, 455,

pp. 243, 245).
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 231

see the light until 1832, but in the year previous Captain
Gordon made his appearance in London with a flute on
which he had attempted to carry out both of these
principles. Gordon then was in the field before Boehm.
So Clinton, who only knew of three “ palpable ” flute-
improvers, Nicholson, Gordon, and Boehm, jumped to
the conclusion that it was the “sagacity” of Gordon
that “laid the foundation” of these principles, which he
believed to be new.

We have just seen how ill-founded was this assertion
as far as regards the rearrangement of the holes, but
was it true in relation to the idea of an open-keyed
system? Turning to Mr. Rockstro, we elicit from him,
in answer to this question, that it was not to Gordon,
but to Tromlitz, who died in 1805, twenty years before
Gordon took up the subject of flute reform, that “we are
perhaps more deeply indebted than to any other flute-
constructor for the excellent system of open keys now
in vogue, as it was he who first conceived the idea of
extending the application of the open finger-holes of the
primitive diatonic flute to the chromatic one of more
recent times.” °°

The idea, then, of the open-keyed system was not
originated by Gordon, Nor was it through Gordon
that Boehm became acquainted with this idea. We
have only to look at the drawing of his first model
(Fig. 17, p. 206) to see that he had already opened one
of the keys, that for F natural, on the flute he showed
Gordon when he came to call upon him ; a circumstance
which gives us an insight into his meaning when he told
him, in the conversation which took place on the occa-
sion, that it was his intention to endeavour, on his return
to Munich, to construct an improved flute. The task
he had to accomplish was to extend to the whole of the
flute the two principles, the equalisation of the holes and
the opening of the keys, which he had already in his

88 Rockstro on the Flute, section 842, p. 551.
232 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

first model applied to a part of the instrument. The
mechanism by means of which he succeeded in carrying
out his undertaking will be treated of when we come to
the fifth count of our indictment.

Fourthly, the fingering of the Bochm flute.

How many times has Boehm been charged with
copying his fingering from Gordon, but how few of those
who have heard the statement repeated again and again
have taken the pains to ascertain for themselves how
far it can be sustained !

To render a comparison easy I will place together in
a tabular form the fingering of each note on the two flutes
in the first register from C? to Cf? and leave the
reader to judge for himself what foundation there is for
Coche’s assertion that these two instruments, though
they differ in mechanism, have the same fingerings,®

59 <7] faut observer que ces trois instrumens [Gordon’s,
Boehm’s, and Coche’s] différents quant au mécanisme ont d’ailleurs
les mémes doigtés.” This appears on the title-page of Coche’s
‘Méthode pour servir & Venseignement de la nouvelle Flite, In-
ventée par Gordon, modifiée par Boehm et perfectionnée par V.
Coche et Buffet Fe.

Mr. Rockstro would pin Clinton to a statement almost as mis-
leading by quoting the following passage :—“ To take a general
view of the subject, we find, practically, there are but two
systems of fingering in existence—that of the old eight-keyed flute,
and that of Gordon, known in this country as the Boehm flute.”
Had Mr. Rockstro only continued and finished the sentence, he
would have allowed Clinton to make his meaning clear, for he adds,
“the former being on the swt and the latter on the ofen-keyed
principle.” The open-keyed principle, it is needless to say, admits
of an infinite variety of fingerings. There is Gordon’s fingering,
Boehm’s fingering, Carte’s fingering, Radcliff’s fingering, all on this
principle, and the list could be doubled.

Clinton never intended to assign to Gordon the credit of the
Boehm fingering, as the following from the same pamphlet (4
few Practical Hints to Flute Players) shows :—“ Mr. Boehm
made a step in the right direction by following up Gordon’s plan of
equal size and distance in the arrangement of the holes ; by those
means he rendered the instrument infinitely superior to the old
flute. His system of fingering, too, is by far the best for open
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 233

Cc
is fingered by
BOEHM GORDON
-By putting down the little finger By putting down the little finger
of the right hand. of the Zeft hand.
Ct
By putting down the little finger By putting down the little finger
of the 7zgh¢ hand. of the Zeft hand.
D
By éaking up the little finger of By putting down the little finger
the right hand. of the right hand.
D¢
By putting down the little finger By taking up the little finger of
of the right hand. the right hand.
E
As on the old flute. As on the old flute.
F
Taken by Gordon from Boehm.
Fg
Taken by Gordon from Boehm.
G
By putting down the little finger By taking uf the little finger of
of the left hand. the left hand.
GE
By éaking up the little finger of By putting down the little finger
the left hand. of the left hand.
A
As on the old flute. ‘As on the old flute.
BD
By putting down the first finger By putting down the first finger
of the right hand. of the right hand.

keys that has ever appeared ; still we should not allow admiration
for his efforts to blind us to the shortcomings of his instrument.”

So violently opposed was Clinton to the open-keyed system that
he wrote, “ The conclusion I have drawn from the end of my labours
is, that no other system than the shut-keyed can ultimately succeed,
while any attempt to improve the open-keyed must end in dis-
appointment and failure.”
234 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE. ,

BOEHM. GORDON.
B
By putting down the left thumb. By putting down the ieft thumb.

C,
By taking up the left thumb. By taking up the left thumb.
CE
As on the old flute. As on the old flute.

It will thus be seen that when we take away those
notes which are fingered as their representatives on the
old flute, and those for the fingering of which Gordon
acknowledges that he is indebted to Boehm, there
remain but three out of the fourteen which are fingered
in the same way by Boehm and Gordon, and Mr.
Rockstro has furnished us with evidence that two out
of these three fingerings (B natural and C natural fingered
with the left thumb) were not new ;% thus leaving one
only (B flat fingered with the first finger of the right
hand), which cannot be shown not to have been origi-
nated by Gordon.

Fifthly, the ring-keys.

We now come to the last and incomparably the most
important point, the ring-key introduced to the world
by Boehm. To say that the inventor of this ring-
key was the inventor of the Boehm flute would, of
course, be an exaggeration ; but to the inventor of this
ring-key undoubtedly belongs the credit of making the
Boehm flute a possibility. Boehm, it is- true, makes
light of the invention: it is easier, he says, to invent
keys than to improve notes. Never did a man make
a greater mistake. It might have been easier to him,
for he was a born genius as an inventor, and to him, as
he has told us, his inventions seemed to be mere trifles
which did not occur to the minds of others at the right
moment. “But the inventive faculty is a rare natural gift.

° Rockstro on the Flute, sections 564, 565, pp. 308-9.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S’ VERSION. 235

Long before Boehm’s time Tromlitz and others had
improved notes, but they had all failed to reform the
instrument because they could not invent keys. The
problem was how to.enable nine fingers to act on eleven
holes, and the problem was solved by the invention of
this ring-key. To show that the charge brought against
Boehm of taking the idea from Gordon was as false as
it was defamatory, we have only to appeal to our touch-
stone, Boehm’s first model (Fig. 17, 4, c, p. 206), where we
find it in existence before he had seen that gentleman.
How then did this ring-key originate ?

When I first interested myself in this inquiry two
views of its origin were entertained: the Boehmites
declared it to be an original invention of Boehm, whilst
the Gordonites were equally positive that it was a
modification of Gordon’s crescents. It occurred to me,
when I was putting together the materials of this book,
that possibly both of the disputants might be mistaken ;
and I set to work, as already narrated in these pages,
to endeavour to ascertain whether any traces could be
found of the existence of ring-keys before Boehm or
Gordon appeared on the scene. My efforts, however,
proved fruitless, and I was on the point of giving up the
search, when I bethought me of a sepulchre of inven-
tion, where rest in peace the countless offspring of pro-
jectors’ brains—the Patent Office.

In this charnel-house of ingenuity, haunted by the
lingering shades of dreams of wealth and fame, the
lifeless forms of the progeny of genius, encoffined in
portfolios, and entombed like the Mauleverers upright,
sleep in their blue shrouds in thousands. Thither I
repaired, and I had not gone far with the task (no
pleasant one) of disinterring them from the unstratified
deposits of soot and dust beneath which they were so
deeply buried,*! when there came to light a ring-key in

61 In justice to the authorities, I ought to say that the place has
now (1891) béen properly cleaned. :
236 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

its very inception ; a ring-key which had fallen unnoticed
from the womb of talent, immature and still-born.

More than eighty years ago a clergyman in deacon’s
orders conceived the daring design of taking out a
patent for certain improvements in the construction of
finger-holed instruments, “whereby,” to use his own
words, “they receive greater Truth of Tone, and give
more Facility in Playing the Flat and Sharp Notes,
than is produced by such Instruments now in Use.”
This ambitious young flute reformer, who was the
last surviving head of an old family, afterwards became
a distinguished personage in the world of theology
and letters; indeed we learn from his epitaph that
he was “endued with intellect of the highest order,
adorned with learning of rarely equalled extent, and
distinguished by every virtue which could adorn the
Christian minister, the husband and the friend.” Yet,
such is the irony of fate, his youthful exploit, the inven-
tion of a key for the flute, bids fair to be remembered
long after his learning, his piety, and his social virtues
are forgotten.

In order to enable the finger which plays “ the regular
diatonick note” to act on “the acute semitone” of this
note, Doctor, then Mr., Nolan proposed to cover the

® Frederick Nolan was born in Ireland in 1780 or 1781. In
1796 he was sent to Trinity College, Dublin. In 1803 he entered
as a Gentleman Commoner at Exeter College, Oxford. He was
ordained deacon in 1806, and priest in 1809. In 1828 he took the
Oxford degrees of B.C.L. and D.C.L. by accumulation. He was
Boyle Lecturer in 1812-15, Bampton Lecturer in 1833, and War-
burton Lecturer in 1833-37. He was elected a member of the
Royal Society of Literature in 1828, and of the Royal Society in
1832. He was also an honorary member of the Statistical Society
of Paris. In 1822 he was presented to the Vicarage of Prittlewell,
in Essex, and he retained it until his death in 1864. The titles of
fifteen of his principal published works will be found in the
Gentleman's Magazine for 1864, vol. ii. p. 788. He left a mass of
manuscripts on important subjects which were to be offered to the
Trustees of the British Museum.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 237

hole for this semitone with the valve of an open-standing
key, and to place the tail or touch of this key over the
hole for “the regular diatonick note.” In the touch a
perforation was to be made (¢, Fig. 32) through which
the diatonic note could issue when the valve, which
closed the hole for the acute semitone, was pressed down
(g, Fig. 32). What remained of the touch after the
perforation was made assumed the form of a ring
(e, Figs. 32 and 34).

Now Mr. Rockstro, who has followed me to the
Patent Office, satisfied himself of. the correctness of my

a S—ée Lt

es ©
"
yy J a

 

 

oO =
| sre OD
Fig. 32.—Nolan’s Perforated Key, after the engraving in the published
specification of his patent.

 

account of Dr. Nolan’s invention, and has repeated in
his Treatise on the Flute the quotation given in this
work from the specification of his patent, is of opinion
that the perforated key of Nolan is the veritable embryo
from which the ring-key, such as it appeared on the
Boehm flute, was developed ; so that, if he is correct in
his judgment, this invention has been here traced to
its birth, and even caught in the very act of its con-
ception.

A glance at the drawing will show that the performer,
on placing his finger on the perforation in the key, would
close, by one and the same movement, two holes. But
238 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

in order to virtually increase the number of the fingers,
he must be able to close them not only together, but
separately. This Dr. Nolan endeavoured to accomplish
in the following way: when the player had occasion to
close the valve whilst leaving the uncovered hole open,
he was required, either to place his finger on the shank
of the key, above the perforation, or else to fasten down
the key with a catch f/ The catch worked on a pin
passing through a small hole shown in Fig. 33.
Unfortunately Dr. Nolan was too much occupied
with his studies as a scholar and a divine to make

ef
i
Sf q 2
Fig. 33.—Nolan’s Catch. Fig. 34-—Portion of Nolan’s Flute.

himself a master of the techknzgue of the art of drawing,
so that it is not easy to say with certainty what he
intended to portray in his design, as it is represented in
the printed specification of his patent. However, on
adjourning from the Patent to the Record Office, and
causing to be unrolled the parchment cerements which
enveloped this supposed progenitor of the ring-key, and
Dr. Nolan’s own drawing to be brought to light, the catch
appeared zx situ, as it is represented in Fig. 34. There are
also indications which give reason for believing that the
Reverend inventor intended to show that the ring, when
pressed down, was sunk in the substance of the wood,

* Dr. Nolan directs that his perforated key should be so bored
through the touch as “ to be completely stopped by the finger which
e _ Presses the key down,” but he omits to state

how the stopping is to be effected. To an

ia.) expert as a draughtsman it would seem that
at ¢ (Fig. 32) the doctor intended to depict the

under surface of the perforation in his key, and that he wished to
show that it was furnished with a groove as here represented.
EXAMINATION OF MR. RUCKSTRO’S VERSION. 239

and it will be seen that on moving the finger slightly
sideways, the catch would be pushed aside, and the key
released.

Now it was in the means thus adopted for conferring
this power of closing the two holes one without the
other that Dr. Nolan failed. The reason is obvious.
No player would have time in a rapid passage to release
a catch, or to slide his finger from a hole to the shank
of a key.

This difficulty was surmounted in the simplest of
simple ways, by repeating Dr. Nolan’s own idea: by
abolishing the catch and substituting for it a second
perforated key, acted on by another finger, to do the
catch’s work, Fig. 35 shows such a piece of mechanism
as it appeared on Boehm’s first model ; ¢ representing
the first or original perforated key, and
6 the second added to take the place of the
catch.®*

To whom did this happy thought occur ? EN
Surely so ingenious an idea could not have a
been originated by the benighted intelli-
gence of the “ignorant impostor.” Yet 4~\~7
Mr. Rockstro expresses the opinion that
Boehm copied Nolan’s key.* But if he Fig: 35a pognms
copied it, who but he introduced the
second perforated lever? Thus our Balaam, whilst
cursing Boehm by branding him with the stigma of
copying another man’s invention, assigns to him the
credit of making this great advance in the construction
of the ring-key.

But the ring-key was not yet complete. In the form
in which it appeared on Boehm’s first model its use was

* In the original drawing the draughtsman has omitted to
indicate the junction of the two levcrs. In the engraving, for the
sake of illustration, it has been placed at @, but it was probably
somewhat lower down.

°% Rockstro on the Flute, section 593, Pp. 330.
240 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

=

 

 

 

Fig. 36.—Boehm
Flute of 1832.

still limited ; in order to make it available
for general purposes it was necessary that
the jointed lever should be replaced by an
axle. The account Mr. Rockstro gives of
the introduction of the axle is that Boehm,
not being satisfied with the ring-key thus
made with jointed levers on his first model,
“contrived the now discarded mechan-
ism” ® of the ring-key as it appeared on
the Boehm flute of 1832 (Fig. 36). In this.
mechanism, so scornfully described as dis-
carded, was the axle; but the axle, so far
from being discarded, is in universal use to
this day. It is not the axle which has been
discarded, but the appendage to the axle,
the arm 4 (Fig. 36), which has been super-
seded by the clutch invented by Buffet.

If, then, we are to accept Mr. Rockstro’s
version of the history of the ring-key, this
invention was originated by Nolan and com-
pleted by Buffet ; but we must admit that
the two most important contributions, the
second ring and the axle, owe their exist-
ence to the ingenuity of Boehm.

I have now passed in review the five
accusations brought against Boehm. I
have pointed out that when examined by
the light of evidence the validity of which
Mr. Rockstro does not dispute, they can be
shown, with the exception of the fingering.
of a single note, to be devoid of founda-
tion. Whether Boehm did or did not get’
the idea of the fingering of this note (B
flat) from Gordon is a question to which
we have no means of returning a satisfac-
tory answer. It will, of course, be under-

% Rockstro on the Flute, section 607, p. 340.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION, 241

stood that Coche ‘and Clinton (unless we feel bound to
except certain of Coche’s statements®) are not charged
with wilful and deliberate falsehood ; their crime—for it
is a crime—was that they allowed jealousy of Boehm
to convert their ignorance into a cloak for malicious-
ness, and accused him of stealing from Gordon ideas of
the origin of which they. had no knowledge.

It is to Mr. Rockstro that Boehm is chiefly indebted
for clearing his character, as it is he who has dispersed
the mist which enshrouded that period of the history of
the flute, which immediately preceded the time when
Boehm and Gordon appeared on the scene. It is there-
fore not without interest that we ask what part of his
flute, irrespective of the B flat key just mentioned,
Mr. Rockstro believes Boehm to have copied from
Gordon. We ask, but we ask in vain. Will it be credited
that when we interrogate him on this point, the answer we
get from his book is, “much.” The man who holds up
Boehm to scorn and detestation as having invited Gordon
to his house to rob, deceive, and lead him astray, shelters
himself behind the indefinite “ much.”

Can we imagine a person going into a court of justice
to prefer a charge of stealing, and when placed in the
witness-box and called upon to state what had been
stolen, proceeding to ejaculate “much”? The judge
would instantly tell him that if he were treated according
to his deserts he would be transferred to the dock and
committed to prison for instituting so frivolous, vexatious,
and malicious a prosecution ; unless, indeed, he came to
the charitable conclusion that his head was affected, and

 T have already drawn attention to Coche’s statement respect-
ing the identity of the fingering of Boehm and Gordon. Another
of his assertions seems, if possible, still more difficult to reconcile
with a due regard for veracity. Whilst professing to be engaged in
fulfilling the duty he owed to himself “to ascertain the truth” he
attributes to Boehm words which not only had he never used, but
which bear a meaning precisely contrary to that of those he had

really written. See his attack on Boehm, p. 125, note 3.
R
242 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

that he ought to be placed under medical care. In any
case there is a bar to which he could not escape being
brought, and that is the bar of public opinion.

Perhaps it might be of interest, as a psychological
study, if we were to trace the mental .process by which
Mr. Rockstro has been brought to the belief that Boehm
did copy “much” from Gordon. Our universal genius,
having exhausted the resources of science and history,
has had recourse to logic. But logic is a dangerous art
to play with; a man who invokes its aid to throw dust
into the eyes of others may unexpectedly find that he
has blinded himself. Thus the modern Balaam having
duly saddled and mounted his logical animal, is unable
to see the Angel of Truth who is standing in the way,
with his sword drawn in his hand, to bar the poor ass’s
passage.

To give his logical steed a preliminary canter, Mr.
Rockstro puts her through the following syllogism :—

Gordon loyally acknowledged everything that he
borrowed from Boehm ;

Gordon did not acknowledge that he borrowed any-
thing from Boehm but'the key for closing the G natural
hole ;

Therefore Gordon borrowed nothing else from Boehm.

Nothing could be more decisive than this brilliant
logical tour de force; but unfortunately, as a matter of
fact, Gordon did borrow another key, in addition to this,
and, as I will show further on, loyally acknowledged his
obligation to Boehm.®

* See zzfra, p. 271. Not only did Gordon borrow these two
keys from Boehm, but, following Boehm’s advice, he adopted for
the most part the position of the holes of his (Boehm’s) flute. So
says Boehm in his letter to Coche, and he repeats the statement in
his book of 1847. Mr. Rockstro, however, declares this assertion
to be “so opposed to all trustworthy evidence at our command that
it may be dismissed without further comment” (Zreatise on the
flute, section 608, p. 341), and he adds, “this statement of Boehm’s
has been expunged in the English translation of his book.” In
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 243

Mr. Rockstro now plunges into his argument to prove
that Boehm borrowed “much” from Gordon. This
argument is based on two assumptions; one, that what
Gordon borrowed from Boehm was but little, although
Boehm declares it to be an essential part of his inven-
tion ; the other, that there is a close resemblance between
Gordon’s flute and Boehm’s “in the general principles
of their construction and fingering,” whereas nine men
out of ten would say, on comparing the two instruments,
that the difference was greater than the resemblance.®
With such statements as premisses Mr. Rockstro proceeds
with his reasoning, but when we expect him to bring
forward another sweeping syllogism, our logician sud-
denly climbs down, and throws his conclusion into the
form of a humble enthymeme, thus: “As Gordon
obviously borrowed little from Boehm, much must have
been borrowed by Boehm from Gordon.”

dismissing the assertion without comment, Mr. Rockstro has
exercised a wise discretion, for, had he commented on it, he could
scarcely have avoided saying whether there is, or is not, in
existence one scrap of evidence, trustworthy or untrustworthy,
beyond Boehm’s assertion. Ward informed Mr. Rockstro that the
position of the holes of the flute he made for Gordon was deter-
mined by the divisions of the monochord (Zveatzse on the Flute,
section 599, p. 335). Seeing that Mr. Rockstro, as I have already
mentioned (note, p. 186), states that this method is fallacious, to
me, I confess, it does not seem improbable that Gordon when,
having ceased to employ Ward, he was working in Boehm’s factory,
should have taken Boehm’s advice as to the position of the holes of
his flute.

As regards the alleged expunging in “the English translation”
of Boehm’s book, the book in question has been translated into
French, but no English translation of it has ever appeared. The
Essay on the Construction of Flutes, which Mr Broadwood edited,
is not a translation, but an English version of the work, altered
and abridged by Boehm himself. It is certain that the expunging
process has fot been resorted to by Mr. Broadwood, for no such
words as those stated to have been expunged appear in the
manuscript.

% The two instruments are figured side by side at p. 273.
R 2
244 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Why does the mountain in labour, instead of thunder-
ing forth a syllogism, and shaking the earth beneath our
feet, quietly usher into the world the ridiculus mus of an
enthymeme? Fora very good reason. Anenthymeme,
it is needless to mention, is a syllogism with one pretiss
suppressed, and Mr. Rockstro’s major, which he -here
suppresses, is false. It is assumed (this being assump-
tion number three) that instruments between which there
is a close resemblance, must be copied one from the
other; a proposition which it is as impossible to
establish, as it would be to prove that one pea is copied
from another, because two peas are alike. The various
pianofortes, on so many different systems, closely
resemble each other in “the general principles of their
construction and fingering”; but the fingering of the
pianoforte was in use, and the general principles of its
construction carried out on the clavichord, the spinet, and
the harpsichord long before the hammer was introduced
into the instrument. Both Gordon and Boehm took up
and added to the ideas of the flute reformers by whom
they were preceded, but if Gordon contributed even so
much as a link to the chain of ideas which led up to the
Boehm flute, the secret has perished with Boehm. The
attempts to identify such a link have failed, as we have
seen, even when made with eyes sharpened by jealousy
and self-interest. It is far more illogical and a greater
abuse of language to call the Boehm flute Gordon’s, than
it would be to assert that a Broadwood pianoforte was a
Cristofori, an Erard a Broadwood, or a Chickering an
Erard.”

The following is Mr. Rockstro’s argument zz extenso :—“ Now
if Gordon had acknowledged having made use of any contrivance of
Boehmr’s, besides the one in question (the F sharp key), it is not
reasonable to suppose that Boehm would have suppressed the
information; therefore we have the following syllogism: Gordon
loyally acknowledged everything that he borrowed from Boehm.
Gordon did not acknowledge that he borrowed from. Boehm any-
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 243

We are too prone to forget how complex a thing is
mechanical invention. Inventions are not brought into
existence like the Goddess Minerva who leaped, full-
grown and armed, from the head of Jupiter, when Vulcan
cleft his pregnant skull; they spring from the efforts
of many minds, and come into being by a process of
evolution. The inventor is not necessarily the originator
of the ideas crystallised in the thing invented ; he is the
man whose master-mind welds these ideas together, and
reduces them to a practical form. In his endeavours to
accomplish the purpose he has in view, he, like the poet
and the musician, seeks for ideas from without as well
as from within. Behind him there may, and often do
stand, seen or unseen, known or unknown, many experi-
menters, designers, and suggesters, and it is almost
always difficult, and sometimes quite impossible for
even a bystander, much less a stranger, to ascertain the
source from which the inventor’s ideas spring. I will
give an instance.

The mechanism of the flute known as the 1867 patent
is the invention of Mr. Richard Carte. In ‘Musical
Opinion’ of January 1, 1890, Mr. Benjamin Wells, writing,
I have not the slightest doubt, in the most perfect
good faith, states as follows:—“In the year 1867, Mr.
George Spencer, an amateur flautist who took a deep
interest in flutes and flute-players, and more particularly,

 

thing but the idea of the key for closing the G natural hole.
Therefore Gordon borrowed nothing else from Boehm.

_“Tt is clear that in the construction of his flute Gordon freely
adopted the ideas of his predecessors, and it is equally clear that
it was not to Boehm that he was indebted, except in the instance
above mentioned, and considering the close resemblance between
the two flutes in the general principles of their construction and
fingering, it may be further argued, irrespectively of the direct
evidence on the subject, that as Gordon obviously borrowed little
from Boehm, much must have been borrowed -by Boehm from
‘Gordon.’— Treatise on the Flute, section 605, p. 338.
246 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

being an engineer, in the mechanical construction of the
instrument, suggested that the complicated mechanism
necessary for the long F natural key (played with the
little finger of the left hand) might: be dispensed with by
doing away with the hole on that side altogether, and
making another, to be played with the first finger of

 

 

Fig. 37.—Development of Carte’s ’67 Flute (No. 1).

the right hand. This was done, and the 1867 patent
sprang into existence.” ‘This instrument, then, should
be called, not the Carte, but the Spencer flute. Yet, as
a matter of fact, it was not from Mr. Spencer that
Mr. Carte derived the idea of how to dispense with the
complicated mechanism necessary for the side-hole by
doing away with this hole and making another at the
top, but from your humble servant. This idea, instead
of being elaborated in the brain of an engineer, originated

 

 

Fig. 38.—Development of Carte’s ’67 Flute (No. 2).

in the fortuitous circumstance that I once accidentally
injured my right forefinger.

In Mr. Carte’s flute of 1851, a portion of which is
represented in Fig. 37, the hole referred to (a) was
placed by Mr. Carte at the side of the flute because
there seemed to be no room for it on the top, the place
required for it being occupied by the finger-plate 4;
the idea of placing one key over another, simple as it
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 247

seems when once thought of, never having occurred to
him. I played at one time on Carte’s 1851 flute, and
for the accommodation of my damaged digit, I had this
finger-plate 0 raised up as represented in Fig, 38.

It now became apparent that another hole with its
key could be placed under the upraised finger-plate, and
accordingly I designed for my own use a flute as repre-
sented in Fig. 39, in which amongst other changes
the hole @ was thus placed, the complex mechanism,
necessary when it was at the side, abolished, and a

iP a dad

CG DONO

 

 

 

 

Fig. 39.—Development of Carte’s ’67 Flute (No. 3).7!

better action secured, although the long F natural key
¢, now brought across the flute, was still retained.

This was in October 1865. I have before me the
drawings I drew at the time for Messrs. Rudall & Co.’s

7 The axle on which the valves for covering the E, the F natural,
and the F sharp holes work is here brought over to the side of the
instrument opposite to that on which it was placed on Carte’s 1851
flute. The object of this change was to enable me to carry the
action upwards, and so to establish a connection with the valve
covering Carte’s open D hole. This arrangement enabled me
to make C sharp with either the second or the third finger of the
right hand, and so to dispense when I pleased with the use of the
third finger of the left hand for the purpose, and thus to get over
what was to me the chief drawback to the use of that valuable
invention the open D, the work it throws upon the third finger, this
finger being in the majority of persons ill adapted, from an anatomi-
cal cause, for independent action. The closed F natural key d,
with its hole, is also brought to the side of the flute opposite to that
which it formerly occupied, but only to avoid the disadvantage
of having three axles together on one side. Its action is precisely
the same as it was before, and the axle is carried up to make B flat

as on Carte’s flute.
248 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

workman, James Collins by name, who made the flute,
and they bear this date. On my bringing this plan for
placing the side hole at the top, under the finger-plate,
to the notice of Mr. Carte, he at once gave orders fora
flute to be made for himself with this change carried
out; but of the origin of the idea of substituting a
second finger-plate for the long F natural key, and of
the other changes brought about in the 1867 flute, as
represented in Fig. 40, I know nothing.

 

Fig. 40.—Development of Carte’s ’67 Flute (No. 4).

On the subject of mechanical invention Boehm has
made remarks which are so well expressed and so
appropriate, that I make no apology for quoting them.
“If it were desirable and possible,” he says, “to analyse
all the inventions that have from time to time been
brought forward, we should find that in scarcely any
instance were they the offspring of the brain of a single
individual, but that all progress is gradual only; each
worker follows in the track of his predecessor, and
eventually perhaps advances a step beyond him. I was
myself,” he adds, “never at a loss for an idea, and have
often helped others onwards towards success ; it depends
frequently on some mere trifle, which may not occur to
a man’s mind at the right moment.” ”

We have now disposed of the charges brought against
Boehm of stealing Gordon’s ideas. We have seen
Mr. Rockstro driven from point to point by the evidence
of facts which he has himself been the means of bringing
to light, until at last he was forced to fall back on
sophistry as weak and hollow as it was transparent.

® Essay on the Construction of Flutes, p. 53
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 249

We shall next find him blackening the memory of the
Munich inventor by confounding fact with fiction and
allowing himself to accept as an actual occurrence a fig-
ment evolved from the inner consciousness,

Let us return to our historical narrative. We left
Gordon in London calling upon Boehm to consult him
about his flute. We saw that Boehm promised to make
a flute for him, and also that he informed him that it
was his intention on his return home to construct an
improved flute.

We have no information which will enable us to fix
the date of Boehm’s departure from London. The last
concert at which he is reported in ‘The Harmonicon’ to
have played was Hummel’s which was given on the 2oth
of June. If he followed the example of the majority of
the foreign artists who visit our shores, he left London
at the close of the season, and this would bring him back
to Munich in July, August, or September.”? On his return
he tells us, he immediately set to work, and in the
following year (1832) his new flute was finished.

We hear nothing more of Gordon until 1833. On the
15th of February of that year he wrote to Boehm re-
minding him of his promise to make a flute on his
model, and referring to the improved flute Boehm had
told him he intended to try to construct on his return
home.” In his reply Boehm suggested that Gordon
should come to Munich, and superintend in person
the fabrication of his instrument. Gordon came, and
Boehm placed at his disposal a small private room in
the upper part of his dwelling, and gave np to him his
best workman.

Now comes an important question. When Gordon
reached Munich, was the flute Boehm had told him that

73 Since this was written, Boehm’s passport has come to light.
It shows that he passed through Strasbourg on his we home ‘on

the 8th of September.
™ The letter will be found at p. 95.
250 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

he intended to make on his return home, constructed, or
was it not? Boehm, as we have seen, was not only
acquainted with the two principles which underlie the
invention, the opening of the keys, and the equalisation
of the holes, but had already in his first model, made in
London, applied these principles to the right-hand part
of the flute. It cannot be said that he had not had
ample time for carrying out his project ; there was what
remained of 1831, the whole of 1832, and the early part
of 1833. That during this period he had completed his
flute, we have not only his own testimony, but that of
Professor Schafhautl who was on terms of intimacy with
him, and informs us that he was an eye-witness of his
“innumerable ” experiments.

But in deciding the question we are not dependent
solely on the testimony of Boehm and his friend Dr.
Schafhautl We have evidence from other sources.
‘The Harmonicon,’ mentioned above, was a monthly
musical periodical which was published in London from
1821 to 1833. It had a correspondent at Munich who
chronicled and expressed his opinion upon the chief
musical events of that city, his criticism being dis-
tinguished by intelligence, judgment, and discrimina-
tion. He began to contribute to ‘The Harmonicon’ soon
after it was established, and continued to do so up
to the time it ceased to appear. In the August
number, 1833, after noticing a performance of Handel’s
‘Alexander's Feast’ and the début of a singer in ‘La Gazza
Ladra,’ he went on to say, “The Royal Hofmusikus
Bohm has, by his great mechanical talents, given such
perfection to the flute, that all the tones of the instru-
ment are rendered equally full, pure, and vibrating. Its
pianos are uncommonly sweet and delicate, and the
Jortes exceed by far the power of an ordinary flute. In
addition to these advantages, this new instrument pre-
sents an equal facility in all the keys, the most difficult
not excepted. Although Mr. Bohm has only practised
this new instrument for about six months, his execution
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO'S VERSION. 251

on it is almost as great as on the flute hitherto in use.”
He is on the point of setting out on a professional
journey to England.”

Now, if we trace the statements here made to the
source from which, as there can be but little doubt,
the Munich correspondent of ‘The Harmonicon’ derived
his information, we find that they were published at
Munich three months before they found their way to the
pages of ‘The Harmonicon’ in London. They appeared
in a periodical entitled ‘Der Bazar, edited by M. G.
Saphir. In the issue of Thursday, April 25th, 1833,
there was a report of a grand vocal and instrumental
concert, given at the Odeon. The report was signed
with the letter P, the initial of the zom de plume, Pellisov,
of Dr. Schafhautl.’® The concert, which opened with
the first movement of Beethoven’s symphony in D major,
was arranged by Herr Treichlinger, a violin artist, who
was the conductor of the orchestra of the “Theater an
der Wien,” at Vienna.. The following is a translation of
an extract from the report :—

“Variations for the newly invented flute of our ex-
cellent Bohm concluded the first part of the concert.
‘Bohm has succeeded, thanks to his extraordinary talent

® This paragraph gives Mr. Rockstro a fine opportunity for the
display of his imaginative powers, and for showing his faith in
the credulity of his readers. To admit that the instrument on
which Boehm was playing in the spring or summer of 1833 was
the Boehm flute would be fatal to his contention that at this time
Boehm was engaged in leading Gordon “ off the scent” in order to
appropriate his invention. He would therefore have us believe
‘that the instrument, here referred to as new, was not the improved
flute Boehm told Gordon he was going home to construct, but
Gerock & Wolf’s flute, which he had made in London in the year
1831, two years before this time. Unfortunately for Mr. Rockstro’s
prolific imagination, the writer of the account, from which the
Munich correspondent of 7ie Harmonicon appears to have derived
his intelligence, mentions that the new instrument involved a total
change ot fingering, whereas, in Gerock and Wolf’s flute, Boehm’s
object was to reform the holes, and yet “to retain as many notes in
the old way of fingering as seemed feasible” (see p. 85).
% See infra, p. 35, note 3.
252 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

for mechanical devices in so remodelling the flute, this
the most delicate and feeble of all orchestral instruments,
that it will henceforth rank with the most perfect of
wind instruments. The tones of this new instrument
are all equally full, clear and strong: they are, moreover,
very soft in piaxo passages, and give at least thrice as
powerful a forte as the ordinary flutes. The new flute,
although its fingering differs totally from that of the old,
can be easily played, it being consistently constructed,
and rendering the most difficult scales easily manageable.
These flutes, as well as the Tromlitz flutes, manufactured
in Béhm’s workshop, are remarkable for their elegance,
all of them being constructed according to the principles
of mechanics. They are therefore as skilfully made as
are mathematical or astronomical instruments. Although
Herr Bohm has been practising on his new- flute for
barely six months, he has already attained to a degree
of virtuosity which is scarcely inferior to his well-known
proficiency on the Tromlitz flute. Next week he will
start on a trip to England.”

* * * * * *

“ Herr Treichlinger and Herr Bohm had several recalls
after their performances.

«pe
.

™ This notice of the Boehm flute in the Bazar was an epitome
of an account of the instrument which was published in full in The
Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung, but it did not appear in that
journal until nine months afterwards, in January 1834. In the
ordinary working of the periodical press, matter of the nature of.
reviews is pigeon-holed time after time to make way for more
pressing items ; indeed, such articles are often purposely put aside
until they are required to fill a vacant place. The clever
Mr. Rockstro takes advantage of the delay to transform the state-
ment that Boehm “has only been able to practise on his new flute
for about half a year” into the assertion that Schafhautl says that
Boehm first had an instrument of the new kind on which to practise
in July 1833! See the quotation from his 77eatise on the Flute,
given in note 80, zzfra, p. 254.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 253

We here have evidence that by April 1833 Boehm had
mastered the difficulties of his new flute, for he played
variations so brilliantly as to be recalled several times.
But we can trace back his appearance in public with
the instrument yet another period ; four months before
this time he was so far advanced as to be able to “let”
an audience “hear something pleasing,” Early in 1833
there appeared in the ‘ Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung’
a review, not like the account in ‘Der Bazar, from the
pen of Schafhautl," of the most important musical
events in Munich of the previous year. In the notice
of a concert given on the 1st of November of that year
(1832) is a statement, of which the following is a literal
translation: “Herr Boehm let us hear something
pleasing on the flute which he himself, with his own
hand, has ingeniously remodelled with several keys and
new openings, with a view to a higher effect.” ”

We are now, after the lapse of more than half a
century, asked to believe that these statements, as far
as they enable us to say that 1832 was the year in which
the Boehm flute was constructed, are a tissue of false-
hoods. On what grounds are we called upon to reject
them? On the ground that they involve an impro-
bability so great as to amount to an impossibility ;
“such a comprehensive improvement” being beyond the
powers of a dolt like Boehm, no matter whether we
give him three months or two years in which to effect
it, “unless he had meanwhile received much light from
an intelligence far superior to his own.” This light did
not begin to shine until Gordon arrived at Munich in
1833. Mr. Rockstro is “thus led irresistibly to the
conclusion that Boehm copied the general design of his

8 Infra, p. 418.

9 « Herr Bohm hat uns etwas Anzenehmes horen lassen auf der
Filéte, die er selbst mit eigener Hand und mit mehreren Klappen
und neuen Oeffnungen erfinderisch 2u hoherem Effecte um-
Leschaffen.”
254 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

flute from Gordon’s, but that he altered, and to some
extent simplified the mechanism.” *° But

“ O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”

The web is just as tangled whether the deceit we
practise is on others, or on ourselves. We shall now
have to see to what straits Mr. Rockstro is reduced in
his efforts to extricate himself from the meshes of the net
in which he has thus become enveloped.

On his arrival at Munich, Gordon, we are told, “ com-
pletely rejected his system.” Why did he reject it?
We get an answer to this question from Boehm. “He
soon became convinced,” he says, “of the defects of his
flute in comparison to mine.” *! But according to Mr.
Rockstro the Boehm flute had not seen the light—it
was still lying hidden in the womb of time, the theft to
which it owed its existence not having been yet com-
mitted. It therefore becomes necessary to draw on the
imagination for another explanation. Accordingly we
are told that Gordon rejected his system “because
Boehm induced him to do so.”

8 To show that I have not misrepresented Mr. Rockstro, I give
his own words :—‘‘ On comparing the flute said by Boehm to have
been made ‘ at the beginning of 1832,’ with that said to have been
made by him in 1831, one cannot help being struck by the improba-
bility of such a comprehensive improvement having been effected
by Boehm in so short a time unless he had meanwhile received
much light from an intelligence far superior to his own. Even if
we were to adopt the account of Schafhautl (§ 597), and to fix the
date of the completion of the flute from the time at which he says
Boehm first had an instrument of the new kind on which to
practise, which would have been in July 1833, the improbability
would not be much lessened. We are thus led irresistibly to the
conclusion that Boehm copied the general design of his flute from
Gordon’s, but that he altered, and to some extent simplified, the
mechanism.”—Rockstro on the Flute, section 605, p. 338.

8 Essay on the Construction of Flutes, p. 15. In the printed
copy “defects” appears as “effects,” but “defects” is the word
Boehm wrote.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S: VERSION. 255

Ce mest que le premier pas qui cohte. Mr. Rockstro,
having thus put his foot in, determines to take a plunge.
Acting on the principle advocated in the homely adage,
“’Tis as well to be hanged for a sheep as a lamb,” he
adds, we are almost driven to the conclusion that “ while
the poor gentleman was thus being led off on a false
scent, Boehm was engaged in appropriating the ideas,
and modifying the details of the scheme that he had
persuaded his rival to abandon.” *? It is true that there
is here a saving clause. We are not guzte driven. This
time the conclusion is not absolutely irresistible. But
how are we almost driven to believe so abominable an
imputation? Are we driven by testimony? Are we
driven by evidence? Are we driven by the logic of
facts? Or are we driven by listening to the story of
a dream ?

But it is not only Boehm and the other Munich
witnesses whom Mr. Rockstro finds it necessary to accuse
of mendacity in order to convert his dream into a reality,
he is forced to charge Gordon himself with falsehood !
Having become dissatisfied with his instrument, Gordon,
with the assistance of Boehm’s workman, proceeded to
make another flute, in the construction of which, as he
himself states, he adopted Boehm’s mechanism for F
sharp, or, as Mr. Rockstro prefers to call it, for closing
the G hole. But according to Mr. Rockstro’s hypothesis
this mechanism had as yet no existence, the flute on
which it appeared not having at this time been invented.
How then could Gordon have borrowed it from Boehm ?
Mr. Rockstro, who combines the wiles of Ulysses with
the audacity of Jack the Giant-killer, meets this objection

# ¢ We are, in fact, almost driven to the conclusion that Gordon
for the time ‘ completely rejected his system’ (see § 576) because
Boehm induced him to do so, and that, while the poor gentleman
was being thus led off ‘on a false scent,’ Boehm was engaged
in appropriating the ideas and modifying the.details of the scheme
that he had persuaded his rival to abandon.”—Kockstro on the
Flute, section 608, p. 340.
256 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

by a bold stroke. Notwithstanding Gordon’s specific
assertion, he denies that Gordon did borrow it of Boehm,
and, what is more, he asserts that Boehm himself attri-
butes to Gordon this very mechanism, the origin of which,
it will be remembered, we have so lately endeavoured
to trace.

To render Mr. Rockstro’s modus operandi more intelli-
gible I will beg leave to be allowed to give an illustra-
tion of the ingenious and interesting plan he has adopted
of dealing with subjects with which he is not acquainted.
As this delightfully simple process effects an immense
saving of time and trouble by rendering information
unnecessary and useless, it cannot be too highly com-
mended to our Universities, our Public Schools, and our
other seminaries of useful and scientific learning. It is
not free, it is true, from a trifling drawback. It presents
a suspicious resemblance to a method which once reigned
supreme ; a method under which authority arrogates to
itself the right to burke truth; the method by which
Galileo was politely requested to state that he was mis-
taken when he said that the earth moves round the sun.
If facts do not agree with Mr. Rockstro’s notions, so
much the worse for the facts. However, in these de-
generate days this system is so far exploded that Mr.
Rockstro cannot treat those of whose opinions he does
not approve, as Galileo would have been treated, had he
not caved in. He can do his best to keep the thoughts:
of other minds, and the works of other hands out of
sight, but he cannot rekindle the fires of Smithfield for
the benefit of such heretics as Mr. Walter Broadwood,
Mr. Victor Mahillon, or your humble servant. He can
throw the pall of silence and darkness over Mr. Radcliff
and Mr. Collard, but he could not, even if he were so
disposed, put these gentlemen into the pillory and cause
their obnoxious models to be burnt by the common
hangman.

If we are to trust the accounts of travellers, and the
258 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

blind beggar from his yellow flute, so touching in their
expression of feebleness, humility, and patient suffering,
should be regarded as typical of the true flute-tone.*

® “Fach instrument,” says Walckiers in his Method, “has a
character which is peculiar to it. The characteristics of the flute
are sweetness, tenderness, and melancholy; to will that it should
have the fire and the thrilling force (Ze drzo et le mordant) of the
violin is folly.” That Boehm recognised these to be the true
qualities of the flute, and was alive to the folly to which Walckiers
alludes, is evident from the following description of his playing by
a critic who contrasts his style with that of Molique on the violin
(see zxfra, p. 386): “The difficulties he (Molique) conquers are
incredible, and the force of his playing carries his hearers away
with a feeling of confidence in his safety and correctness. Béhm,
on the other hand, appears differently as a flautist. The character-
istic of his playing is a soft development of a mild elegiac
sentiment, a beautiful romantic longing; his singing on his instru-
ment springs from a profoundly sensitive breast. He is distinguished
by the way he expresses all the shadings and xwances, and the
sweet melancholy of his charming style.”

On the subject of the flute viewed as an orchestral instrument,
Berlioz expresses himself thus: “The sound of this instrument
is sweet in the medium, rather piercing in the high notes, and
very characteristic in the low ones. The quality of tone of
the medium and that of the high portion has not a very special
or decided expression. It may be employed in melodies, ‘or
accents of varied character, but without equalling the artless
gaiety of the hautboy, or the noble tenderness of the clarinet.
It would seem, then, that the flute is an instrument well-nigh
devoid of expression, but which may be introduced anywhere
and everywhere, on account of its facility in executing groups of
rapid notes, and in sustaining high sounds useful in the orchestra
for adding fulness to the upper harmonies. Generally speaking,
this is true; nevertheless, on studying the instrument carefully,
there may be discovered an expression peculiar to it, and an
aptitude for rendering certain sentiments, in which no other instru-
ment can compete with it. If, for instance, it were requisite to
give to a sad air an accent of desolation, but of humility and
resignation at the same time, the feeble sounds of the flute’s medium,
in the keys of C minor and D minor especially, would certainly
produce the desired effect. One master only seems to me to have
known how to avail himself of this pale colouring ; and he is Gluck.
In listening to the melodramatic movement in D minor, which
he has placed in the Elysian Fieids scene of Orfeo, it will be at once
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 259

The nostril cannot be compressed like the lips, and so
‘the performer on the nose-flute is freed from the danger
of giving way to the temptation, should it assail him, of
attempting to produce those “ reedy ” or “horny ” sounds
to which some so love to listen, but which others regard
with abhorrence as the embodiment of what is most
coarse, vulgar, and offensive in flute-playing.

Or, again, could the nose-flute have been brought into
existence out of deference to some one or other of the
many religious fancies which in primitive days ruled man-
kind? Could it have been required for some rite, func-
tion, or observance, all knowledge of which has perished?
Or can it owe its origin to some mysterious curse
which may have been pronounced on the moutb-flute ?
For instance, could the ban under which whistling, that
wicked practice which even in Europe is still said to
make the angels weep, and to scare away the Holy
Ghost, was once placed, have been extended to the

seen that a flute only could fittingly utter this melody. A hautboy
would have been too puerile, and its voice would not have seemed
sufficiently pure; the corno inglese is too low; a clarinet would
doubtless have answered better ; but certain sounds would have
been too powerful—none of its softest notes would have reduced
themselves to the feeble, faint, veiled sound of the F natural of the
medium, and of the first B flat above the lines, which imparts so
much sadness to the flute in this key of D minor, where these notes
frequently occur. In short, neither the violin, the viola, nor the
violoncello, used in solo or in masses, would serve to express this
very sublime lament of a suffering and despairing departed spirit.
It required precisely the instrument selected by the author, and
Gluck’s melody is conceived in such a way that the flute lends
itself to all the uneasy writhings of this eternal grief, still imbued
with the passions of earthly life. It is at first a voice scarcely
audible, which seems to fear being overheard; then it laments
softly, rising into the accent of reproach, then into that of profound
woe, the cry of a heart torn by incurable: wounds, then falling little
by little into complaint, regret, and the sorrowing murmur of a
resigned soul. What a poet !”—Modern Instrumentation, Berlioz,
. 117,
7 a f The Arabs generally disapprove of whistling, called by them
$ 2
260 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

mouth-flute on account of its shrillness, for the pucker-
ing of the lips necessary for the embouchure, or for some
other unknown reason?

But, however this may be, there is an instrument
blown with the nose still employed for the purpose of
charming, that is, influencing that mystery of mysteries,
the spiritual essence : the toomerie of the Indian snake-
charmer. In India a religious or ceremonial origin is
assigned to the practice of using the nose instead of the
mouth. It is said that the coomerze is blown with the
nostril because a Hindoo of high caste is defiled if he
touches with his mouth anything which has been pre-
viously touched by the mouth of one of lower caste;
but this defilement does not extend to contact with
the nose. Now should the nose-flute prove not to be
older than the institution of caste in India, and if it can

ef sifr. Some maintain that the whistler’s mouth is not purified
for forty days ; whilst others are of opinion that Satan touching a
man’s person causes him to produce the offensive sound. The
natives of the Tonga Islands, Polynesia, consider it wrong to whistle
as being disrespectful to their gods. In European countries people
are met with who object to whistling on a certain day of the week,
or at certain times of the day. The villagers in some districts of
North Germany have the Saying, that if one whistles in the evening
it makes the angels weep. The villagers in Iceland say that even
if one swings about him a stick, whip, wand, or aught that makes
a whistling sound, he scares from him the Holy Ghost ; while other
Icelanders, who consider themselves free from superstitions,
cautiously give the advice: ‘Do it not ; for who knoweth what is in
the air?’”—Engel’s Musical Myths and Facts, p. 91.

* The toomerie is a variety of the snake-charmer’s poongee, a
double pipe played with a reed like that of the avghool. The tops
of the tubes (one of which is a drone) with the reeds are inserted
into one end of a gourd, or a cuddos nut, the performer impelling
his breath through the nostril into the opposite end. The music
produced will entice the largest and most dangerous cobra from its
hole. See Engel’s Catalogue of Musical Instruments in the South
Kensington Museum, p. 166. The irreverent Engel makes the
scoffing suggestion that “perhaps the serpents mistake it for the
quacking of ducklings, for which they may have a taste.”
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 261

be shown that the idea of playing the flute with the nose
originated in the Hindoo instrument, an explanation of
the origin of the nose-flute will be established which will
have an important bearing on a not unimportant subject.
It will indicate that there was once a connection, con-
tact, or intercourse of some kind or other between the
interior of Asia and the islands of the Pacific Ocean;
and thus a link will be added to a chain of evidence
which tends to show that certain waves of culture have
floated from India over the south-east or Indo-Chinese
region and the Indian Archipelago, and thence into
Melanesia and Polynesia.*®

Attention was first drawn to the nose-flute by Captain
Cook, the instrument represented overleaf being one
brought home by Reinhold Forster who accompanied
that distinguished navigator in the capacity of naturalist.
Its length is rather more than fifteen inches. It is
bound with sennit made of the fibres of the palm, and
in addition to the nose-hole (2) it is pierced with two
finger-holes (4 and c), whilst a knot in the bamboo of
which it is made acts as a stopper.

Mr. Henry Balfour, the Curator of the Pitt-Rivers
collection, to whom I am indebted for the photograph
from which the engraving is taken, is an expert per-
former on the nose-flute. He fails to understand why it
should be considered less easy to sound the flute with
the nose than with the mouth. Every flute-player who
has made the attempt knows how exceedingly difficult
it is to blow the Egyptian zay. Yet Mr. Balfour makes

8 The subject is discussed in an interesting paper by Dr. Tylor,
entitled Wotes on the Asiatic Relations of Polynesian Culture, pub-
lished in the fournal of the Anthropological Institute, May 1882.
To render the argument conclusive, it would be necessary to show
that there is evidence, in the construction or the method of using
the nose-flute, of it having been copied from the Indian instrument.
Otherwise, there would be no proof that each of the two instru-
ments might not have had an independent origin, or that they
might not both have sprung from some common source.
~262 . HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

:

,

i

|

 

Fig. 4x. — Nose-
Flute. a, Nose-
hole; 4, c, Finger-
holes.

speak with the greatest ease by means
of the nostril a form of nose-flute which is
blown, like the zay, across the open end of
the tube, there being neither stopper nor
nose-hole. The tone he produces on the
instrument shown in Fig. 41 is extremely:
agreeable to the ear, and so closely does
it resemble a tone which can be elicited
from the modern cylinder blown with a
loose lip, as to be scarcely, if at all, dis-
tinguishable from it when the two flutes are
sounded together.

In the history of his first voyage Captain
Cook gives the following account of a per-
formance of nose-flute music to which he
was invited by a chief of Otaheite: “On
the 22nd (of April 1769), Tootapah gave
us a specimen of the music of the country ;
four persons performed upon flutes which
had only two stops,®*’ and therefore could

* Captain Cook adds: “To these stops they
apply the forefinger of the left hand and the middle
finger of the right. They also have an expedient to.
bring the flutes that play together into unison,
which is to roll up a leaf so as to slip over the end
of the shortest, like our sliding tubes for telescopes,
which they move up and down till the purpose is
answered, of which they seem to judge by the ear
with great nicety."—Hawkesworth’s Voyages, vol.
ii. p. 205,

It seems not unlikely that the leaf, instead of
being slipped over the end of the flute, was slipped
into it, for there is an enlargement of bore which
one cannot help supposing to be designed to receive
the leaf, and so to form a socket for this primi-
tive tuning-slide. Indeed, it may be interesting to
notice that it was to the lower end of the one-keyed
flute that the tuning slide was first applied. Before
its introduction, flute-players raised or lowered the
pitch of their instruments by means of interchange?
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 263

not sound more than four notes by half tones : they were
sounded like our German flute, except that the per-
former, instead of applying it to his mouth, blew into it
with one nostril, while he stopped the other with his
thumb: to these instruments four other persons sang,
and kept very good time ; but only one tune was played
during the whole concert.”

A comparison of the nose-flute Fig. 41 with one of
my mouth-flutes bears out to the letter the accuracy of
Captain Cook’s statements respecting the instruments
he heard at Tootapah’s concert. The four notes sounded
“by half tones” are G1, A! flat, A! and B! flat of our scale
at the English pitch.* The notes are produced by

able middle joints, or corps de rechange, varying in length. “It
was conceived,” writes M. Victor Mahillon (Eucyclopedia Britan-
nica, ninth edition, art. Zransverse Flute), “that the just relation ”
interfered with by the use of corps de rechange “ could be re-estab-
lished by dividing the foot into two pieces below the key. These
two pieces were adjusted by means of a tenon, and it was asserted
that, in this way, the foot could be lengthened proportionately to
the length of the middle joint. Flutes thus improved took the name
of fidtes a registre. The register system was about 1752 applied
by Quantz to the head joint.” .

88 It should not be supposed that all nose-flutes yield these four
notes. Nose-flutes differ in length, in size, and in the number and
position of the finger-holes. They are often made double—two instru-
ments, each with its own finger-holes, on the same tube, with a nose
hole at each end. Sometimes the nostril is closed with the left,
sometimes with the right thumb.

In the Marquesas, according to Melville, the nostril is not closed
with the thumb, but “ by a peculiar movement of the muscles about
the nose,” and thus a“ soft dulcet” sound is elicited from a “ beauti-
ful scarlet” instrument.

The following is from Ellis’s Polynesian Researches, ch. viii. :
“The vivo or flute was the most agreeable instrument used by the
islanders, It was usually a bamboo cane, about an inch in diame-
ter, and twelve or eighteen inches long. The joint in the cane
formed one end of the flute; the aperture through which it was
blown was close to the end: it seldom had more than four other
holes, three in the upper side, covered with the fingers, and one
beneath, against which the thumb was placed. Sometimes, how-
264 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

raising the fingers in the usual way; the A being got
by a back fingering, by closing ¢ but leaving 6 open.”
Much has been written about the difficulties to be
encountered in bringing the holes of the flute within
reach of the fingers; but it will be observed that the
untutored Polynesian flute-maker has discovered a spot
within two inches of the nose-hole, and so lying just
under the first finger of the hand with the thumb of
which the nostril is stopped, where a hole (4) can be
bored on opening which there is produced a note (A),
the hole for which his European brother considers
himself obliged to place about a foot from the mouth-
hole ; and that he has found a second spot, situated in
a convenient position for the middle finger of the other
hand, where he has made an aperture (c), on uncovering
which, while the first-named hole (4) is kept open, there
is heard a note (B flat) half a tone higher still. Although
the musical interval between these two notes is only that
of a semitone, yet the two holes are nearly ten inches
apart.°° I ought to have mentioned that the distance

ever, there were four holes on the upper side. It was occasionally.
plain, but more frequently ornamented, by being partially scorched
or burnt with a hot stone, or having fine and beautifully plaited
strings of human hair wound round it alternately with rings of
braided cinet. It was not blown with the mouth, but with the
nostril. The performer usually placed the thumb of the right band
upon the right nostril, applied the aperture of the flute, which he
held with the fingers of the right hand, to the other nostri], and
moving his fingers on the holes, produced his music. The sound was
soft, and not unpleasant, though the notes were few ; it was generally
played in a plaintive strain, and frequentiy used as an accompani-
ment to their Jehes, or songs. These were closely identified both
with the music and the dances. The zhara, the drum, and the
flute were generally accompanied by the song, as was also the
native dance.” ,

* That is to say, the G is produced by closing the two finger-
holes 4 and ¢; the A flat by opening ¢, but keeping 4 closed ; the
B flat by opening both 4 and ¢; the A by closing ¢ only.

* The explanation of this acoustic puzzle is (at least so it seems
to me) that the hole 4 does not produce a note of its own, but acts
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 265

from the nose-hole to the first finger-hole is about
1}3 inch, to the second 1148; inches; the diameter of the
nose-hole about 3%; inch, of the first finger-hole 4 inch,
of the second rather less than } inch, and the diameter

by raising the two notes G and A flat to A and B flat respectively.
‘The larger the embouchure of a flute, the higher become the notes.
With this property of his instrument every flute-player is familiar,
as he makes constant use of it by turning the flute outwards, and
so increasing the size of the embouchure by uncovering a larger
part of it, when he wishes to sharpen a note. By boring a special
hole below, but within a certain distance of the nose-hole, the nose-
flute maker is able to avail himself of this power of sharpening to
such an extent that he raises the notes of his instrument a whole
tone. Thus the nose-flute here figured has, properly speaking, only
two notes, G and A flat; but these two notes are raised by un-
covering the hole 4 to A and B flat, and in this way two notes are
gained.

About a century ago it was proposed to apply this principle to
our flute. On the 24th of July, 1801, Mr. William Close addressed
a communication to Mr. Nicholson, the editor of the Yournal of
Philosophy, ‘on the Properties of Wind Instruments consisting of
a single Pipe or Channel, with Improvements in their Construction.”
“Our small wind instruments,” he remarked, “have many im-
perfections, but are the subject of so little direct importance to
society that we do not expect much celerity in their improvement.”
The improvement he proposed was the introduction of a new way
of making the semitones by conferring on the player the power of
raising any note half a tone. He writes: “In some experiments
.... lL have endeavoured to realise a project for a very easy
method of introducing the chromatic semitones into the natural
scale, and of sharpening any number of diatonic notes at pleasure.”
One of the expedients to which he proposed to have recourse for
this purpose is thus described : “Insert one end of a round pipe,
three-tenths of an inch in diameter, and one inch long, into the
inside of a German flute, so much nearer the holes for the fingers
than the sound hole that a line which encircles the flute, and passes
through the middle of this last hole, may be seven-tenths of an inch
from the centre of the interior orifice of the pipe... . Turn this
pipe by the side of the flute, and let its exterior orifice be closed by
avalve or key, which may be opened by the thumb of the left hand.”

Mr. Close indicates the pipe by dotted lines in a drawing he
gives of the model on which the experiment was made, but he
states he had not had a flute constructed in the way described.
266 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE,

of the bore at the nose-hole 4% inch; towards the
lower end, below the second finger-hole, between +
and 3 inch less. Thus the diameter of the bore of
this flute comes very close to that of our cylinder, which
measures € inch.

Now it seems that Mr. Rockstro, sitting at home at
ease, knows far more about the nose-flute than Captain
Cook and all the other travellers who have seen and
heard it played.** The statement that it is sounded
like the German flute is a traveller’s tale, a mere halluci-
nation. The nose-flute is simply “nothing of the kind.”
The thing is “an impossibility.” Of course it is. It
is just as great an impossibility as that Boehm could
invent his own flute. The impossibility of blowing the
flute with the nose requires no demonstration; it is
“manifest.” Certainly; it is not less manifest than that
Boehm was an ignorant impostor.

But this is not all. Mr. Rockstro does not stop
here. Heis not content with enlightening us on what
the nose-flute was of, he can set Captain Cook right,
and tell us what it “must have been.” It was neither a
flute, a clarionet, a hautboy, a bassoon, nor a bagpipe; it
“must have been” the pet object of Mr. Rockstro’s
aversion, a whistle. Tootapah’s quartett of nose flute-

“Had he done so,” remarks Mr. Rockstro, “the experiment must
have been musically unsuccessful.” But whatever it “must have
been” in the hands of Mr. Close, it seems that the Pacific Islanders
have been able to turn the principle to account.

*! The latest description of nose flute-playing with which J am
acquainted is the following from Lambert’s Voyage of the ‘Wanderer’
(1883) : “ Now we hear a deep whistling sound” (the ‘ Wanderer’
was touching at one of the Tonga Islands) “varying up and down
only two or three notes, and find a lot of natives playing on nose-
flutes made of bamboo. To perform on these you block up one
nostril with your thumb, while the fingers belonging to the same
hand extend along the instrument, and with the other nostril you
play your tune—if you know how! The effect produced is very
like that of the sign of contempt called by boys ‘ taking a sight.”
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 267

players must have been nothing of the kind; they
were so many performers upon whistles? In fact,
Mr. Rockstro has made so fierce a raid on the tree of
knowledge, that not satisfied with taking the fruit, he
has carried off the leaves as well, and so has left the
poor plant to perish.

 

Fig. 42.—Girl playing Nose-flute. From Williams’s Fiji and the Fijians.

We will now return to Boehm and Gordon. When
Boehm saw Gordon in London he observed that “the
E hole of his flute was bored lower down than usual,
and was covered with a key ; and to avoid the F lever
he made use of a ring-key.”®* We should naturally
like to know how he avoided the F lever, and of what
sort of ring-key he made use ; but on neither of these
points have we any information. There are, as we
know, ring-keys of various kinds. I have already had
occasion to mention three: Nolan’s ring-key, the ring-
key of Gerock and Wolf’s flute, and the ring-key of the
Boehm flute. Mr Rockstro has brought to light a
fourth, a ring-key employed by Dr. Pottgiesser, a key
which combines a ring with a crescent, and so deprives
poor Gordon of what we had previously believed to be
his original idea, the crescent-key. Thus four kinds of

9 Rockstro on the Flute, section 306, p. 136..
% Essay on the Construction of Flutes, p. 12.
268 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

ring-keys are known to us, whilst, in addition to them, a.
ring-key of some sort was seen by Buffet on Bleve's
clarionet in 1826; nor can we say how many others,
the designs of which have perished, may not have been
contrived.

: 0

Fig. 43-—Dr. Pottgiesser’s Ring and Crescent Key.

 

 

What we know of the ring-key which Boehm saw on
Gordon’s flute is chiefly of a negative character. We
know, for instance, that it was not the same as that
which Boehm employed, for Boehm placed the finger on
the E hole, whilst Gordon covered this hole with a key.
That it was not a satisfactory arrangement we know
from the reference made to it by Clinton, who says “ it
was not until Mr. Boehm suggested a mechanism for the
right-hand part that his (Gordon’s) improvement (of the
flute) became in any shape available” ; and we know
from Gordon’s own admission that it left “the means of
execution” on his instrument still incomplete.

No sooner, however, does Mr. Rockstro appear on the
scene than the clouds of darkness which had previously
enveloped the ring-key which Boehm saw on Gordon’s
flute are instantly dispelled. The method of inquiry
which he has applied with such transcendant success to
the nose-flute is brought to bear with a result equally
startling on Boehm’s account of Gordon’s ring-key.
Again, Mr. Rockstro has brought to light an “im-
possibility” ; again, the impossibility becomes “ mani-
fest” ; again, Mr. Rockstro knows what it “must have
been.” The discovery which he has thus made is, as he
very properly remarks, of a curious character. It is
nothing else than that Boehm in his allusion to Gordon’s

% See p. 44.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION, 269

contrivance attributes to Gordon the mechanism for
closing the G hole which Gordon afterwards took from
Boehm. Below I reprint Mr. Rockstro’s announcement
of his discovery in his own words; to enable arly one,
who may be so disposed, to attempt to thread his way
through the maze of his must-have-beens, and to find the
path, if he can, to his.“ inevitable conclusion.” %

In his struggles with evidence, Mr. Rockstro meets
with the difficulty which Hercules had to encountet in
his combat with the Hydra; no sooner is one of his
antagonist’s heads cut off than two others spring up in
its place. If Gordon had this key for making F sharp
on his flute before he made Boehm’s acquaintance, how
came it to pass that he gave a certificate that he was
indebted to Boehm for the knowledge of it ?

The logical Hercules is again equal to the occasion.
He seizes his trusty club Must-be, and with a few
vigorous strokes smashes Gordon’s statement to atoms.
At first he modestly ventures, but immediately “we can
scarcely refuse,’ then “it may be assumed,” next “we

* With regard to the mechanism for closing the G natural hole,
we have curiously conflicting statements by Boehm attributing it to
Gordon, see section 558, and by Gordon attributing it to Boehm,
see section 604. We will first examine the statement by Boehm:
-“ The é hole of his flute was bored lower down and was made larger
than usual. It was covered with a key, and in order to avoid the
lever for F natural, he employed a ring-key.” Although this may
appear, at the first glance, a very simple recital, it contains an
absolute contradiction. The only object of covering the ¢ hole with
a key must have been to enable the third finger to close the hole
while the first and second fingers remained in their usual positions.
The only object of the ring-key must have been to enable the first
finger to close the g hole while the third finger remained in its
usual position. The zfosszbility of the correctly placed g and e
holes being closed directly, and at the same time, by the first and
third fingers of an ordinary hand is sadfest, but either one of the
above mentioned contrivances would have been sufficient to effect
the desired object, and the combination of the two would have been
absurd. We are therefore left to the zzevztable conclusion that the
two appliances were on different flutes.
270 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

may easily suppose,” now “it is clear,” further it
“appears,” afterwards “it would seem,” and finally it
again “ appears.” °°

But, under cover of the clatter of the blows of the
club, Mr. Rockstro is quietly leading us away from the
point we are discussing, to plunge us into the fallacy of
an ignoratio elencht, or false issue. The conclusion he
draws from his chain of fancies is that Gordon was a
man of such extraordinary honour and generosity that
he lied in order to assign to Boehm a larger share of
the credit than was due to him; whereas the question
we have to settle is not whether Boehm was entitled to
much or to little credit, but whether he did or did not
communicate the knowledge of this key for F sharp to
Gordon.

On this point nothing can be clearer, or more explicit

% In the following, which is a continuation of the passage quoted
in the last note, the italics, I need not say, are not Mr. Rockstro’s.
“Leaving further discussion of the key for covering the ¢ hole,
which was no doubt similar to that of Tromlitz, we will revert to
the declaration of Gordon. ‘The idea of this key for F sharp,
communicated by Mr. Theobald Boehm of Munich, has been, with
his consent, adopted for the present flute.’ In order to reconcile
this statement with Boehm’s, I venture to suggest the following
explanation. We can scarcely refuse to accept the evidence of
Boehm, namely that, the notion of using a ring-key in order to
avoid the necessity for the employment of the old closed F natural
key was originated by Gordon, and z¢ may be assumed that the
ring-key was for the purpose of covering the G hole. We-may
easily suppose that Gordon was not satisfied with this contrivance,
and z¢ zs clear that Boehm was not satisfied with the ring-key that
he made for Gerock and Wolf, which affears to have been partly
copied from Nolan’s open G sharp key. /¢ would seem that Boehm
then improved upon this arrangement, and contrived the now
discarded mechanism shown in Fig. 56 (Fig. 36, p. 240, of this work).
Gordon afpears to have adopted an arrangement somewhat similar
to this, employing Pottgiesser’s crescent instead of Nolan’s ring, .
and having thus made some use of Boehm’s invention, he, following
the dictates of his well-known generous disposition and punctilious
sense of honour, attributed to Boehm a larger share of the credit
than was justly due to him.”
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 271
cand precise, than the language of Gordon’s declaration.
He does not say that he merely “made some use of
Boehm’s invention,” but he states that he was indebted
to Boehm for the very idea of this key. His words are:
“the suppression of the two keys for F natural, and their
replacement by one key for F sharp, is an idea, the
application of which offers great advantages. The idea
_of this key for F sharp, communicated by Mr. Theobald
Boehm of Munich, has been, with his consent, adopted
for the present flute, of which it completes the means of
execution.” Which are we to believe, Captain Gordon
or Mr. Rockstro?

We have already had opportunities of admiring
Mr. Rockstro’s accomplishments in the character of an
historian and a logician ; we shall now see him display-
ing his versatile talents in another capacity, that of a
conjuror. Such is his skill in turning black into white,
that it would cause a professor of the art of making our
eyes “the fools o’ the other senses,” as Macbeth terms
it, to die of envy. He treats us to an exhibition of
sleight of hand which combines the wonders of the
Disappearing Lady with those of the conversion of a
gentleman’s watch into a live rabbit.

The key for F sharp was not the only one which
Gordon took from the Boehm flute, he took also that for
shaking D (a, Fig. 12, p.107). It appears that Capeller,
Boehm’s master, used a key for making this shake, but
this did not prevent Gordon from taking the idea from
Boehm, and acknowledging that it was from him that he
obtained it. This we learn from Coche who, publishing
the drawing of Gordon’s flute in his Method, caused the
fact to be engraved on the plate in the following words,
at the same time giving his authority, Gordon’s Tadla-
ture, thus: The key for F sharp and the key Sor the shake
of D belong to Mr. Boehm (Gordon's Tablature).

On p. 273 is a reproduction of Coche’s pictorial puff
of himself and his flute, with the original French, as
272 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

it here appeared. But no sooner does our magician
wave his wand than the words “Gordon’s Tabla-
ture” vanish, and the sentence is converted from an
acknowledgment. by Gordon of his indebtedness to the
Munich flute-maker into a proof that Coche “seems
to have erred on the side of excessive generosity towards
Boehm.” 7

This is indeed a marvellous triumph of the black art ;
but I fear that lawyers who have the bad taste to prefer
their nasty, dry, dusty, rusty, fusty, musty, crusty facts
to juggling tricks, no matter how cleverly performed,
would say that such a transformation as this was
garbling carried to the extent of falsifying evidence.
Lawyers have no imagination. Ve sutor ultra crepi-
dam. et them confine themselves to their yellow old
title deeds.

We have already had enough of logic and legerdemain.
However, I will give one more instance (it shall be
the last) of Mr. Rockstro’s expedients for meeting the
difficulties he has raised up for himself.

97 “ Coche, who seems to have erred on the side of excessive
generosity towards Boehm, appends this footnote to the engraving
of Gordon’s flute in his Méthode: ‘La clé du F’ $, et la clé du Re,
appartiennent d M. Boehm. (The key for F # and the key for the
shake with D 4 belong to Mr. Boehm.) Evidently Coche knew
nothing of the @"’ key invented by Boehm’s instructor, Capeller.”
(Rockstro on the Flute, section 605, p. 339). Nor did Mr. Rockstro
know when he wrote these words that we should be told by Boehm’s
biographer, Dr. Schafhautl, that the mechanism of Capeller’s flute
was the invention of Boehm (see p. 377). According to Mr.
Rockstro, Capeller is chiefly. remembered as the inventor of the
contrivances of this mechanism (T7veatise on the Flute, section 884,
p. 580), so that, if the contrivances in question were invented by
Boehm, he shines with a borrowed light. Although what Boehm
had done aroused in Mr. Rockstro a feeling of “ disgust,” yet this
gentleman sets forth in various parts of his work the advantages of
the D shake key, and adds, “‘ The strongest proof of the value of
this invention lies in the tae that it is in constant use on every
flute of modern construction.”
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 273

Invention Modification Perfectionnement
GORDON. BOEHM. VV. COCHE.

 

'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N.B.) La Clé du FA $, et la Clé du Trille du RE, apparticnnent 4 Mr, BOEHM. (Tablature Gordon.)
Fig. 44.-—-Coche’s Pictorial Puff.
T
274 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

It becomes necessary for him to prove Boehm’s asser-
tion that he played upon his new flute in London in the
year 1833 to be false. It was stated, as we have seen,
in ‘The Harmonicon’ of August 1833, that Boehm was
“on the point of setting out on a professional journey to
England.” If he did not carry out this intention of
visiting England until two years afterwards, it would
not affect the evidence which the paragraph in ‘The
Harmonicon’ affords, that in July 1833 Boehm had been
practising on his new flute for about six months ; but if
Boehm did visit England, and was playing that flute
in London at the time when Mr. Rockstro represents
him to be engaged at Munich in robbing Gordon of the
idea of it, that gentleman’s story falls to the ground.
Mr. Rockstro has therefore to get Boehm’s alleged visit
to London in 1833 out of the way, and this he
endeavours to do in the following manner.

He prints the statement in ‘The Harmonicon’ of
August 1833: “Mr. Boehm is on the point of setting
out on a professional journey to England,” in juxta-
position with the following, published in a German news-
paper about twelve months afterwards (July 2nd, 1834):
“Mr. Bohm of Munich, the inventor of a new flute, is
going to Bremen and to Hamburg, and thence to England,
at which places he will give concerts and perform on his
new instrument.’ The interpretation which ordinary
minds would put on these statements is that they refer
to two separate visits ; one undertaken in 1833, the other
in 1834. Boehm, as he told me himself, came to
England no less than nine times. When we consider
that at this time he had his pianoforte project in hand
at Gerock and Wolf's, and that it was in 1833 that he
began to connect himself with the ironworks, there is
nothing improbable in the circumstance that he visited
London two years in succession. Mr. Rockstro, how-
ever, comes to a very different conclusion. He is of

% Essay on the Construction of Flutes, p. 13.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 275

opinion that the two newspaper statements “may be
taken together as fair proof that Boehm did not visit
this country in 1833.”

To a casual reader this argument seems innocent
enough; it is only trifling with common sense. But it
assumes a very different complexion in the eyes of those
who know that Mr. Rockstro is here having recourse
to tactics to which controversialists object still more
strongly than even to garbling; he is suppressing
evidence. The evidence which is suppressed does not
appear in a work of the existence of which, as of this
little book, Mr. Rockstro feigns ignorance, but is found
in a pamphlet which he acknowledges, catalogues: and
quotes, Clinton’s Treatise on the Flute. Mr. Clinton can
tell us not only that Boehm came to London twice,
but that the English public had an opportunity of ex-
amining as well as of hearing his new flute, for it was
offered for sale at Gerock and Wolf’s. He even knows
how much, or rather how little business Boehm did on
these occasions.

Clinton’s connection with Boehm has been divided into
two stages: the one friendly, during which he played on
his flute, and defended him from the attacks made upon
him; the other hostile, when he became an apostate, and
having set himself up as a rival flute-maker, proceeded
to disparage the Boehm flute, and to impugn Boehm’s
title to the originality of the invention. It was in the
second, or hostile period of Clinton’s career that this
pamphlet was written in which the passage referred to
occurs. In the extract I am about to make, I will put
Clinton’s statement regarding Boehm’s visit to London
in 1833 into italics, so that it may catch the reader's eye
should he not be inclined to go through the whole of
what follows, for I shall quote at some length, as it will
give me an opportunity of explaining how Clinton’s
belief that Gordon was the originator of the idea of
equalised holes and of open-standing keys arose, and of

T 2
276 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

showing how it was the result, as I have said, of the cir-
cumstance that he was not acquainted with the previous
history of the flute.

He gives his readers a sketch of the development
of the instrument, in which, after mentioning Mr. Miller,
who in the year 1810 took out a patent for cylindrical
fifes made of metal, he goes on to say: “The first
palpable improvement was effected by my late esteemed
friend Charles Nicholson, who, by increasing the size of
the holes, and altering the diameter of the bore, con-
siderably augmented the volume of tone in the instru-
ment; nevertheless, the radical defects of the old eight-
keyed flute, as above stated, were left untouched.”

As Clinton thus had no knowledge of the work done
by the German school'of flute reformers, by whom “ the
new principle” attributed to Gordon was originated, we
can easily understand how it came to pass that he went
on to write as follows: “The next improvement we have
to notice was the germ of that present complete re-
arrangement of the flute which has been effected, and
resulted from the sagacity of Captain Gordon, who
held a commission in the Swiss Guards. He turned his
attention to the disposition of the holes, and having
made them of equal size, arranged them over the instru-
ment at equal distances. His flute was accordingly
well in tune, and the volume of tone on each note was
equalised, as far as such a system would allow. He
laboured for a considerable time to mature his improve-
ments ; but it was not until Mr. Boehm suggested a
mechanism for the right-hand part, that his improvement
became in any shape available; so uncertain, however,
was its action even then, that it was ultimately relin-
quished as a failure by all parties. It will be necessary,”
continues Clinton, “here to digress for a short space, in
order to give the reader some idea of the fundamental
difference between this last improvement in the flute,
and the principle of all former ones, which consisted in
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 277

these two prime points; first, an entire change in the
system of fingering; and, secondly, a change from a
shut into an open-keyed instrument ; this latter part
will need some explanation.”

Here follows a digression devoted chiefly to an ex-
planation of what is meant by the open-keyed principle.
After this, Clinton goes on to notice Gerock and Wolf’s
flute. “The effects,” he says, “of this new principle
were subsequently attempted to be carried out in a more
practical shape by the late Messrs. Gerock and Wolf;
with an endeavour also to preserve the old fingering ;”
and after pointing out the drawbacks to this flute he
resumes thus :—

“ About the year 1832, Mr. Boehm completed a system
of improvement upon the flute, which for some time
previous he had been constructing ; this instrument re-
sembled the Gordon flute, in having its holes at equal
distance and of equal size, and being constructed upon
the system of open keys. It was supposed, from this
resemblance, that -Mr. Boehm copied his mechanism
from Captain Gordon. The ideas might have been
adopted from him, but the general plan was so superior,
that I conclude we are chiefly indebted to Mr. Boehm
.for the first great advance in the knowledge and con-
struction of the flute generally. lt was brought to
England and laid before the public, who had an oppor-
tunity the following year of hearing the inventor play upon
it, and also of examining its merits, tt having been offered
for sale at Gerock and Wolf's in Cornhill. In 1835,
Mr. Boehm again visited London,® and again played

® According to Fétis (Biographical Dictionary, first edition,
article ‘ Boehm’), Boehm arrived in London late in the year 1834, and
remained till 1835. “The only information,” he says, “I have
about this artist is that he repaired to London in the autumn of
1834, and that he was still there in the early months of 1835,”
Fétis adds, ‘Boehm a introduit quelques perfectionnements dans la
construction de la fitite, et a inventé un nouveau genre de piano.
278 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

upon it several times; but neither on this, nor his
previous visit, did his flute seem to gain the public appro-
bation; since during. his whole’ se) jare in‘ this country
he disposed of but one instrument.”

~The: preceding remarks: on Mr. Rockstro’s denial of
ities truth of. Boehm’s statement ‘that’ he’ visited England
in 1833 appeared in the second edition of this: work,
but since that édition’ was published I have been made
acquainted’ with. evidence of the journey having been
undertaken, which no one, I apprehend, but Mr. Rockstro,
will be disposed to reject. Amongst other old ‘papers
in.the hands of Herr Ludwig Boehm is the passport
with which his father travelled in that year. The vzsas
on. it show that on the 2nd of. May-he. was making pre-
parations for starting from’ Munich:; that he had reached
Ostend by the 21st, and was about to embark for London
on the English steamboat, the Earl of Liverpool, Captain
Lomax; that on the 17th of July he was going to leave
London to, return home’through Paris; that he: was in
Paris on the 25th of that month, and that he’: ‘passed
through Stuttgart on the 3rd of August. y

Lest: Mr.’ Rockstro, who: seems to have taken so
seriously the Psalmist’s too rapid generalisation on the
mendacity of mankind, should imagine that the “ruling
passion,” of which‘he credits Boehm with being the slave,

C est pour faire entendre cet instrument quil a fait son voyage a
Londres en 1834.”

~Fétis wrote thus in 1835.' From Boehm’s passport, however, we
Be further. particulars. ‘We learn that‘he had reached Calais by.the.
2and of July, 1834, and that he did not obtain the visa in London
for his return journey until the 27th of June, 1835. An account of
his proceedings in in En gid during his visit has already been given,
at'p. 4
100 The passports in the possession of Herr Ludwig Boehm are’
twenty-five in number, nine of them being for England. These
nine were issued in the following years: 1831, 1833, 1834, 1836,
1837, 1839, 1845, 1847, 1852. There is no passport for 1851,
although it is certain that Boehm was in England in that year.
re:

it a

PLATE Ill.

ie!
hie fu Heal (VE)

Ze a Granger

iene De +S a ik ee
ae CA LD: G Go ,

C Apidec OB ine.

pn Uh hin Wetuk ules ome bs j

aa Lethe temnent dt uf ct le LOL

ipudroia abe Vue de, Lf faiyuiles sech recy prot
Louln Coautooyty militares cil etibls dynis A - i

 

 

 

feggtrecyes I dale he afer bromo

7

ee pgm

Sata. A,
c

 

FRONT OF PASSPORT.

To face p. 278.
PEATE: IV:

   
  

S38

 

3 ‘),
tate.

  
  
  
 
 

 

Hh 4 18

     

dw be

ty
ited

Se ?
Say Jb 5 ip eG a lace Ly tion
% QEGE Tadrrcte Avrora ke
pees opr ouee Fu la oe
DDinich Le & Pheri, J8E:

fy 2 tag PBC
ire

Lg

  
  
  

  
   

i) xa de
Fug hfe oe gy alate.

wv she Bie i de
(EE

 

  

“yy, “Ye
1 Se Li
ot oS

LN i ic hie aire Ee
PLE SE GLE: poses 1 Pi
GELLLIIS. v. Prag 93 byuick {Cull W892,
ins A As OU,

coe

a
Aes fli ne fon A limseg

       

 

78 feo e Seep -

    
  

 

  

gee seer Fier

dere
te oR ,

BACK OF PASSPORT.
PLATE V.

= Oe
4 wil Cope i i Pofoonen

r a VEZ teanert til fe ea

ra ? Piegucrons aewapprem de prfiacte scayenirine:

* houteo Ces aulrr tb onillennintPcidle-tabecd dana tet

pygiete: ro Gi on: prafier dle ees
ee eS) oF bot LE ee evese Dla

WO a eet: amps bee BI Lave

a curant a Oa.

alla bie bnck a oe Prance.

ge ee Ld, (Mhen.

Aion 7 Lo pris ont Lafond ett valable pour lead ? Wed

( pute A eamid be By Cont 1832

FEA
a
NEI oe
J — G2 hb. mbrUdlee’”

ET

 

 

FRONT OF PASSPORT.
PLATE VI.

. i eeae ax, fae PEGE ci eRe

eS af

Own
ak
(Oe Mee en Bo virre,

   
   
  
    

 

   

20 LEA ym Prifoinge Wid aut

Elta bbuss 10 ae A Li: *
z On OC etm S Ow Gh, More A998 EOE.
oe ian 2 fy 9 he Ca
a Sein fe faethe, LED be
a ae AM hae ein Lip Bie Spek Had
aie oe Ae fre we WOT TET b 0 ten
Jf TF FEL sl jit es ‘sug , fby- foo we 6 pe a
ae a 2 Sieh > OK we Oe ee eo
Z cm a a a 7383,

   

 

‘ghee

LLESES. - | Oe a2 Ha, hg Ve vheswd LA Ie. a Lie.

Gitex. | Lefiis Lag lo Z Ghats (itattar LSS es
Ee erties S —

   

(fale buaroste oe iad eed 7 Ce wee G cme

ot 2 (ntefecerve Yeu
Red, Sh

BACK OF PASSPORT.

To face p. 279.
EXAMINATION OF MR. RUCKSTRO’S VERSION, 279

has descended from father to son, or that the mantle of
falsehood, with which he believes him to have been
clothed, has fallen on his humble defender, I have asked
and obtained the permission of Herr Ludwig Boehm to
have the passport reproduced by a copyist whom even
Mr. Rockstro will scarcely venture to charge with wilful
deception—the sun. Plate III. isa representation ona re-
duced scale of the front of the document, and Plate IV. of
the back, on which the visas are written, by an autotype
process, which shows the smears and smudges on its
surface, the creases where it has been folded, and the
slips of adhesive paper by which it was repaired when it
was in danger of falling to pieces from the effects of the
friction to which it was exposed in the pocket where it
was constantly carried. The passport, copied by another
process, that of photozincography, which renders the
writing somewhat more legible, is given in Plates V.
and VI.

It will now be for flute-players to decide for them-
selves. Shall we accept this facsimile as a proof that
Boehm did not lie when he stated that he came to
England in 1833, or shall we place reliance on Mr.
Rockstro’s assertion, “There is no reason to believe
that the long deferred visit to England was made prior
to 1835 ;” so “we may conclude” that “his journey was
put off from time to time in order that his flute might
be completed to his satisfaction, and that he might have
time to practise on it before he set out”?** Ought we
to hear the voices from the grave which tell us that the
flute which he brought with him, exposed for sale at
the shop of Messrs. Gerock and Wolf in Cornhill, and
gave Englishmen an opportunity of examining as well
as hearing, was the instrument which bears his name ; or
should we listen to Mr. Rockstro, who maintains that there
are no “grounds for believing that the flute on which
he played in 1832 and 1833 differed from that” he had

101 Rockstro on the Flute, section 598, p. 334
Y 4
280 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

constructed in London for Messrs. Gerock and Wolf
during his first visit to this country ? 1?

And now, before dismissing Gordon’s flute, I should
like to ask a question: Was the instrument of any
practical value? Hitherto it has been regarded as the
ingenious production of a talented enthusiast, but how-
ever clever it might have been, it has always been pro-
nounced by friends and foes alike to be unplayable,
Boehm says that it was too complicated to be of any
real use; Schafhdutl tells us that it was barely play-
able in slow movements, whilst in rapid passages it
frequently missed altogether; Coche states that its
mechanism, composed of cranks and steel wire, provided
no security for execution ; whilst Clinton informs us in
the words I have just quoted, that “it was not until
Mr. Boehm suggested a mechanism for the right-hand
part, that his (Gordon’s) improvement became in any
shape available; so uncertain, however, was its action
even then, that it was ultimately relinquished as a failure
by all parties.” ;

Three of the statements have remained unquestioned
for forty or fifty years ; but we are now asked to believe
that all these gentlemen were wrong. Instead of being
complicated, the mechanism of Gordon’s flute, we are
told, was “ positively simple” when compared with that
of a popular modern hautboy; so far from giving no
security for execution, the action of the crank and wire
system “is practically perfect.” For confirmation of
this statement Mr. Rockstro appeals to Ward’s flute;
but whilst informing us that Ward used the crank and
wire mechanism for closing the two C valves on the foot
of his flute, he quite forgets to mention that for the holes
closed by the fingers he employed Boehm’s ring-keys.!%

But if Mr. Rockstro has the courage of his convictions,
there is an easy way in which he can prove his sincerity.

1% Rockstro on the Flute, section 595, p. 331.
308 Tb., section 571, p. 314.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION.

He has the drawing of the Gordon
flute, and he professes to know how
to finger it even better than Gordon.
Instead of continuing to occupy the
invidious position of one who heaps
obloquy on him to whom he is in-
debted for the instrument on which
he plays, let him have a Gordon flute
made, and let him discard the pro-
duction of the hated and despised
Boehm. The pigmy seated on the
shoulders of a giant can see farther
than the giant, but it would ill be-
come him were he, whilst expatiating
on the extent of the view he com-
mands, to kick at the stalwart form
by which he is supported. If Boehm
is to be criticised by Mr. Rockstro,

the fitness of things requires that he

should criticise him on his knees.

It now only remains to trace Gor-
don’s visit to Munich to its close.
According to Coche’s version of the
story, on the 15th of July, 1833, Gor-
don wrote to a friend in Paris, a M.
Mercier! telling him that he was
about to quit Munich for London, and
stating that he had just had made
an excellent instrument after his
model by a skilful artisan. He en-
closed in this letter for distribution
in Paris a number of copies of a printed
‘Tablature,’ i.e. a table of fingering,
of this flute!°° In the ‘Tablature,’

104 A translation of the letter will be found
at p. 132 and the original at p. 147.
1% In the second edition of this work I

 

 

 

 

 

281

ys pressed with the '

pecification of his patent. 4, 8, 11, ring-keys. w,w, ends of ke

left thumb c'osing 13, 14, C sharp and C natural valves, the motion conveyed to them by wires and cranks.

Fig. 45.—Side view of Ward’s Flute. Reduced from a figure in the s;
282 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

or in a preface to it,* Gordon, as we have seen,
acknowledged his indebtedness to Boehm for the F sharp
key, and for the D shake key." There accompanied
the ‘ Tablature’ a drawing of the instrument.

Several copies of the ‘Tablature’ with the drawing
thus distributed in Paris by M. Mercier, were placed
in Coche’s hands ;!% and it is a copy of this drawing
which Coche professes to have given to the world asa
drawing of Gordon’s flute (Fig. 12, p. 107). This is so
apparent that Coche does not think it necessary to state
it in so many words; but to make assurance doubly
sure I questioned Buffet on the point, and he instantly
replied that such was the fact. Buffet was perfectly
familiar with Gordon’s drawing, he had a copy of it
with the ‘Tablature,’ and this he told me he kept until
1851; but when in London on a visit to see the Great
Exhibition of that year, he lent it to a French gentle-
man, by whom it was unfortunately either lost cr acci-
dentally destroyed.

Mr. Rockstro states that the “original drawing” of
Coche’s engraving was sent to Coche by the wife of

gave what I believed to be the title affixed to this Zadlature, but
it was based on the slender foundation of an inference from an
expression used by Dr. Schafhautl (see note 6, p. 164). Coche
speaks of having received “several drawings and 7aélatures,” but
he does not enter into particulars. I have now thought it best to-
confine myself to Coche’s statement.

106 ‘Was there a preface to the Zablature? It is scarcely con-
ceivable that Gordon should have issued a table of fingering
without some introductory remarks, and we know that there was a
preface to his other table of fingering (p. 99), so that there is
every antecedent probability of the existence of a preface. How-
ever, all we learn from Coche’s words, “ La Clé du Fat et la Clé
du Trille de Ré appartiennent 24 Mr. Boehm (Tablature Gordon),”
is that the 7ad/ature contained the acknowledgment.

107 See p. 106.

108 “ Plusieurs dessins et tablatures me furent donnés au mois
d’avril suivant” (April 1838), “pour me faire connaitre Monsieur
Gordon comme le premier enventeur.”—Coche’s Method, p. 2.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 283

Gordon. This is the truth; nevertheless, not being the
whole truth, it conveys a false impression. If we are
to accept the statements made in Paris, the ‘ Tablature’
and the drawing which Madame Gordon enclosed in
her letter to Coche, were nothing but another copy of
the printed ‘Tablature’ and of the drawing, with several
copies of which, as I have just mentioned, Coche states
that he had been furnished before he received her
letter.!” :

If we now turn from Coche’s narrative to that of
Boehm, we come to a point where there appears to be a
direct antagonism between their representations. Ac-
cording to Coche, Gordon wrote to M. Mercier as we
have just seen, and enclosed the drawing of a flute
(Fig. 12, p. 107), with which he was about to quit Munich.
Boehm states that Gordon left Munich with a very
different instrument, his Diatonic Flute, the facsimile of
the ‘ Tablature ’ of which has been given opposite p. 102.
Here Mr. Rockstro, who has so repeatedly accused
Boehm of untruthfulness, suddenly deserts his friend
Coche, “assuming the partial accuracy” of Boehm’s
statement. But if Mr. Rockstro rejects Coche’s story
and accepts that of Boehm, what becomes of Gordon’s
letter to M. Mercier? Was this an invention of Coche,
the gentleman whom Mr. Rockstro has been accustomed
to regard “with feelings akin to reverence”? Or, if
.it be genuine, what were the printed papers enclosed in
it? Were they copies of the ‘Tablature’ of Gordon’s

1 The letter is given in the Appendix—in French at p. 143, and
in English at p. 127. :

This letter shows plainly enough that Madame Gordon intended
to convey the impression that she forwarded a representation of
an instrument made at Munich. She offers to write to Boehm’s
workman, “with whom he (her husband) made it.” She states
that it was “this instrument” that her husband cracked when
endeavouring to effect a further improvement on it, and it was
the drawing and éad/ature of “ this instrument ” that she says she
encloses in her letter to Coche.
284 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Diatonic Flute, not of the instrument which Coche
wishes us to accept as Gordon’s ?¥° Then, again, there

10 It will be remembered that the Zadlature of the “ Diatonic
Flute” was preceded by a preface or introduction in which Gordon
announced the new instrument “to the Musical World.” Although
Coche ignored Gordon’s Diatonic Flute, a comparison of Gordon’s
preface with Coche’s Examen Critique, the pamphlet he presented
to the members of the Institute, suggests the idea that he was not
unacquainted with the announcement of it, he having seemingly
availed himself of the preface in the composition of his pamphlet,
expanding Gordon’s simple phrases into more highly sounding
periods, and clothing his unaffectedly expressed ideas with pompous
verbiage. For instance, Gordon begins his preface thus: “The
flute, as it is known at the present day, is a very imperfect musical
instrument.” Coche commences his pamphlet as follows: “ Of all
musical instruments the flute is the most ancient; it is that of
which the use has never been interrupted, and which, nevertheless,
has remained always imperfect.” In the following the resemblance
is more marked ; indeed, looking at the sequence of the sentences,
it would seem to be not impossible that Coche had a copy of
Gordon’s Tablature before him when he was writing. It will be for
the reader to form his own opinion as to whether the correspondence.
between the two is or is not accidental, I will therefore place, for
his convenience, the quotations in parallel columns. ,

GORDON.

In loading it (the flute) with
new keys they have only made
it more complicated without
changing its defective conforma-
tion, the sole way to improve it,

These keys, moreover, as well
as the holes, are not in their true
place.

COCHE.

Of all the attempts made up
to the present time by makers
or artists, not one has remedied
the primitive defects in the con-
struction of the flute; they still
exist in their integrity in the
instrument of the present day,
overloaded with a crowd of keys
which injure its sonorousness,
and complicate the embarras-
ments of the fingering.

The defectuosity of the flute
may be attributed to the in-
correct placing of the holes,
which, since the origin of this
instrument, have been pierced
according to the natural exten-
sion of the fingers. By this
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION.

is the drawing Coche published of Gordon’s flute.

could this have originated ?

285

How
Did Coche imagine it?

However it came into existence, it is unquestionably
a very extraordinary and incomprehensible production.

 

GORDON.

Many notes have not a suffi-
cient length of column of air,
whence, partly, the indecision,
the inequality, and the false in-
tonation of the greater part of
these notes.

The study of this instrument
in its present state is a constant
struggle with these defects, which
one can succeed in palliating, in
disguising more or less success-
fully, but never in entirely over-
coming, because they lie in the
structure of the instrument.

»

COCHE.

system the greater part of the
holes do not correspond to the
fractions of the column of air
that give the acoustic propor-
tions; whence arise the differ-
ences in the size and the distance
of the holes, and, in consequence,
defective aud sreqaal shona
tions,suchas . .

such are the principal ait
culties before which the best
artists will always run aground,
because these difficulties proceed
from defects inherent in the
flute.

Gordon’s preface has already been given in French in the facsimile
of the Tablature. For the sake of comparison I append the original
of the above quotation from Coche’s pamphlet: “ Ainsi, de tous les
essais tentés jusqu’a présent par des facteurs ou des artistes, aucun
n’a remédié aux vices primitifs de la construction de la flite; ils
existent encore intégralement dans I’instrument actuel, surchargé
d'une foule de clés qui nuisent & sa sonorité et compliquent les
embarras du doigté.

On peut attribuer la défectuosité de la flfite au placement inexact
des trous, qui, depuis Vorigine de cet instrument, ont été percés
d’aprés ’écartement naturel des doigts. Par ce systéme, la plupart
des trous ne correspondent pas aux fractions de la colonne d’air
que donnent les proportions acoustiques ; de 14 naissent les différ-
ences dans la grandeur et la distance des trous, et, par suite, des
intonations vicieuses et inégales, telles que. . . . .; telles sont
les principales difficultés devant lesquelles les meilleurs artistes
échoueront toujours, par ce que ces difficultés proviennent de
défauts inhérents & la fltite.”
286 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

I will examine one key only, that for closing the B
natural hole ; a key which we have already had occasion
to discuss from another point of view. It is indicated
in the drawing by the letter ¢ (see p. 107). Judging
from the way in which it is depicted, it would seem to
have been the intention of the draughtsman to represent
this key as working on the axle 7. But if this were so,
the finger would open instead of close, as it ought to
do, the valve e. It is true that flute-makers are familiar
with a device by which the action could be reversed,
but such mechanism could not be placed on the flute
without it being visible.

Mr. Rockstro proposes a different explanation. He
considers that instead of working on the axle f, the
shank of the key passed clear over this axle. But we are
thus only landed in a still greater difficulty, there being
no axle shown on which the key could have worked.
Mr. Rockstro says that the axle must have been at or
near #, “ perhaps under the crescent.” But even if we
assume that it would be possible for it to have been so
concealed by the crescent as not to be visible to the eye
of the draughtsman, our difficulties are not lessened by
Mr. Rockstro’s explanation ; for had it been placed at 4,
no action could have been obtained on pressing the
finger on the crescent, as the pressure of that part of
the finger which was above, would neutralise the pres-
sure of the part which was below the axle, half the
force being applied to the lever on one side and half
on the other side of the fulcrum. Thus it is open to a
Boehmite, should he condescend to adopt the tactics of
his opponents, to say that the person who made the
drawing, by one of those strange oversights by which
so many attempts to deceive have been brought to
light, has depicted a key, which either opens the hole it
ought to close, or else has no attachment to the flute.

That Coche was not free from certain of the pro-
clivities with which Mr. Pecksniff’s name is usually asso-
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 287

ciated is only too apparent on his own showing, but
God forbid that we should allow him, now that he is
no longer able to explain or defend himself, to be pro-
nounced guilty of forgery on such evidence as this,
or on the authority of Mr. Rockstro’s assumption. And
as regards the seemingly conflicting statements of
Coche and Boehm, surely, instead of striving to prove
that one of two dead men must be an Ananias, to most
minds it would be a more congenial task to en-
deavour to ascertain if some means could not be found
of reconciling what seems contradictory. Why, for
instance, should not Coche and Boehm both be right?
Who can say that Gordon did not leave Munich with
two flutes; that which Coche produced, and that which
Boehm brought forward? Boehm designed two flutes, one
on which he sought to retain, the other on which he aban-
doned the old fingering. How can we tell that Gordon
too might not have wished to have two instruments, an
improved old, and also a new flute? Tulou had con-
demned his change of fingering. Schafhautl speaks of
him as wedded to an eight-keyed flute ; whereas Gordon’s
flute, as figured by Coche, is a still greater departure
from the old flute than is the Boehm. Indeed, it would
seem to be far from impossible that Schafhautl saw
the two flutes in Boehm’s workshop, for, in describing
Gordon’s flute, he mentions things peculiar to each of
the instruments.’

I was once in a position which would have enabled
me, I have little doubt, had I availed myself of the
_ Opportunity, to make known far more on this subject
than Boehm had previously thought proper to publish.
It was on the occasion of my first interview with him.
He was sitting alone expecting my visit when I entered
the room. Whether or not he was gifted with the faculty
of second sight, and had been mysteriously warned that
one was approaching who was destined to tell the story

™ See p. 71. u2 See Appendix, p. 164, note 6.
288 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of his flute I cannot say ; but certain it is that, although
I was a perfect stranger, in the very breath in which he
greeted me, he began with singular abruptness to speak
of Gordon. He was in a communicative mood, and was
evidently desirous of going fully into the story. But his
words fell on deaf ears. At that time I little thought
that I should ever interest myself in Gordon or his flute.
I paid no heed to what he said ; I was only thinking of
how to lead the conversation to another subject on which
I was anxious to have his opinion.

Is history a record of facts, or a product of the
imagination ?

How often has this question forced itself on those
who endeavour to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the
narratives with which its pages are filled. We have just
seen how difficult it is to sift fact from fiction in the
statements made in the past respecting the origin of the
Boehm flute. And now, in the year of grace 1891,
there has appeared a new and totally different version
of -the story."* Whether this fresh addition to the
literature of the subject is more, or less credible than
Mr. Rockstro’s account, whether the evidence on which
it is based is better or worse, I shall leave others to
decide. ,

To such a degree has the march of events been
quickened in these days of railways and telephones, that
the Boehm-Gordon incident has already reached the
stage of myth. Boehm, it is true, has not been identified
with Marsyas, nor Mr. Rockstro with Apollo. The
azure sky, the mountain breeze, and the brawling of the
Nyszan torrent are conspicuous by their absence. The
story has taken the form of a medieval legend ; we smell
brimstone and catch sight of blue flames.

So incredible does it appear that any human being
could have inflicted on his fellow mortals the maddening
task of attempting to master the difficulties of the Boehm

M8 See the Vational Observer, Jan. 17, 1891.

Fe ah Bal
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 289.

fingering, that it has come to be believed that this
fingering must be the invention of the Enemy of Mankind.
__ The legend presents points of resemblance to that of the
Devil and Dr. Faustus with which poets and dramatists
have made us so familiar. Boehm, like Faust, sold his
soul, not, however, for a beautiful woman, but for a new
flute. Gordon becomes a Mephistopheles, Satan dis-
guised as an angel of light.

How the tempter first assailed his victim is as yet a
mysterv. Whether he revealed himself in a vision of
the night, as he did to Tartini, and ravished Boehm,
whilst he slept, with a supernatural flute solo ; whether
he appeared to him as he was struggling, file and
hammer in hand, to construct some new key by the dim
light of a midnight lamp; or whether, to disarm sus-
picion, he introduced himself by broad daylight at
Messrs. Gerock and Wolf’s in the simple guise of an ex-
officer of the French army, are still matters of conjecture.
But wherever might have been the scene of the pre-
liminary negotiations, it was not in a murky den of
this crime-stained Babylon, nor in some quiet recess of
Boehm’s peaceful home that the bargain was finally
struck. It was on a blasted heath that the unholy bond
was signed, sealed, and delivered. Here ’midst the
. crashing and flashing of thunder and lightning, the
hurtling of hail, and the hoarse cry of the storm-fiend,
the Boehm flute was ushered into the world.

Mr. Rockstro will be delighted to hear that Boehm,
whom he believes to have imposed on so many thousands
of flute-players, proved to be no match for the Old
Gentleman. Gordon, less honest than the Mephisto-
pheles of Faust, having secured the reversion of Boehm’s
soul, palmed off upon him in return an instrument with
a well-nigh impossible fingering. On discovering that
he had been duped, the selfish and mercenary Boehm,
instead of burying the accursed model deep under-
‘ground, proceeded to console himself for his bad bargain

U
290 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

“by disposing of it to confiding brother flautists ; thereby
entailing on the world of flute-players greater ills than
those which afflicted mankind on the opening, of
Pandora’s box.

The legend as I shall present it to the reader has
been wafted from far Samoa. It comes from a very dis-
tinguished pen, that-of Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson,
who has thrown it into verse, as follows :—

TO THEOBALD BOEHM, FLAUTIST,
(Inventor of the New Fingering which bears his Name).
AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL REMINISCENCE.

As o’er your flageolet we lean,
Mark your two D’s—
The sharps, I mean—
And tell me, how came these
In that relation ?
Or take your A’s—
You’ve three of those
Attained in the most diverse ways
Plainly to drive the virtuose
To desperation—
You surely cannot mean me to suppose
This strange derangement sprang from calculation ?!

Was it in dream,
O Boehm,
You saw these keys that seem
So singularly mingled ?
The Devil doubtless, on some lonely track,
While the rude wind swept by you with a hiss
And on your back
The hailstones tingled,
Met you by assignation, and displayed
Three models "* diabolically made:
From which (being all amazement) it was this
You rashly singled.

4 The three models, from which Boehm selected one, are men-
tioned at p. 24 of this work.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 291

One moment in your soul (which you had sold)
Joy doubtless glowed
As, pipe in hand, you took the road
Towards your plain abode
In some unknown and old
And spiry German city.
Joyful, no doubt, you sat you down
And trimmed your light,
And to the drowsy murmur of the town
Prepared to charm the night
With some old ditty.
One moment only : then the whole
Infernal cheat
Dawned on your soul,
And you broke forth in words I can’t repeat,
Or with a groan
Sat turned to stone :
Iago, O, the pity !

Say, Boehm, long dead, long damned,

What did you then,

When you beheld yourself thus bammed,'?

The most beguiled of men

Since Hell could over-reach ?

Say, did you put your sentiment in speech
Or fear to say it?

Say, did you hurl to ground

That-most unsound

Fallacious flageolet,

And set
Your foot upon’t, to bray it?

It may be. Fancy trembles to conceive

The doings of that eve,

Your rage, your pain,

When, in a clap of thunder, you saw plain

You had your pipe, dear bought, and bought in vain—
You had your pipe, and you could never play it !

How long, O Boehm, before
‘Hope, like the sunshine in a shady place,
Revived ? and could restore

_'. The glory to your face,

‘Glory so bright that never bard could tell it?

ace ee
15. Rammed,” an abbreviation of bamboozled.
U 2
292 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

How long before that thought
Burst on you in a jet? ;
And your proud back you bowed,
Picked up that dearly bought
Still precious flageolet,
And cried aloud :
“T cannot play, by God, but I can sell it!”

And now, having disposed of Boehm and Gordon, I
will say a few words on a subject of more importance to
us than a flute-makers’ paltry squabble—the connec-
tion between science and the construction of our instru-
ment.

In these days of enlightenment every man seems to be
proud of science, but ashamed of art. Makers and com-
pounders of every sort and kind fancy that they can lift
themselves above the level of their fellows by holding
on to the skirts of Faraday, Tyndall, or some other man
of science. Every article touters invite us to purchase
is a scientific production ; every xostrum we are advised
by quacks to swallow is a scientific remedy. Indeed,
so universally has science become diffused, that she has
found her way to our nether garments, and has even
descended into our boots.

But leaving such mysteries as these to scientific
trouser-cutters and scientific shoemakers, let us ask this
question: Is the science of acoustics as yet sufficiently
advanced to admit of its discoveries being applied to the
art of flute-making? “It is easy,” as Clinton says, “to
show how the vibrations and the waves-.of air in the
flute are governed by the laws and principles of acous-
tics ; and to the uninitiated ear it smacks in some degree
of learning,” but to what extent does it assist the flute-
maker? In order to obtain an answer to this question
we will see what help the flute-maker can get from
science in settling the five most important considerations
which claim his attention in constructing a flute, viz. :—
the material of the instrument, its bore, the place for its
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 293

cork, the configuration of its embouchure, and the
position of its finger-holes.

First as regards the material. Does the material of
which the flute is made affect the tone of the instru-
ment?

Boehm tells us that flutes made of hard German silver
give a clear but shrill tone, inferior to that produced by
tubes of brass or silver; and he further states that, in
comparison with these, “the tone of flutes made of wood
sounds literally wooden.” "* Now is, or is not this distinc-
tion in the quality of the tone an illusion of the sense
of hearing?" M. Victor Mahillon regards it as a blot
on Boehm’s reputation that he was unable to emancipate
himself from such old prejudices and accept the teaching
of his own theory that it is the air alone that vibrates
in the flute.’

6 Essay on the Construction of Flutes, p. 45.

17 To test the question of how far the tone of a wind instrument
is influenced by the employment of metal or wood as the material
of which it is made, M. Victor Mahillon constructed a cavalry
trumpet of wood, with the result that it yielded precisely the same
bright, shrill, brassy, ringing sound as the ordinary metal trumpet ;
indeed, no difference could be distinguished in the ¢2mdbre of the
two instruments. See his E/éments d’Acoustique, p. 64.

Those who remember the introduction of the silver flute will
recollect that its opponents expressed a most violent dislike to its
tone. To meet them, it was usual to place a flute-player behind a
screen, or in an adjoining room, where he was to play alternately
on a wood and a silver flute, and to ask them if they could say with
certainty, without seeing the instrument, on which of the two he
was playing. To such an extent did flautists of the old school
allow themselves to be influenced by prejudice against flutes of
metal that Edward Marshall of Oxford, a pupil of Nicholson, and
a good professional player on the eight-keyed flute, having at one
time become subject to fancies, and imagining that he was about
to die, once said to the author, “I shall soon be in Heaven, and
then I shall play on a golden flute, but mind,” he added, raising
his voice and speaking with great energy, “it must-be lined with
wood.”

8 That Boehm held the opinion that the vibration of the material
of the flute is an essential factor in the production of the tone is
294 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

How is the bewildered flute-maker to decide between
these two authorities? Has Sir John Herschel, Lord
Rayleigh, Sir George Airy, or any other scientist come
to his rescue, and demonstrated for him whether or not
the difference in tone alleged to exist between a silver
and a-wood flute is real, or imaginary? No! he is left
to what “will naturally be supposed”; and he is further
told that “attempts to argue theoretically on questions
of this kind are almost useless.” 1”

Secondly, there is the bore of the flute. Is the flute-
maker indebted to science for its form and proportions?

Let us hear what Mr. Rockstro has to say. “As far
as I have been able to discover,” remarks that gentle-
man, “all improvements that have ever been effected
in the bores of wind instruments have been absolutely
empirical.” !”

The diameter of the widest portion of the bore of the
flute is to this day six-eighths, or 75 of an inch, just as
it was when the primitive, keyless tube figured at p. 218
was made,” long before science had demonstrated the
nature of the undulations of the column of air the bore
encloses. For the bore we now use, the combination of
the cylindrical body with the tapering head, we are

evident from a passage in his Essay on the Construction of Flutes,
p. 26. “In order to obtain the sound of a wind instrument, the
column of air within the tube must be brought into certain vibra-
tions, different from those of strings, tuning forks, or metallic
springs. These vibrations must react upon the body that surrounds
the air column, and excite its molecular vibrations, without which
no sound can arise.” In his later work Boehm uses this theory to
explain the ease with which the tone of a silver flute can be elicited,
referring it to the small quantity of material required to be thrown
into vibration.

9 Rockstro on the Flute, section 247, p. 95.

120 Tbid., section 341, p. 162.

MT ought to mention that this measurement was not taken with
an instrument capable of measuring millimetres, such as flute-
makers use. I had only an ordinary tape for the purpose.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 295

indebted wholly and solely to the “ignorant impostor,”
the last rag of whose science, we are told, has been torn
from his back by the spasmodic clutching of well-meaning
but hysterical admirers. Five-and-forty years ago Boehm
made hundreds of patient experiments to ascertain the
best form and proportions for the bore, and if some
flute-makers have departed slightly from what he re-
commended, it has not been in obedience to the dictates
of science. The floods of scientific light which. have
been poured on the production of sound in tubes have
left no mark on the bore of the flute. Science has not
touched the bore with her little finger.

The third point is the position of the cork, or stopper.

Have we now at length reached the domain of science ?
It would seem so to judge from the way she has applied
herself to enlighten us on the nature of the undulations
of the air in tubes open, and tubes stopped at one end.
If she has so much to say on this subject, surely she can
tell the flute-maker where to put his stopper. But no!
it is by “experiment ” !? that the position is ascertained
which gives the best results. Indeed it is not to Dame
Science, but to Lady Chance that we are indebted for
the discovery that the position of the stopper exercises
an influence on the harmonics.

Madame Science can talk by the hour about the
oscillations to and fro of the particles of air confined in
tubes. She can discourse of their condensations and
their rarefactions, of their reflexions positive and nega-
tive, of their nodes and of their antinodes ; she can even
reveal to our wondering eyes the secret gambols of their
mystic dance. But when we ask her to give us an

122 Rockstro on the Flute, section 331, p. 155.

28 “Te hasard fit découvrir qu’en établissant une cavité 4 la
gauche du trou d’embouchure, le partage du tuyau nécessaire 4 la
production des harmoniques, s’opérerait en établissant le rapport
nécessaire entre les uns et les autres.”—Mahillon, Z/éments

@ Acoustique, p. 192.
296 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

account of the behaviour of the column of air between
the cork and the mouth-hole, she is silent. Instead of
being able to teach, she still has everything to learn.
Mr. Rockstro has been poring over books of science for
thirty years, and all that he has been able to extract from
them on the subject amounts to this, that the vibrations
in this column of air “appear to be somewhat similar in
their nature to those which extend beyond the lower end
of the instrument, and to be even less understood.” !"4

Fourthly, there comes the embouchure.

What a mystery have we here! The embouchure is
the larynx of the flute; nay, it is its very heart. It is
the embouchure which quickens the pulse whose flutter-
ing throb endows the dead stick with the gift of speech,
and transforms it into a living being. It would be indeed
strange if so wonderful an organ had not attracted
the attention of Science; accordingly, we find that
amongst those whom she has deputed to lay bare its
secrets are some of the most able of her sons. Are they
agreed on the nature of its functions? We will again
appeal to Mr. Rockstro. “There is probably no sub-
ject,” he declares, “in the whole range of the science of
acoustics on which greater uncertainty and diversity
of opinion prevail.”

The last addition to these scientific speculations is
the clever contribution of Mr. Hermann Smith, but Mr.
Rockstro throws doubts on its soundness. Sir George
Airy says that this obscure matter demands more com-
plete investigation, Lord Rayleigh speaks of our ignorance
as to the mode of action of the wind, and Helmholtz
expresses a hope of being able to investigate it more
extensively. Instead, then, of having so far reached
the deductive stage as to be able to formulate laws for
the guidance of the flute-maker, it is possible that the
science of the embouchure has not yet advanced from
hypothesis into theory.

™ Rockstro on the Flute, section 338, p. 158.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION, 297

Boehm was fully alive to the importance of the em-
bouchure. He made its shape, its size, its depth, and
the angle at which it should slope, the subject of his
experiments. Mr. Rockstro, too, has his ideas as to its
form, but they do not agree with those of Boehm. On
this uncertain topic Boehm is satisfied with telling us
what he ¢hinks best adapted to the purpose, and what
“according to” his “views” is “most suitable,’ !25 and
giving us his “opinion” 4° for what it is worth. But
what is doubtful to Boehm is obvious to Mr. Rockstro.
He rushes in where Boehm fears to tread, and presents
us with a diagram of a “perfect” embouchure.!27 But
from the nature of the case its perfection is of the must-be
order, not the offspring of applied science.

Finally, we have to consider the position of the finger-
holes, and here, at last, we enter on debatable ground.

Boehm, who prided himself far more on his knowledge
of science, to acquire which had cost him so much time
and trouble, than on the mechanical gifts with which he
had been so liberally endowed by nature, used his utmost
endeavours to place the position of the finger-holes on a
scientific basis. He embodied the result of his labours in
a Schema, or Diagram for the use of musical instrument
makers in tuning their instruments, and in this Schema
the position of the finger-holes was made to depend on
a calculation of the wave-length of the column of air.

It appears, however, that the belief—a belief in which
I confess that I once shared—that flute-makers make
use of the Schema is erroneous. M. Cavaillé-Coll states
that the best flute-makers he has consulted have admitted
that to get at the position of the finger-holes they feel
their way by repeated trials. As far as I have been
able to learn, Messrs. Rudall, Carte, & Co. are guided

15 The Flute and Flute Playing, translated by Mr. Triggs,
ch, 2.

16 Essay on the Construction of Flutes, p. 38.

17 Rockstro on the Flute, section 336, p. 157.
298 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

by experiment and the results of experience, whilst
Mr. Rockstro arrives at the postion of two or three of
his holes by “direct experiment,” and then, to save time
and trouble, has recourse to a geometrical calculation,
taking these holes as data, to find the place of the
others.1”8

But if a flute were constructed with its holes placed
where Boehm’s Schema requires, would it prove a well-
tuned instrument? On this point opinions are divided.

It is, of course, needless to say which side Mr. Rockstro
would take on such a question. Mr. Rockstro knows of
two attempts to construct a flute according to the Schema.
They were made by gentlemen whose names he does
not think it necéssary to mention, but one of them was
an eminent flute manufacturer. The failure of both
experiments was complete. Mr. Rockstro has already
pronounced Boehm’s efforts in flute-making to have ter-
minated in the production of an object of “disgust”;
“an inherently imperfect thing,’ “most wretched” in
tone and tune, “lamentably,” “extravagantly,” and “ out-
rageously” bad, But the vocabulary of vituperation is
not exhausted. So horrible, shocking, and dreadful was
the result of his experiment, that it was declared by
the eminent but anonymous flute manufacturer to be
“ ghastly.” 179

M. Cavaillé-Coll, however, has come to a very different
conclusion. This gentleman was deputed by the jury to
examine Boehm’s Schema when it was sent to the Paris
Exhibition of 1867. He reported that it was vitiated
by a fundamental error; Boehm had miscalculated the
length of the sound-wave. The matter dropped; but
after the lapse of fifteen or sixteen years M. Cavaillé-
Coll’s attention was again drawn to the subject. There-
upon he borrowed, and proceeded to measure a silver

"8 Rockstro on the Flute, section 350, p. 170.
2 Thid., section 349, p. 169.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION, 299

flute on the Boehm system on which M. De Vroye was
playing. To his surprise he discovered that it corre-
sponded exactly to the proportions of the Schema, not
only in the length of the tube, but even in the position
of the finger-holes. On reflection, he became convinced
that his statement that Boehm had miscalculated the
length of the sound-wave was the result of an oversight.
Temperature exercises an influence on the sound-wave,
as every flute-player knows to his cost, and M. Cavaillé-
Coll had omitted to notice that Boehm had based his
caiculations on the length of the sound-wave in air at
the temperature to which the interior of the flute is
raised by the breath of the performer. This led him to
reconsider the whole question, and the conclusion at
which he arrived, as stated in a paper which he pub-
lished,° was that the Schema is perfectly correct, and
that it satisfies all the requirements of the flute-maker.
On the other hand, Dr. Schafhautl states }* that the
problem involved in the position of the finger-holes is
so complicated that the attempts made to solve it,
though they come near, have not as yet reached reality.
Whenever Boehm attempted to make flutes with the
side-holes placed according to his (Schafhautl’s) calcula-
tions, there were always a few vibrations in excess or
defect. Empirical formule, the Doctor goes on to say,
alone can help here. So, too, M. Victor Mahillon, speaking
with the double authority of a flute-maker and a writer on
acoustics, informs us that a study of the work in which
Boehm made his principles known has convinced him that
Boehm either did not carry out his theory in his prac-
tice, or else did not completely divulge the result of his
researches. An organ-pipe, he admits, can be made the
subject of scientific calculation, but not the tube of a
flute: Not even for its length, much less for the position

189 This paper is reprinted in this work, p. 306.
181 Infra, p. 464.
300 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of its finger-holes, do the figures prove absolutely correct.
The results are approximative only. Theory and prac-
tice, he adds, do not agree; an admission, as it is need-
less to point out, that the true theory, as far as the flute
is concerned, has still to be ascertained, or that a
second theory is required to account for the residual
phenomena, the nature of the disturbing influence and
the laws which govern it having still to be studied.”

If, then, there is not one of these five departments of

182 « Nous avons dit que les lois des longueurs ne donnent que des
résultats approximatifs. 1 suffit, en effet, de comparer ces chiffres
avec la longueur réelle de la fiite et la position de ses trous latéraux
pour se convaincre que la théorie n’est pas d’accord avec la pratique.
Cette divergence existe non seulement pour les tuyaux de la
flite, mais pour toutes les colonnes d’air en général. En 1860,
M. Cavaillé-Coll, le célébre facteur d’orgue, présentait 4 Académie
des Sciences de Paris une formule qui permet de calculer d’une
fagon exacte la longueur d’un tuyau d’orgue. Cette formule
appliquée aux tuyaux cylindriques est la suivante :

ta2=0

Z2l<
wo lun

dans laquelle L représente la longueur du tuyau, V la vitesse du
son, N le nombre de vibrations, D le diamétre. Cette formule n’est
pas applicable au calcul de la longueur d’une fifite traversiére ;
Yembouchure de celle-ci, par sa position sur la paroi latérale du
tube et par son diamétre inférieur 4 celui de la section du tuyau,
abaisse le son plus que le fait la bouche des tuyaux d’orgue ; par
suite de cette conformation d’embouchure, le tuyau de la fifite
traversiére se range parmi ceux que l’on désigne sous le nom de
tuyaux partiellement bouchés. De plus, la partie de la Afite com-
prise entre le trou de l’embouchure et le bouchon qui sert & opérer
la fermeture supérieure du tube, agissant en fuyau fermé, doit
compter pour double dans I’évaluation de la longueur totale de la
fitite. Cet espace compris entre le bouchon et le centre de
Yembouchure est en moyenne de o™ 017. Dans ces concitions il
est difficile de calculer avec une précision absolue la longueur de la
flite. Le calcul de la position exacte des trous latéraux est plus

compliqué encore.”—Mahillon, ‘Etude sur le doigté de la Flite
Boehm, p. 8. :
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION, 301

his art in which the flute-maker can press acoustics into
his service, and use her as his handmaid to assist him in
his difficulties, where, it will be asked, is the flute-maker’s
science? The flute-maker’s science is as yet unborn.
She is waiting for some competent investigator to bring
her into the world by devoting himself to the problems
which have still to be solved before she can see the
light. But whoever he shall be that may undertake the
task, it will be for him to bear in mind that to the student
of Natural Science—and the most distinguished scientific
man is but a student—there is no must-be. His first
lesson is Humility. At every step he doubts and tries ;
then doubts and tries again. There are domains of
thought which the must-be gentlemen can claim as their
own, but these gentlemen have no place amongst the
workers in the field of inductive science.

One other word—a word on behalf of my younger
and less experienced brother amateurs.

It is high time that a protest should be raised against
the practice of dangling before the eyes of flute-players
the bait of perfection—a practice by which so many of
us have been induced to lighten our pockets and waste
our time, only to discover that we have been invited to
grasp at a will-o’-the-wisp.

How often have we been mocked by this‘illusion even
within the memory of men still living! First came
Coche. He, however, was far too clever to claim per-
fection in his own name. They manage such things
better in France. He was able to bring forward Berton,
Cherubini, Paér, Auber, Halévy, and Carafa as sponsors
for the statement that in his flute were to be found
“perfect intonation and equality of tone.”1*? These
distinguished composers, though they were ready to
vouch for the fact that all the faults of the old flute had
been corrected, did not profess to be competent to

183 See Berton’s letter to Coche, and the report of the Académie
Royale des Beaux-Arts, pp. 118 ef seg.
302 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

explain, of their own knowledge, in what these imper-
fections consisted.

They represented that they had obtained their infor-
mation on the subject whilst “chatting” with a gentle-
man yclept the celebrated Charles, a gentleman who
combined the accomplishments of a great physicist
(grand physicien), a distinguished amateur of music, and
a “pretty good” flute-player. Unfortunately, however,
the great physicist betrays such ignorance of the
acoustics of the flute that even Mr. Rockstro cannot
help laughing at him, and as for the vaunted perfection
of Coche’s instrument, that gentleman informs us that
in intonation it was almost as defective, and in tone
decidedly inferior to “the inherently imperfect thing ”
turned out at Boehm’s factory at Munich.

Next comes Siccama. He reduces his right to the
throne of perfection to a mathematical demonstration.
The passage in which he brings forward his claim is
quoted in these pages,'** and Mr. Rockstro has been so
complimentary as to repeat it in his ‘Treatise on the
Flute.’ Mr. Rockstro makes short work of Siccama.
He pronounces his Diatonic flute to be “an unphiloso-
phical and unnatural combination of two incompatible
things,” and so far was it from attaining perfection, that
“its third octave,” we are told, “was almost irredeemably
bad.”

Siccama was followed by Clinton. When Clinton
first became a flute-maker he spurned the idea of per-
fection. “No flute is perfect,” he said, “nor can be;
the principle by which we obtain the sounds of thirty-
seven pipes, varying in length and size, from one single
tube, precludes the possibility of perfection.” But alas
for consistency! A few years afterwards Mr. Clinton
brought out a new model to which he gave the name
of the Equisonant flute, and at the same time he pro-

Supra, p. 17.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 303

ceeded to assure the world of flute-players that he had
obtained an instrument “perfect in tone and tune.” !%

The Equisonant fares even worse at Mr. Rockstro’s
hands than does the Diatonic flute. He makes merry
over it. A facetious gentleman, he informs us, once
asked Mr. Clinton if Equisonant did not mean equally
bad all over. “Unfortunately,” adds the witty Mr.
Rockstro, the instrument “had not even that negative
merit, it was unequally bad.”

And now I come to a circumstance which seems well-
nigh incredible. So irresistible appears to be the temp-
tation to which flute improvers are exposed to claim
perfection that the very man who has been denouncing
and ridiculing the perfection of others, having thus
cleared the ground, steps into the vacant place. Mr.
Rockstro, who denies that Perfection ever deigned to
bestow a glance on thase of his predecessors who boasted

188 “ My endeavour has been to obtain an instrument worthy of
its class ; perfect in tone and tune; equal in all the keys of music ;
to secure that corresponding equality in the three octaves which
has hitherto been so difficult and apparently so hopeless; and
lastly, to combine with it that simplicity of fingering without which
all our efforts to obtain fluency and certainty of execution and ex-
pression must prove ineffectual. I have no difficulty in showing that
in these particulars my labours have been attended with complete
success.”—Clinton’s Hints to Flute Players, p. 23.

When, in reliance on these representations, I purchased of Mr.
Clinton one of his Equisonant flutes, I had not read the work in
which the following occurs. In this extract I have taken the
liberty, with many apologies to the City Editor of The Times,
of interpolating the word jlwze. ‘Do not listen to what other
people have to recommend. People who are engaged in commerce
in all its multifarious ramifications care only for themselves, and
for no other single soul; it is at all times consequently idle to put
any other construction upon advice to buy a certain /vze, tendered
apparently with the most benevolent motives, than that it is to serve
directly or indirectly the purpose of him who recommends the pur-
chase. In business every one is for himself, and, as the saying is,
‘the devil take the hindmost.’”—Crump on the Theory of Stock

. Exchange Speculation, p. 59.
304 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

that they had enjoyed her favours, is as certain that the
coy Goddess has descended from heaven to take up her
abode with him, as was Endymion that the chaste Diana
came down from the clouds to crown with bliss his
amorous slumbers.'*

It would be useless to deny that it was a source of
regret to more than one of, Mr. Rockstro’s well-wishers
to find that a work we were all so ready to welcome into
the world, a work which, when it appeared, proved to be
rich in the fruits of observation and research, and distin-
guished bya literary style for the excellence of which we
were not prepared, had been made the vehicle for such
pretensions. Indeed it was not long before the author
himself had cause to repent him of his indiscretion.
An American reviewer!" of his ‘Treatise on the Flute,’
not content with charging him with denouncing Boehm
and his work in order to heighten the value of his own,
pronounced his ponderous volume to be “one of the
most stupendous advertisements in book form of modern
times,” and called attention to what seemed to his ’cute
transatlantic mind to be a master stroke of smartness,
that the “advertising scheme” was carried out “all at
the expense of a large and respectable list of subscribers
named in the last pages.”

“O wad some power the giftie gie us
To see ourselves as others see us !
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,

And foolish notion.”

In conclusion, I can only express a hope that when
Mr. Rockstro has gone to his long rest, when the pen has
fallen from his clay-cold hand and his tongue is silent
for ever, his memory may meet with more tender treat-

86 Rockstro on the Flute, section 681, p. 393, section 703, p. 413:
section 367, p. 186.

®T See The Leader, a:monthly musical journal published at
Boston, for January 1891.
EXAMINATION OF MR. ROCKSTRO’S VERSION. 305

ment than that which he has accorded to those who have
preceded him in the path he is treading. I do not say,
may he not be assailed as he has assailed Boehm, for
such an attack would only recoil on him by whom it
was made. But may no future improver of the flute
who proceeds to tear the perfection of others to tatters,
and then to set up his own, use him as a butt for sorry
jests, as he has jeered at Clinton sleeping in his quiet
grave, or point at him the finger of scorn, and describe
him as he has described the dumb and defenccless
Siccama, of whom he has not scrupled to write: “ About
the year 1842 he conceived the unfortunate idea that he
was destined to be the inventor of a new flute that should
eclipse everything that had been made or imagined.
Having become imbued with this notion, he set to work
with all the vigour of an energetic nature. He had little
knowledge of the flute and less inventive genius, but he
determined to bring out a flute associated with his name,
and he did so.”
306

M. CAVAILLE-COLL

ON

BOEHM’S SCHEMA,

 

FROM THE ‘fcHo MUSICAL’ OF BRUSSELS FOR JANUARY II, 1883.

 

Lors de !Exposition universelle de Paris en 1867,
Monsieur Théobald Boehm fit appel a l’attention du jury
de la classe 10 sur.un Schéma ou diapason pour la con-
struction des flites de son systéme intitulé (par lui):
Lilustvation graphique de la gamme moyenne, ad apres le
diapason normal et de la progression gtométrique pour
mettre a accord ces proportions avec chaque diapason.

Le jury des instruments de musique nous ayant confié
la mission d’examiner ce Schéma, une note rédigée par
nous sur ce nouveau travail de Boehm a été publié in
extenso dans le rapport du jury de la classe 10 (‘ Instru-
ments de musique,’ tome deuxitme, pages 280 et 283).

Dans cette note, nous faisions remarquer que la base
du diapason de Boehm donnait des longueurs d’onde
trop grandes par rapport au ton normal frangais de 870
vibrations par seconde, a la température moyenne; que

 

la longueur d’onde du la; normal est de O™301
tandis que la longueur indiquée sur le Schéma

de Beehm est de. 0™398
soit une différence en plus de 0™007

et si nous comparons la longueur d’onde de l’ut,
grave de la Flate, nous trouvons sur le Schéma
une longueur d’onde de 0™670
au lieu de l’onde du ton normal de 0™657

 

soit une différence en plus de O™013
M. CAVAILLE-COLL ON BOEHM’S SCHEMA. 307

En terminant nous faisions remarquer que malgré ces
différences qui pourraient résulter de la vitesse du son
que l’auteur du Schéma aurait pu prendre pour base,
on devait reconnaitre que cette échelle graphique des
divisions de la gamme avait été établie par l’auteur
avec beaucoup de soin et d’une maniére rationnelle;
tandis que jusqu’alors, et de l’aveu méme des meilleurs
facteurs que nous avions consultés, leurs instruments
avaient toujours été faits expérimentalement et par
tatonnements,

Depuis l’Exposition de 1867 nous n’avions plus entendu
parler du Schema de Beehm, alors que derniérement
notre ami, Monsieur Victor Mahillon, a publié dans
‘L’Echo Musical’ de Bruxelles une série d'études trés-
intéressantes sur le doigté de quelques instruments a
yent, dans lesquelles il parle ex-grofcsso de la flite Boehm.

La lecture de ces articles nous a beaucoup intéressé
et a réveillé notre attention sur le fameux Schéma que
nous avions été chargé eexnmitice par le jury de l Expo-
sition de 1867.

Or, comme nous avions eee la base de ce Schéma,

dont les longueurs d’onde se trouvaient, suivant nous,
trop grandes par rapport a notre diapason normal,
nous avons voulu de nouveau vérifier ce diapason, et
nous nous sommes rendu compte que |’augmentation
d’étendue’ donnée par Boehm aux ondes sonores qui
servent de base A son Schéma avait sa raison d’étre.
_ D’abord, pour nous assurer de la conformité du dia-
pason avec l’exécution de la flfite elle-méme, nous avons
prié M. De Vroye, l'un de nos meilleurs flitistes, de
nous confier son instrument (une flite en argent systeme
Bozhm). Or, cette flite présentée sur le Schema s’est
trouvée trés-exactement conforme au diapason, tant pour
la longueur totale que pour la division des trous latéraux
de la 1° octave chromatique. :

Nous devons avouer que cette conformité nous a
d’abord surpris ; mais avec un peu de réflexion, nous nous

X 2
308 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

sommes convaincu que cette augmentation d’étendue
des ondes sonores de la flite provenait de l’échauffement
de la colonne d’air de l’instrument par le souffle de
Vinstrumentiste.*

Il est facile de reconnaitre que cet échauffement éléve
la température de l’air 4 26° centigrade en moyenne, ce
qui donne a la vitesse du son 346™60 par seconde au
lieu de 340", comme on le suppose a la température
moyenne ambiante. De cette maniére la longueur

 

 

6™6'

donde du la normal = ro = 07398
; 6™6

et celle de l’ut grave = ae 5 = 07670

ce qui est conforme 4 la base du Schéma ou diapason
de Boehm.

D’aprés ces nouvelles observations on doit conclure
que le Schéma ou diapason de Boehm a été trés-exacte-
ment établi, et quil répond a4 tous les besoins de la
facture de cet instrument.

Nous devons ajouter ici quelques observations qu'il
nous a été donné de faire pour la vérification de la flite
Boehm que possede M. De Vroye:

1° La longueur totale extérieure, depuis le joint de
la petite calotte mobile de la téte destinée 4 régler le
bouchon, jusqu’a l’extrémité ouverte, est exactement
égale 4 la longueur d’onde de l’utg, soit 0™6700

2° La longueur positive de la colonne d’air,
depuis le bouchon jusqu’a l’extrémité ouverte = 076185

 

3° La réduction de longueur d’onde = 070515

1M. De Vroye nous a fait observer, en effet, qu’avant de jouer la
filiite métallique on avait soin d’échauffer instrument en insufflant
par son embouchure, aprés avoir préalablement fermé tous les
trous latéraux et aussi extrémité ouverte, en l’appuyant sur le
genou. De cette maniére, la flite prend presque aussitét la tem-
pérature et ne varie plus de ton durant un concert.

La flfite en bois est plus difficile & échauffer que celle en métal.
On sait que le métal est meilleur conducteur de la chaleur que le
bois, ce qui explique le phénoméne.
309

M. CAVAILLE-COLL ON BOEHM’S SCHEMA.

 

 

+ R! as ek cw abs ys a eH Aus ee

 

pul PY ARIPO PY SMInbUGz

Merce egg urg = Fin ep oars monbuoy ----->%
| :
t <=" (geg7 ag © 24) 2p eAIQIed mmbuoy ~ SIS0%0 :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ {

Sreeneyes so cf ee eede eee:

.
'
Hen ae ene ee qe- =e

i

 

~

: I : : Saarpisod srmanvusy ER JIAKIO?
' * ~ : :

' i ob eg

i an

aoe + Fag Lop: dpuo,p anondao7y “RSE a TRA ERR OSG aac SUR AES

Hiscess

  

ae!

 

  

We ; :
done -deee dye : ieee eae isin eileen taee ts ie ses aide aes em el
310 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

4° Le diamétre intérieur de la partie cylindrique de
la flite est de o™019, sur une longueur de 074485.

5° La portion conique du tube ov est située l’em-
bouchure, depuis le bouchon au joint de la filite, est de
om17 de longueur.

6° Le diamétre au bouchon est de 0™016 et au joint
de la fifite il est de o™o19, conformément a la figure
ci-jointe.

NOTE EXPLICATIVE.

1° La ligne C indique graphiquement et en chiffres les
longueurs d’onde au ton normal frangais de 870,, a la
température de 26° centigrade, laquelle donne 4 la vitesse
du son 346™60 par seconde.

2° La ligne B, divisée pareillément a la ligne A, porte,
inscrites au-dessus de la ligne, les longueurs positives de
la colonne d’air de la flfite 4 partir du bouchon, et la
distance de la ligne du bouchon a l’extrémité bouchée
de la fifite, soit om0515. Cette mesure représente la
correction des longueurs d’onde pour tous les tons de
la gamme chromatique de la flite. Au-dessous de la
méme ligne B, on a inscrit les nombres de vibrations par
seconde correspondant a4 chaque intervalle de l’échelle
au ton normal et d’aprés le tempérament égal.? Pour
déterminer les longueurs positives du tube sonore, il suffit
de retrancher de la longueur d’onde la correction detér-
minée expérimentalement, qui est ici de o™os1s, et la
difference donne la vraie longueur du tube sonore.
Exemple :—

 

 

La longueur de l’ut, = 076700
Et la correction étant de O=0515
La longueur positive est de 076185
comme lindique le Schéma.—Pour l’ut, la
longueur d’onde = 073350
La correction étant de O"0515
La longueur positive est de 072835

? On trouvera les nombres dans les deux tableaux ci-aprés.
M. CAVAILLE-COLL ON BOEHM’S SCHEMA. 311

On trouvera de la méme maniére tous Z

,

les autres intervalles de l’échelle chroma-
tique de la flfite en ut.

 

ia?

 

 

FLOTE ALTO EN SOL.

Si?

La flite alto en sol, indiquée sur le
méme Schéma, présente quelques différ-
ences de diapason avec la fifite en ut.
Il est probable que la perce de cette
flate, pour laquelle il n’est donné aucune
explication sur le Schéma, différe de
celle de la fldte en ut. La correction est
plus grande et les longueurs d’onde plus
petites. En comparant les longueurs
d’onde des deux ut, on trouve:

Si

 

Uy

 

 

Re>

 

bee \ige

 

 

Pour la flate en ut 0™6700
Et pour la flite en sol 06630

 

 

 

Soit une différence en moins
de 070070
Et si l’on compare les longueurs
positives. du méme utg, on trouve :
Pour la flite en ut 0™61850
Et pour la flate en sol 0™59500

 

S?\ta La? \isar \}So}*\Y Ba.

 

JUL A|Sa

 

Soit une différence en moins
de 0702350
Or la correction de la flite
en sol = O70680
‘Et celle de la fldte en ut’ = O70515

 

 

Fite en Ut

longueurs relalves
ou longueurs d‘onde-.

lonqueurs positives

    

 

La différence ces deux me-
sures = O™0I165 ing
Si nous ajoutons la différence
des longueurs d’onde ci-dessus a
de 070070

On trouve un total de 00235

 

 
312 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Conforme 4 la différence des deux longueurs positives
des deux tubes indiqués ci-dessus.

Ainsi.que nous !’avons dit au commencement de cette
note, on ne peut s’expliquer la différence de diapason
employé pour ces deux fifites que par la différence de
perce de la flite alto que nous avions supposée conique
et non cylindrique comme la flate en ut.

Cependant M. De Vroye, 4 qui nous avons fait part
de cette observation, nous a assuré avoir vu et joué la
fifite alto de Boehm, et que cette flite en sol était
cylindrique comme la flite en ut, mais d’un diamétre un
peu plus grand.

Cette circonstance permet bien d’expliquer la différ-
ence des corrections et celle des longueurs positives des
deux instruments par la différence des diamétres des
tubes sonores; mais on ne voit pas bien pourquoi
Bcehm s’est servi pour le diapason de la flite en ut des
longueurs d’onde correspondant a la température de 26°
et a la vitesse de 346"60 par seconde, tandis que pour
la flite en sol les longueurs d’onde correspondent a
20° et a la vitesse de 343™ par seconde, comme nous
Pavons indiqué dans le titre des deux tableaux ci-aprés.

La seule raison que nous puissions donner de ces deux
bases, c’est que la fltite en ut étant plus petite s’échauffe
facilement a la température de 26°, tandis que la flite en
sol étant plus grande ne s’échauffe qu’a la température
de 20°.

Le savant auteur de la fitite Behm connaissait trop
bien la théorie et la pratique de la facture instrumentale
pour que nous puissions supposer la moindre erreur dans
ses diapasons.

Nous joignons ci-apres deux tableaux des longueurs
d’onde et des longueurs positives de la fliite en ut et de
la fldte en sol.

Ces deux tableaux peuvent servir A constituer le
diapason graphique ou Schéma de Beehm comme nous
Pavons indiqué ci-dessus,
M. CAVAILLE-COLL ON BOEHM’S SCHEMA. 313

TABLEAU DES LONGUEURS D’ONDE DE LA FLOTE EN UT SysTiME
Baum, d’aprés le ton ncrmal francais de 870 vibrations 4 la
température de 26 degrés centigrade, ce qui donne a la vitesse du
son 346™6o par seconde.

 

 

Dénomination des tons de ombre
Yéchelle chromatique. Tine ae oe ei
I. Ut, 517,30 0™618,50 0™670,00
2. Rép ou Ut# 548 ,06 0™580,89 0™632,39
3. Re ; 580,65 0™545,40 0™596,90
4. Mi ou Ref 615,18 O™511,90 0™563,40
5. Mi 651,76 0480, 27 0™531,77
6, Fa 690, 51 0™450,43 Om501 ,93
4. Solb ou Fat 731,57 0™422,26 0™473,76
8. Sol 775,08 0™395 , 67 0™447 ,17
g. Lab ou Solf 821,11 0™370,57 0™422,07
to. La 8 0,00 0™346,88 0™398, 38
Il, Sib ou Lag 921,73 0™324,52 0™396,02
12. Si 976,54 0™303,41 0™354,91
13. Ut, 1034, 60 0™283,50 0™335,00

 

 

 

N.B.—Pour déterminer les longueurs positives,
longueurs @’onde correspondantes, la correction expérimentale qui est ici

de... . OMO5I5.

Le diamétre du trou de l’embouchure = o™012.
La distance du bouchon au bord de l’embouchure = o™o11.

on retranche des

FLUTE ALTO EN SOL, 4 la température de 20 degrés centigrade et a la

vitesse du son de 343™ par seconde.

 

 

 

Dénomination des tons de Nombre de Longueurs Longueurs
Téchelle chromatique. Vibrations. Positives. d’ondes.
1. Sol, 387,54 o0™817,00 07885 ,00,
2. Lab ou Solf 410,55 0™ 767,32 0835, 32
3. La 435,00 0720, 44 0™788,44
4. Sib ou Lag 460, 86 0™676,19 0”733,19
5. Si 488,26 0634, 42 0™ 702, 42
6. Ut, 517,30 om595,00 0™663,00
7. Rép ou Utd 548,06 02557,78 0%625,78
8. Ré 580,65 0m522,66 o™590, 66
g. Mib ou Ré# 615,18 o0m489q,51 0™557,51

10. Mi 651,76 0m458, 22 0526, 22

11. Fa 690,51 0™428, 68 0™496 , 68

12. Solb ou Fag 731,57 o™400, 81 0468, 81

13. Sol 775,08 0"374,50 0™442,50

 

 

 

N.B.—Pour déterminer Jes longueurs positives, on retranche des
Jongueurs d’onde correspondantes, Ja correction expérimentale qui est ici

.. de... . 07068.

Le diamétre du trou de ’embouchure = o™012.
La distance du bouchon au bord de ’embouchure = O”0145.
Pour les autres détails lire attentivement la note qui précéde ces

tableaux.
LETTERS

ON

THE BOEHM FLUTE.

—————

THE following letters were addressed to the Editor of
“The Musical World’ in the year 1843, when the Boehm
flute was beginning to oust from popular favour its older
rival. They give an insight into the violence of the
passions which agitated the flute world on the outbreak
of the revolution. Those who peruse them will see an
apostle of the new creed, backed by a solitary convert (for
when the fight began the rest of the little band, it seems,
forsook him and fled), boldly proclaiming their strange
doctrines, whilst the votaries of the old faith, wrought to
the utmost pitch of exasperation, are gnashing their
teeth with fury. They will be treated to the spectacle of
Clinton, whose only crime was that he had discarded the
old flute for Boehm’s, bespattered by “ignorant pre-
sumption” with the mud of “low abuse,” insulted by
having his nationality (he was an Irishman) thrown in
his face, and accused of foisting on flute-players as his
own, an essay written by another hand. But they will
observe that the bystanders speedily grew tired of
watching the fray, for it was apparent from the first
that the uproar owed its origin to the old, old motive
which eighteen hundred years before, had impelled the
silversmiths of Ephesus, to shout till they were hoarse,
“Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” The scene, how-
ever, is not without its lesson. If the disciple was
scoffed at, how can we expect that the Master would
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 315

escape being reviled? When the essay,Clinton had
written on the Boehm flute was falsely stated to be a
translation of some foreign production, what wonder is it
that the instrument itself should have been pronounced,
instead of being the work of Boehm, to be nothing but
a copy of another man’s invention ?

The most instructive point, however, in connection
with the letters is the light one of them (No. 8) throws
on the character of Mr. Cornelius Ward, the gentleman
whom we are taught to regard as an “absolutely dis-
interested witness,” and “ Boehm’s superior in every way,
excepting in the matter of musical attainments.” He
gives us an overwhelming proof of his absolute dis-
interestedness by rushing into the thick of the fight,
and laying about him in all directions with such
vigour that neither Clinton, Coche, Card, Boehm, nor
Rudall and Rose escape his blows. Having demolished
these gentlemen to his satisfaction, he draws himself up
to a height of superiority which reaches the sublime.
He affects to believe that it was the consciousness of
their inferiority to him, jealousy of his inventive powers,
and envy of the success of his patent flute that had
- effected the conversion of Messrs. Rudall and Rose from

the old to the new belief; whilst as for Boehm, his
triumph over him had already commenced, for no
sooner had his own invention made its appearance in the
world than some of the most talented English players
at once threw aside his rival’s pirated instrument to
adopt this “original” production. However, his efforts
at self-inflation, instead of distending his form to the
proportions of that of his gigantic rival, resulted,
like the exploit of the frog in the fable, in disastrous
humiliation.
_ The correspondence was occasioned by a notice in
the columns of the ‘Musical World’ of Clinton’s
‘Theoretical and Practical Essay on the Boehm Flute’
as follows :—
316 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

“We are not flautists, but we respect new inventions,
that is, provided they be good as well as new. Mr.
Clinton stands in the foremost rank of modern British
theoretical and practical flautists. He is an accomplished
player and a good writer for the instrument. Mr. Clin-
ton’s word in flute matters is consequently of high
importance, and Mr. Clinton tells us that the ‘Boehm
Flute’ is a vast improvement on the ancient flute, and
we are bound to believe Mr. Clinton—especially as he is
not himself the inventor of the new instrument which he
has taken under his protection. The flute was, it
appears, full of imperfections, all of which imperfections
are remedied by Herr Boehm in this his new invention.
We have not space to particularise the defects of the old
or the remedies of the new instrument, but our readers
will put faith in what we state, viz. that Mr. Clinton’s
carefully written and sensible essay has perfectly con-
vinced us of the justice of his cause, and, for the future,
quoad the flute, we are decided Boehmisers, without
quarter.”

No. 1.
(l'vom J. Clinton.)

THE BOEHM FLUTE.

14 GREEK STREET, SOHO SQUARE.
DEAR SIR,

My essay on the Boehm flute being intended expressly
for the flute-playing community, may possibly have de-
terred you from entering fully into the details, in the
review of it in your last number, but whether we view
Boehm’s system as a specimen of. considerable ingenuity
and mechanical skill, or as an undoubted improvement
on the flute, it must, I conceive, be alike interesting to
your readers, because his system is totally different from
all others, and as the flute has been experimented upon
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 317

in various ways by the different manufacturers and pro-
fessors, each considering that they had approached nearer
to perfection, the public may probably only view Boehm’s
system in much the same light, and I am therefore
anxious to undeceive them.

Any person who is acquainted with the divisions of a
string, as exhibited on a monochord, must at once clearly
perceive that the arrangement of the holes on the old
flute is false and unnatural in the extreme, not only as
regards distance, but size, for these two points equally
influence tone and intonation.

I cannot imagine that the makers and performers were
ignorant of the prevailing error; indeed, their constant
efforts to approach perfection prove their knowledge of
the then existing faults, which, they were doubtlessly
aware, could have been at once rectified by an equal
and natural distribution of the holes.

Now, although this would render the instrument per-
fect in a theoretical point of view, the old system of
machinery or keys became quite useless, consequently
it was deemed impossible to make the flute practically
correct, until Boehm, in his twofold capacity of performer
and mechanist, discovered that the fingers could not only
be brought to govern the holes when equally formed and
distributed, but with even greater facility than before,
thereby removing the numerous imperfections of finger-
ing at the same time. By the result of his labours we
obtain “perfection of tune, increase of power, superior
quality of tone, greater susceptibility of sweetness, equal
strength upon the notes, a very considerable increase of
facility in producing the sounds, much less extension
of the fingers, and perfect control over all the keys.”
Having myself been fortunate enough to become ac-
quainted with these important advantages, I was naturally
anxious to introduce the Boehm flute to the English
players, and it affords me no inconsiderable degree of

pleasure to find that those who have already obtained
318 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

instruments from the manufacturers, Messrs. Rudall and
Rose, are as clearly convinced of the truth and efficacy
of the system in every point as I led them to expect;
this is further proved by the numerous orders which the
makers have already received, although the Boehm flute
may at present be considered in its incipient state in
this country. My knowledge of mankind induced me
to imagine that an invention so true and philosophical
was certain to meet with its share of abuse and oppo-
sition at first, and I therefore hinted as much in my
essay, but I must confess I did not anticipate that I
myself should share in the abuse ; however, so it is, for
I well know that certain parties lose no opportunity to
rail against Boehm’s system, and slander me for intro-
ducing it, which may possibly deter some amateurs from
embracing that which is pure and musician-like.

Mais wimporte, truth may be for a time concealed, but
when it does become apparent, as eventually it must,
how ridiculous and contemptible those will appear, who
now, from ignorance of the system and malicious opposi-
tion, endeavour in vain to prevent its general adoption.

Amongst other falsehoods uttered against me, it has
been asserted that I am not the author of my essay, but
that it is a translation; may I not reasonably demand
the production of the original, and publicly state, that
until it be produced, the individual who circulated such
a base report, must be contented. to bear the epithet
given to those with whom a strict adherence to truth
is not the most besetting sin. But enough of this, we
live in too enlightened an age to have so excellent an
invention thrown into oblivion by mere assertions ; the
advanced state of the arts generally, more particularly
music, is quite sufficient to induce all reflecting. minds to
enquire dispassionately into the merits of Boehm’s inven-
tion, and to make the enquiry of those who really under-
stand and can practically illustrate it, by which means
only they will be enabled to form a just estimate.
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 319

Should you deem these observations worthy a place
in your journal, which always advocates everything tend-
ing to improve or advance the art of music, I shall feel
flattered by their insertion.

I have the honour to remain,
Your humble servant,

J. CLINTON,

Professor of the Flute in the
Royal Academy of Music.

No. 2.
(From T. Prowse.)

THE BOEHM FLUTE.

13 HaNway STREET,
SIR, Nov. 30th, 1843.

Judging I might take the liberty of sending you
a few lines for the readers of your valuable paper, I
have written the following in answer to the Puffon a
Boehm Flute, edited by Mr. J. Clinton ; and should you
think the following lines suitable for your columns, you
will oblige your humble servant by inserting them.

Mr. Clinton, in your last number, gives himself the
credit of being the first to introduce the Bcehm Flute
in this country, and appears willing to forget what has
been going on in the musical world for the last few
years. Therefore, I feel myself obliged to state to him
and friends, however unpleasant it may be, after such
an assertion in print, that T. Boehm was the first in
this country to introduce his new flute, and not Mr. C,,
and (his flutes were manufactured by Messrs. Gerock
and Wolf about 14 years ago) has Mr, C. forgotten also
that Dorus preparing himself to play a solo on the
Boehm flute at the Philharmonic in London, did
actually play the ‘Swiss Boy, by Boehm; the same
. piece that Boehm had played years before him? and
320 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE,

when solicited for another solo, the ‘Swiss Boy’ was
again to be the piece ; and because he had no other, they
did without his services? (By the bye, the ‘Swiss Boy,’
by Boehm, appears to be a favourite subject with this
flute.)

M. de Folley seven years back, previous to his visiting
England, was requested by “Cochi and Buffett,” the
original makers of Boehm’s flute in Paris, to distribute
a pamphlet when in London in reference to the said
flute. Mr. C. probably was not aware of this, although
a member of the profession, and possibly may thank
me for refreshing his memory on this point, “but
alas!” Mr. C. might then have been in Ireland, and
therefore was not likely to hear any thing about it;
having I think said enough to convince your impartial
readers, that Mr. C. was not the first for introducing
the new flute as he terms it: allow me to say a word
or two in respect to the instrument mentioned by him,
and am sorry that Mr. C. has not stated any thing
whereby we may be able to judge for ourselves, in
fact he has only made assertions without proof, as I am
not aware that more than one solo has ever been played
on that instrument. I do not think that any one else
has done anything to prove its superiority: I must
therefore beg Mr. C. in future to ponder well the sub-
ject before he sends it to press, because, that is a living
testimony against him and which he cannot retract, but
however the reader may say I have stated that it was
a puff, and therefore I ought to be above noticing it ;
in answer, allow me to say that where a professor, who-
ever he may be, gives his opinion and no more, I should
not have noticed it as it is a matter of business, but
when he openly states the manufacturers in London
(and I suppose he includes myself as one, having been
the maker of flutes for the late C. Micholson), knowing
the defects that were in the instrument, had tried
various ways to rectify the evils, and must ultimately
‘LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE, 321

descend from our high position, and copy that which
is known to be a decided failure, “viz. the Boehm
Flute,” and in contra to the talented Mr. C., my opinion
blended with that of Mr. Saust, M. de Folley, and Herr
Friesch is this, that the instrument is a failure, for the
only key the Boehm flute is playable in is C, indepen-
dently of the change of fingering, and the further you
remove from the key of C, the greater the imperfections
are, or why is it that the solos played on that instru-
ment are in that and no other key; and are the
beautiful gliding passages, which so frequently occur
in Nicholson's music, and.other writers, to be forgotten,
as those passages cannot be accomplished on this, owing
to the rings used, instead of the more natural way of
stopping with the fingers ; and allow me further to ask
how it is, that with so perfect an instrument as this, for
the upper tones to be so weak and thin as they are?
I do not allude to any particular maker on the Boehm
system, as all the flutes in this respect are alike,
whether French or English.

Is Mr. C. aware that M. de Folley, after giving the in-
strument a fair trial of six months (and the instrument
was made by “ Buffett,” the maker for Boehm,) gave it
up, for he found so many defects in it, that his old in-
strument was far more perfect.

Has Mr. C. forgotten also the trial that was given both
flutes at the Conservatoire in Paris, at which meeting
Herr Friesch gained so complete a triumph over the
disciples of Boehm, Herr Friesch on his own flute playing
the music that Boehm had written for his peculiar instru-
ment, whilst the professors on Boehm’s system failed.
This meeting consisted of the following gentlemen:
“‘Dorus,’ ‘Cochi,’ ‘Camus,’ ‘ Tulou, and ‘Friesch. The
essay by Mr. C. states, “margin, page 4,” the result of
a critical examination of the old and new flutes at the
Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Paris, and the names
mentioned are those of five pianoforte composers—and

Y
322 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

what in the name of common sense can they know about
the difficulties, or, vice versd, of the flute. May I ask, if
the piece played was the ‘Swiss Boy,’ by Boehm, in the
key of C.

Hoping the foregoing remarks may not be considered
too lengthy for your columns,

I remain,
Your obedient Servant,
T. PROWSE.
No. 3.

(From J. Clinton.)

THE BOEHM FLUTE.
Nov. 6th, 1843.
My DEAR SIR,

The letter of Mr. Prowse, which appeared in your last
number, reluctantly compels me to trouble you with a
few lines to vindicate myself from his scurrilous attack,
and I, trust you will do me the justice to give them
publicity. That my adoption of the Boehm flute
proceeds entirely from disinterested motives, must be
quite evidert from the fact, that I am neither the in-
ventor nor maker, nor have I any interest whatever in
the manufacture of it. I think your readers will say
that Mr, Prowse’s position is widely different, for he, as
a maker of the old flute, feels Boehm’s system as an ugly
thorn in his side, and consequently sets all his engines
at work to defeat it, although in his letter he unhesita-
tingly pronounces it to be “a decided failure.” Now, if
it really bea failure, why does he take such infinite pains
to abuse it? The only excuse he offers is, that when I
in my letter alluded to the manufacturers, he supposes I
included him, and so offers that supposition as a justifi-
cation of his personal attack. Had he been prompted
by pure motives only, he would have attacked the system,
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 323.

and not the individual who advocates it. That his,
incoherent and vulgar epistle merits silent contempt, I
feel aware, but as silence might be construed into assent,
I will condescend to reply. Inprimis—Mr. Prowse takes
infinite pains to prove that I was not the first to intro-
duce Boehm’s system to the English flute players,
because (as he states) it was manufactured fourteen
years ago, and played upon by the inventor and M.
Dorus. Now to make use of Mr. Prowse’s words,
“however unpleasant it may be to himself and his friends,”
I must in justice to myself state, that the flute for which.
I have written my essay, and which is manufactured by
Messrs. Rudall and Rose, is on a different principle from
that originally played upon by Herr Boehm, the in-
- ventor, therefore Mr. Prowse’s first statement is not in
strict accordance with truth—but if we were even to
| suppose that my essay had been written for the instru-
ment of which he is dreaming, he ought to know that
the mere act of making and playing upon an instrument
do not constitute the essentials to render it general : its
nature and properties must be explained, and znstructions
given for its acguirement, ere the professor or amateur
can render it available.

Now, as chance has made me the first to accomplish
this, I think IJ may be fairly considered as the first to
introduce it effectually; at the same time, I wish it to
be clearly understood, that I claim no credit whatsoever,
neither can I see any credit to be claimed in forsaking
a false and imperfect instrument for one that is proved
to be true and perfect.

He next claims my thanks for refreshing my memory
as to the existence of a certain pamphlet, and in the
same moment states that, being in Ireland, I might not
probably be aware of the existence of that pamphlet.
‘Here is a dudZ with a vengeance—“ Refresh a man’s
memory with a subject he never heard of;” alas, Mr.
Prowse, if you could but make flutes as perfectly as you

Y¥ 2
324. HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

can make du//s, there would be no occasion for Boehm’s
system; and to make his letter even more ridiculous, he
gives a mutilated quotation from my essay, which
quotation happens to be taken from that very pamphlet,
and runs (7” my essay) thus :—“ As the French say, there
are not two notes on the old flute which appear to belong
to the:same family. Vide the report made from the
result of a critical examination of the old and new
flutes, at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Paris, by
Messieurs Cherubini, Paer, Auber, Halévy, Carafa, &c.,
&c.” Now, sir, let us see Mr. Prowse’s version, which he
gives thus:—“The essay by Mr. C. states, ‘margin,
page 4, the result of a critical examination of the old
and new flutes, at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in
Paris, and the names mentioned are those of five piano-~
forte composers—and what in the name of common sense
can they know about the difficulties, or vice versd, of the
flute.”

' So you perceive, Mr. Editor, that Mr. Prowse finds it
convenient to leave out the sense and pith of the
quotation, and to make mere pianoforte composers of
five of the greatest musicians in Europe, and likewise
to attach no importance to their opinions, by a weak
effort in confounding tone and intonation with the diffi-
culties of fingering, although fingering is not mentioned
in that part of my essay.

It is well known to all sensible men, that the difficulty
of fingering an instrument cannot in the abstract affect
the-tone or tune; but that part of my essay which treats
of the fingering, fully proves that the o/d flute is infinitely
more perplexing and difficult than the new, so that
Mr. Prowse’s attempt at mutilation completely upsets his
own argument. He appears to dwell very much upon
the idea that the Boehm flute can only be played in the
key of C, because Dorus played Boehm’s variations to
the ‘Swiss Boy’ in that key, and (as he asserts) could
play no other piece, although it is a well known fact,
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 325

that Dorus. has been-one of the greatest favourites in
Paris as a solo performer for many years, But Mr.
Prowse is not over nice in his ignorant, although it may
be to his interest to throw it into oblivion. Having
already, I fear, intruded too much upon your journal, I
will merely add, that if the Boehm flute were never
heard, I should be nothing the poorer, and if the manu-
facturers, Messrs. Rudall and -Rose, sell 100 per diem, I
shall be nothing the richer ; ergo I have done,—

And have the honour to remain,
My dear Mr, Editor, truly your’s,

JOHN CLINTON,

Professor of the Flute in the
Royal Academy of Music.

No. 4.
(From Flauto.)

THE BORE’EM FLUTE.

BIRMINGHAM, WVov. 6th, 1843. >
SIR,

A vast deal has been written, said, and sung lately,
respecting a flute denominated the Boehm, which, in my
simplicity, I put down as so many puffs to blow the said
flute into favour ; for all that have written on the subject
are more or less interested in the affair. I should like
very much to hear the impartial and unbiassed opinion
of a competent judge of the instrument, giving, at the
same time, a sketch of the improvements (?) said to be
made on it, so that we amateurs might have our under-
standings enlightened on the subject ; for, as the matter
stands at present, it is all a mist and mystery. I have
been a performer on the flute through all its changes, from
the simple one-keyed instrument of Hale, to Potter’s six
keys and Manzoni’s eight and ten, and have found them
326 HISFORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

all, in some notes, imperfect in intonation; but, being
aware of the defects, I have contrived to play tolerably
well in tune. Do the eulogisers of the Boehm flute
undertake to say that every note producible on it is
perfect, without having recourse to cross-fingering, and
without adding to its complexity? If they will guarantee
all this, I may, perhaps, put aside my auld acquaintances
and take to the new; but if this cannot be proved to my
entire satisfaction, I shall be content; and I trust that
your readers generally will petition your correspondents
not to Bore’em any more with a subject in which very’
few indeed take the remotest interest.

Yours, &c., &c.,
FLAUTO.
No. 5.
(From-Old Howling Stick.)
ON FLUTES.

SIR,

Permit an old amateur flutist to have a say respecting
the flautomania attempted to be introduced for French
flutes. I wish to caution my brother amateurs to pause
before they purchase. I complain of these professors
and flute makers telling us amateurs that all our old
flutes are good for nothing; ¢iezy have just discovered
this, and wonder at our ignorance so long on the subject.
I have bought various expensive instruments of one of
our best makers, and always had them warranted terfect ;
as they have all along been working in the dark, they
ought, now they have got illuminated on the mystery of
flute perfecting, to return me my money, and take back
my old flutes: but no, they say old ones are of no use
now to them ; buy a Boehm, price only sixteen (or more)
guineas, and then how the tone will come out!! I, as
an Englishman, think in our own home-made flutes,
since Nicholson’s time, a ational instrument, we have
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE, 327
equalled, and perhaps excelled, all foreigners on this
instrument ; we have men who can yet play a little on
the wretched old flute I calculate, therefore, my brother
amateurs, hold hard a while until these new lights shine
better in their playing and extinguish our old ones, or
till our orchestra players adopt them. Nicholson has
written, “it is not in the size or make of the finger holes
that playing in tune and good tone depends, but in the
management of the mouth hole or embouchure ; a good
player can make a note a quarter of a tone sharper or
flatter, weaker or stronger, at pleasure; it is not the
flute that is at fault, but the man who sits behind it;”
in conclusion, I again warn my brother amateurs against
hastily changing their flutes as many I know have done,
and eventually could not play upon either, between the
two stools, or Zoo/s, they have got floored.

Yours, &c.,
OLD HOWLING STICK.

No. 6.

(From Omega.)
DEAR WORLD,

Your last number contains a letter, headed “On
Flutes,” in which your clever correspondent, “Old
Howling Stick,” asserts that a good player can make
a note a quarter of a tone weaker or stronger, at pleasure.
Perhaps he, or you, will have the kindness to enlighten
your readers as to the meaning of this novel musical
phenomenon ; it reminds me of the clever sportsman
who said he could “ shoot round a corner.”

Make a note a quarter of a tone weaker ! or stronger! !
Bravo, Old Howling Stick! Bravissimo!!!

Yours, &c,,

OMEGA.
328 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

No. 7.
(From Thomas Prowse.)

ON THE (NON) BOEHM FLUTE.

13 HANWAY STREET,
Nov, 21st, 1843.
Mr. EDITOR,

Allow me to notice one observation which Mr. Clinton
mentioned in his last letter in the ‘Musical World’—
“He” (meaning myself) “should not forget that he
has lately advertised to bring out a new flute of his own,
stating his intention of doing so to me and others.”
Does not this fact prove that I do not (using his own
expressions) “vainly attempt to hoodwink the public
as to the merits of the Boehm flute?” for being much
on the principle of Mr. Clinton’s (different principle)
Boehm flute I was not anxious to push my unsuccessful
attempt before the public, and I do not consider that
my reputation is lessened by endeavouring to improve
on another more complicated system than the one so
much approved of, and recommended by the late
Charles Nicholson, and which I find by experience has
not up to this time been excelled by any other inven-
tion, nor do I believe that the public will think worse
of me for withholding my suggestion. If this be not
a satisfactory reply to Mr. Clinton’s letter, I will trouble
you (with your permission Mr. Editor) with a more
minute investigation of the (non) Boehm flute next
week,

And remain, Your obliged Servant,

THOMAS PROWSE.
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. + 329

No. 8,
(from Cornelius Ward.)
THE BOEHM FLUTE.

°36 GREAT TITCHFIELD STREET,
Nov. 7th, 1843.
SIR,

I have observed in the two last numbers of the
‘Musical World,’ some letters, containing statements
and remarks upon an instrument styled the “Boehm
Flute,” which are calculated to mislead the public. I
therefore need no other apology for soliciting you to
allow me to state a few facts relative to the subject, in
your journal.

From the tone and strain of Mr. Clinton’s letter, one
would suppose that he is not aware of the transactions
that have taken place in this country, relative to the flute
in question, otherwise I cannot account for his pretensions
to so much credit regarding its introduction to “ English
players.” It appears that Mr. Clinton would wish to
convey the impression that he was the first to make the
attempt. I shculd be sorry to state that he is desirous
of concealing, or suppressing, a knowledge of the efforts
of other professors, and English professors too, in the
same way, for years past. I would rather suppose that
he does not know that in the year 1831 Messrs. Gerock
and Wolf manufactured a flute, purporting to be the
invention of Boehm, and that Mr. Wolf displayed con-
siderable talent in his performance upon it. They, at
the time, published a “ Scale and description of Boehm’s
newly invented patent flute, manufactured and sold by
the patentees only” (I cannot say that they had a
patent for the same), a copy of which now lies before
me. It contains a sketch of the flute, which shows it
330 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

to be a different one to that since put forth as Boehm’s,
It was not successful with “English players,” and was
very incomplete as to its pretensions; Mr. Card’s
improvement is a part of it.

About the same time when Mr. Wolf was endeavour-
ing to introduce the Boehm to “English players,” I
made a flute for, and under the direction of Captain
Gordon, of Charles the Xth’s Swiss Guards, which, I
believe, will prove to be the origin of that which is now
called the Boehm flute. I could give many particulars
in support of this belief. The captain tried to introduce
it to “English players,” without success. He afterwards
went to Paris, and at JZunich, at which places also, the
captain endeavoured to introduce it.

In 1835, I heard Boehm perform his fantasia, ‘The
Green Hills of Tyrol,’ at the Choral Fund Concert, upon
a flute very similar in principle to that which I made
for Captain Gordon. Boehm was very zealous, but
failed in introducing it to “ English players.” Shortly
after this, Camus commenced practising it in Paris, and
Godfrey to make it. Dorus then took it up, and added an
improvement ; Coche also modified it, or as he modestly
says, perfected it, and employed Buffet to make it.

In 1839, I began to make what is termed the Boehm
flute in London, as improved by Dorus, and Signor Folz
performed upon one made by me, at many concerts in
England, in the course of that year. Mr. Card, too,
persevered for some time to introduce it to “ English
players,” but without any good results, and besides, we
had Camus and Dorus endeavouring to introduce it to
“English players,’ by ‘both public and private per-
formances.

Now, we may with reason ask what Mr. Clinton’s
present connection were doing all this time? Why,
they did all they could to obstruct its being adopted in
this country, and very shortly before they were fortunate
enough to become acquainted with its advantages, they
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 331

‘succeeded in persuading several not to adopt it who were
anxious so to do, and some of whom were respectable
professors,

I fear trespassing too much upon your time and
columns, otherwise I would state facts further to prove
that Gordon laboured in the invention ; that Boehm was
the first who endeavoured to introduce the instrument to
the professors and players of England, France, and
Germany ; and that Mr. Clinton’s present friends were
strongly opposed to it until very lately.

Some may be puzzled as to the means by which Mr.
Clinton and his present coadjutors were so very suddenly
converted into “ Boehmites” ; they were these: I lately
constructed an original flute, for which I obtained a
patent, and which was immediately adopted by some of
the most talented “ English players,” directly displacing
the Boehm in several instances, as well as the ordinary
flute; and after Mr. Clinton and his present friends
heard its effects and witnessed its success, they then
bestirred themselves to produce something new, but not
succeeding in the field of discovery, they ultimately
took to the object of their former dislike—the “ Boehm,”
the simple “ Boehm”—that is, the one that could be
made with the least expense, mzzus the French addi-
tions and finish, which make it more complete and
elegant as an instrument.

I have endeavoured to be brief, but am apprehensive
of being considered tedious, though I must beg to assert
my claim to the merit of having converted Mr. Clinton
and others named in this letter to the feelings which
they now choose to manifest towards the Boehm flute.

I am, Sir,.
Your obliged Servant,
CORNELIUS WARD.
332 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

No. 9.
(From W. C. Hodgkinson.)
A WORD OR TWO ON THE BOEHM FLUTE.

42 HarT STREET, BLOOMSBURY SQUARE,
: Oct. 31st, 1843.

SIR, ;
_ As public attention has been called to the flute
invented by T. Boehm, I am induced, for the sake of the
amateurs practising this delightful instrument, to make
known the following particulars. T. Boehm’s flute first
appeared about fourteen years ago at Covent Garden
Theatre, on which the inventor played his variations on
the ‘Swiss Boy.’ Messrs. Gerock & Wolfe, Cornhill,
manufactured the flutes, but were not successful in
persuading the public to change the flutes manufactured
by Clementi of Cheapside, called “C. Nicholson’s im-
proved.” The Boehm flute since that period has not
been heard of. Mr. Nicholson, at the time it first
appeared, did not speak of it as deserving any particular
attention more than any other German flute, which
is known to almost every amateur to be in its tone
extremely thin and out of tune, the only difference
being that the system of fingering was entirely changed
and complicated, and did not possess the qualities of
the English manufactured flutes. Amateurs will, I
trust, be convinced by the following facts, that neither
in England, France, nor Germany is the Boehm flute
patronised. In Germany, the celebrated Herr Frisch,
whose performances for execution when in London
astonished the professors and amateurs, does not play
upon the Boehm flute, nor does his gifted countryman
Saust, nor do the celebrated Drouet and Tulou, flautists
to the King of France, play upon the Boehm flute. In
England, neither does Ribas nor de Folly, flautists
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 333

at the Italian Opera House, play upon the Boehm
flute. These facts do not speak much in favour of the
flute that is said to surpass all others. The public are
informed that half-a-dozen French composers (not flute
players) have given their opinion in favour of it, but it
is not said who performed upon it in order to obtain
their opinion—certainly not their firs¢ flautists. I cannot,
therefore, place much faith on their judgment, except
when they say “on their old flutes there are not two
notes which appear to belong to the same family.”
I agree with them, for French and German flutes are
the most imperfect instruments manufactured. The
celebrated Nicholson and his father did more for the
flute playing community than all the professors in
Europe. What professor can say there were not two
notes belonging to the same family when Nicholson
played? Mr. James, in his word or two on the flute,
thus speaks of him :—“The tone which Mr. Nicholson
produces on the flute is, perhaps, the most extraordinary
thing that he does. It is not only clear, metallic, and
brilliant, but it possesses a volume that is almost in-
credible ; and this, too, be it observed, in the very
lowest notes of the instrument. The similarity between
his tone and that of an organ is very striking, and the
amazing command which this of itself gives over his
instrument is astonishing. He is also, perhaps, better
acquainted with the delicacies of the instrument than
any other performer ; his shakes are in general regular,
brilliant, and effective, and possess the rare quality
(which is not the least of their beauties) of being
perfectly in tune, also the effect of his chromatic ascen-
sion of the scale. It is a complete rush, like the torrent
of a waterfall,! and, to the ear, is almost overwhelming

1 Torrents which rush downwards are common enough, but water
falling upwards is a phenomenon which would astonish the shade
of Newton. Possibly, however, Mr. James was an Irishman.
Nicholson in his School for the Flude, compares the effect of a well-
executed ascending chromatic scale to the rush of a skyrocket.
334 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

and irresistible. His adagios are full of fervour and
feeling, for the truest test of a performer’s talent is in a
slow movement.” After such facts, I need scarcely say
that no amateur will adopt a Boehm flute ; for who has
not heard the exquisite performances of Mr. Richardson
on a Nicholson flute? Can any impartial person speak
one word disparagingly of his tone or execution, or will
he venture to say there are not two of his notes which
appear to belong to the same family ? the idea is pre-
posterous. I shall dismiss the subject, relying on your
kindness to give insertion to this letter, in the hope that
amateurs will long continue to appreciate the beauties of
the celebrated C. Nicholson’s flute, which is, and has
always been, the admiration of all the first-rate flautists.

I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your very obedient Servant,

W. C. HODGKINSON,
Professor of the Flute.

No. 10.
(From Fohn Pask.)
THE BOEHM FLUTE.

LOWTHER ARCADE, STRAND.
DEAR SIR,

My attention having been drawn to a letter which
appeared in the columns of your valuable journal,
written upon the subject of the Boehm flute, and so
highly eulogistic of its merits and great superiority over
all others, and the fact of that letter being addressed
principally to amateurs, to induce them to lay aside the
flutes now in use, and adopt those manufactured by
Messrs. Rudall and Rose upon the above named
principle, I feel myself called upon in justice to them to
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 335
make a few brief remarks, the result of my own ex-
perience, and drawn from the evidence of those who
have given that particular instrument a trial.

It is not my intention to occupy your vaiuable time
and space in contending for the identical person who
introduced this great boon to the flute players of this
country. It is true Mr. C. has awarded to himself all
the merit due to such an individual, but enough has been
said on this head in a letter written by Mr, Prowse which
appeared in your journal of November the 2nd, and
ought to be read by all interested in this subject, being
full of incontrovertible facts, supported by the testimony
of those who I am sure Mr. C. will admit to be capable
of forming an opinion.

The genuine Boehm flute, made by Buffet in Paris,
and which was the property of that celebrated player
Herr Frisch, and one of the best that has been made
upon that principle, was laid aside by that gentleman,
and placed in my hands for sale. Of course in my
business as a maker I had frequent opportunities of
showing the same to several distinguished flutists, and
eliciting from them their impartial opinions, which were
to this effect—that the Boehm system was perplexing in
the extreme, especially to those accustomed to the
established method, and if those difficulties could be
surmounted the performer would soon be convinced that
he had only made himself master of a more defective
instrument. The following will in some degree illus-
trate this:—The flute alluded to was placed in my
window for sale, and soon attracted a goodly number of
flute players to inspect and try it, but notwithstanding
its saleable advantages in having belonged to so great a
player, together with the reduced price it was to be sold
at, still it was nearly eight months before a purchaser
‘presented himself. This gentleman having heard of its
(pretended) superiority over those in use by him, felt
anxious to give it a trial; mark the sequel: about six
336 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

months after the purchase the same gentleman waited
upon me again, and was anxious for me to take it back
to find him a customer, for he could make nothing of it.
I did not agree to this, and heard nothing more of this
said Boehm flute for at least a year, when I was again
solicited to try and dispose of it by another person. It
was again placed in my window, but I could not succeed,
and ultimately returned it to the owner.

Another instance came under my notice; a gentle-
man brought me a Boehm flute to repair, I did what
was required, and concluded from the way in which he
handled it, he must have had considerable experience
upon it. I solicited his opinion, when he was candid
enough to tell me that he had been originally instructed
upon and played for some years on the flute now in use,
but having met with a disciple of the Boehm system
when in Paris, he was prevailed upon to give it a trial,
which he said he exceedingly regretted, for after having
devoted an immense deal of time to its study, under the
tuition of Cochi (when in that city), he then discovered
it to be much more imperfect than the old system, and
he would cheerfully retrace his steps to the old method,
but for fear of mixing up the now confirmed habits of
the new system with that of the original, and so
depriving himself of the pleasure of using either effec-
tively.

Mr. C. among the many qualities he attaches to the
Boehm flute, states, that perfection of tune is attained.
How can this possibly be, when the same fingering must
be used for the sharps as well as the flats? The effect
such an instrument (with this imperfection) would pro-
duce, when played with stringed instruments, can easily
be conceived. This defect alone shows the great
superiority of the flute now in use over that upon the
Boehm principle, as in the former it can be remedied
while in the latter it must remain ; the beautiful effect
produced by gliding must be excluded, and the facility
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. . 337
of fingering attainable on our flutes, must of necessity
be obstructed by the introduction of the rings round the
holes.

This latter fact was apparent to many who were
present at Mr. Carte’s concert, and has been noticed in
a report of the same by one of the musical periodicals ;
but the giant evil of all is that which has, I think, been
satisfactorily proved by several of our greatest artists
whose names have appeared upon this subject—I allude
to its incapacity of being used effectually in any other
keys than those of C, G, or F—thus excluding the
beautiful keys of three or four flats, in the use of which
our own flutes stand so pre-eminent, and in which most
“of our best compositions for the flute are written.

There are other minor objections I might mention to
show the futility of expecting that the Boehm flute can
ever come into general use; but I fear, Sir, I have
trespassed too much upon your time already, my object
being simply thus to’ place before flute players a few
important facts which have come under my immediate
notice, together with my own practical knowledge as
a maker, and supported by the living testimony of some
of the most talented flutists of the present day ; for I
unhesitatingly admit, that if no other test was given
than the extravagant praises which Mr, C. in his letter
has lavished on the Boehm flute, it would be sufficient
to create dissatisfaction among the performers on the
instrument now in use, and probably lead them to
abandon a beautiful and comparatively simple instru-
ment for one whose chief recommendation is that of
novelty.

I would here remark what I wish to be thoroughly
understood, that in detailing the above incidents to show
the defects of the Boehm flute, I am actuated by no
motives of prejudice against the instrument or its
patrons, for I should hail with delight any invention
calculated to simplify the difficulties, and remove the

Zz
338 HISTORY. OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

defects of that (now reviled) instrument, which, notwith-,
standing, in the hands of Drouet, Nicholson, Richardson,
Frisch, and others, has made such a lasting impression,
as, I fear, the performers on the Boehm flute will find it
difficult to efface. i

Dear Sir,—If you do not think the, above remarks
too lengthy and unimportant for the columns of your
journal, I shall esteem your inserting them a great.
favour ; and permit me to subscribe myself

Your very obliged Servant,

JOHN PASK.

No. 11.

(From Old Howling Stick.) :
SIR,

If your learned correspondent “Omega” will ‘put on
his spectacles and mind his stops, by again reading my
former paragraph, he will find it thus—‘“ A good player
can make a note a quarter of a tone sharper or flatter ;
weaker or stronger, at pleasure ;” then if Omega can blow
a flute zz tune, let him select any note on the treble clef,
say G (as it stands for Goose, or rather Geese, ourselves
to wit) and finger it in the usual manner, blowing very
piano and increasing it to very forte; he will thus find,
that by means of the embouchure alone, he has Ait the
method (without shooting round a corner for it) of
“making a note weaker or stronger, at pleasure” without
blowing it out of tune.

Your obedient Servant,

OLD HOWLING STICK,
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE, 339

moe

‘No, 12.
(From Embouchure.)
THE BoEHM FLUTE.

I pray you, Sir, to put a mute -
On all this noise bout Boehm’s flute,
Your powers arouse
To muffle Prowse,
_ Nor let old Card
Contend with Ward,
But quash at once the dull dispute.

EMBOUCHURE.

(We would gladly oblige our jingling correspondent,
only that we wish to adhere to our motto, which is Audi
alteram partem.—ED. M. W.)

No. 13.
(From Henry Kelsall, M.D.)
THE BOEHM FLUTE.

: 9 UNION TERRACE, PLYMOUTH, DEVON.
SIR,
‘ Having observed that contradictory opinions ‘on the’
merits of the Boehm flute have lately been expressed, I
was anxious to ascertain the true state of the’ case,
previous to providing myself with so expensive a play-
thing ; and.being in town for a few days, I made some
enquiry of Mr. Pask, in the Lowther Arcade, on the
subject, and came away, with certainly a degree of
“prejudice against the Boehm flute, having understood
from Mr. Pask that the instrument is imperfect, except
in the key of C, and that the tones of the upper octave
are thin and weak. I have just had a Boehm flute
placed in my hands, and can only say I am quite
Z2
340 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

astonished how anything derogatory to it could have
been promulgated—the tones of the instrument I
examined are perfect, brilliant and powerful in every
key, to an extent I was quite unprepared to expect. I
would therefore recommend every amateur, to do as I
have (examine the flute himself) and I will venture to
say he will come to my conclusion, viz. that the Boehm
flute is as superior to the old eight-keyed instrument, as
the latter is to the one-keyed flute.
I am, sir,
Your’s &c.,

HENRY KELSALL, M.D.

(Puff! Puff!! Puff!!!—Ep. M. W.)

No. 14.
(From Auletes.)

LONDON, Nov. 277th, 1843.
SIR,

The flute controversy which has for some weeks been
carried on in your columns, has set me about instituting
some calculations as to the relative merits of the prin-
cipal instruments which have attracted any attention
within the present century. I cannot here give either
the grounds on which my conclusions are drawn, or the
details of the calculation ; but, am prepared to substan-
tiate the general correctness of my position, which are
these, viz.-—

That, supposing 100 to represent perfection, the best

ordinary flutes—I will not say whom I consider the
best maker, because I differ from current opinion—

but the best, I quote at) «2 we we 285
The English Imitation Boehm at.. .. «2 0...) w. BE
The Genuine Boehm, Paris make, at .. .. .. 1. 64

The New Ward’s Patent Flute at ce eae am)
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 341

If any say my opinion, as an anonymous writer, is
worthless, I will wager with him one hundred guineas,
that, in a jury of 24 honourable flute professors, 12
chosen by each side, I will have a majority of votes for
English Imitation Boehm, over ordinary flutes, or for
genuine Paris, over Imitation English Boehm, or for
Ward’s patent over Paris Boehm.

If any one accepts the above challenge in your

columns, you shall have my deposit and name at once.
Till when,
I am,

Your constant reader,
AULETES.
(Puff! Puff!! Puff! !!—Ep. M. W.)

No. 15.
(From Fim Crow.)

THE BOEHM FLUTE.

My Dear Sir,

The letter of Mr. Clinton, which appeared in your
last number but one, compels me to answer him con-
cerning this new Boehm flute.

When Mr. Clinton can prove that the Boehm flute is
far superior to a Nicholson’s flute I will then give up my
flute and purchase a Boehm, but while the new flute has
got so many imperfections there is no chance of its ever
knocking a Nicholson flute into eternity. Mr. Clinton,
does not Old Howling Stick say, “ It is not in the size
or make of the finger holes that playing in tune and
good tone depends, but in the management of the mouth
hole or embouchure. A good player can make a note a
quarter of a tone sharper or flatter, weaker or stronger,
at pleasure ; it is not the flute that is at fault, but the
man who sits behind it.” Is not this true——? And
342 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

now, Mr. Clinton, I do not doubt but I am quite right,
and you are quite wrong, so the public will perceive how
much confidence. can be placed in you. Most unfor-
tunately, for your silly and childish assertions, one of the
principal beauties of the Nicholson flute is that it can be
played perfectly in every key, that of course renders it
infinitely superior to the Boehm flute, which I know
by experience, having practised.upon the Boehm flute
for more than twelve months, and I now condemn the
Boehm flute for its imperfections. Mr. Prowse, I have
heard, is about to bring out a new fantasia by M. de
Folly, which [ know they cannot play upon their Boehm
flute, and which I KNOW CAN: be PLAYED upon a
NICHOLSON, because I have heard De Folly play it
upon a Wicholson flute twice or thrice (so much for the
Boehm system). And now, my brother amateurs, if
you wish to become possessed of a superior flute, I
advise you as a friend to go direct to Nicholson’s Flute
Manufactory, Hanway-street, and order one with the
latest improvements, and I’ll warrant he does not take
you in; but I should be rather cautious in introducing
you to Rudall’s party; and, to prove that my words are
true, how is it that Richardson, Saynor, Downes, Royal,
Hodgkinson, Tull, Dipple, Minasi, and a great many
more play upon WVicholson’s flute? Is it because Boehm’s
flute is superior, or is it vice versd? Answer me this,
Mr. Clinton, and I will thank you for your trouble by
answering your next saucy letter.

Yours, &c. &c.,
Jim Crow, London.

[The intemperate tone of this letter would have been
a sufficient reason for our declining to insert it had we
not felt assured that our talented correspondent Mr.
Clinton, who has the manliness to place his name at the
end cf his letters, could only be benefited by the fact of
his arguments, being unanswerable except by low abuse
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 343

and ignorant presumption. We have omitted some
paragraphs in the letter too gross and personal to suit
our paper.—Ep, M. W.]

(Puff! Puff!! Puff!!! again.)

No. 16.°
(From E. N. F.)
THE BoEHMITES—THE NON-BOEHMITES.

Dec. 11th, 1843.
SIR,

If those quarrelous flautists and others, the flute
makers and re-taz/-ers, wll dispute about o/d things
being called xew, or, contrariwise, zew things being but
old inventions, let them, and they can amuse themselves
with such like absurdities; but, for Heaven’s sake, do
not continue to inflict on your subscribers a series of
such useless letters in the pages of your journal, and
about what? A Boehm flute! With how much valu-
able matter could you not have filled the columns of
The World, that have been so long ¢hrown away, or,
perhaps speaking more correctly, invaded by this Boehm
correspondence !

_ See, Mr. Editor, we have an essay from the pen of
Mr. Clinton, but not content, he tortures The Musical
World readers with a very heavy epistle, to which Mr.
Prowse vouchsafes a reply, remarkable for being ex-
tremely Pro-se; and then, again, Mr Clinton comes
down with a Clint-er. Thus ends the dispute P. versus
C.; but where meddlers dwell is there any peace? “Old
Howling Stick ”—what a champion !—steps forward to
make his bow, and makes his exit ; but that portentous.
m Omega ” must needs draw him: ‘from his retirement, *
and again “ Old Howling Stick.” “ Everything ‘begets
his like,” says one proverb, and another, that “ One fool
344 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

makes many.” Even so, one scribbler induces a dozen
more or less able ; and Mr. Pask, because he must play
a part, runs into the arena of discussion to exhibit his
ableness in “Much ado about Nothing,” and, be it said,
he is as successful as his predecessors.

So much for the “ Boehms,”—so much for the “ Non-
Boehms.” Mr. Editor, give each an opiate that they
may rest from their disputes, and be at peace.—I am

your obedient servant, : E.N. F.

[We hope the Boehmites will profit by this truly
. humorous epistle—ED, M. W.]

No. 17.
(From “ Obadiah.”)

THE BOEHM FLUTE.

ASPEN COTTAGE, 18¢h of the 12th Month, 1843.

FRIEND WORLD,

It grieveth my spirit, to behold so much of thy
valuable hebdomadal publication, taken up by puffs,
breezes, and squalls, relative to a piece of perforated
wood, called by the profane, a Flute, yea, a Boehm flute.
T will give thee a piece of advice—nay, gratuitously will
I give it unto thee, in a couple of lines, védelicet—

If its puffers have any more to say for it,
I recommend thee to make them all day for it.

Thine, OBADIAH.
P.S. My spouse Rebecca, begs thy acceptance of a
piece of plum-pudding, of her own amalgamating.

[The donation is received with infinite relish—Eb.
M. W.]
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 345

No. 18.
(From “ Anti-Monotonous.”)
THE BOEHM FLUTE.

BALDERTON, NEAR NEWARK,

Dec. 4th.
Mr. EDITOR,

I am rather surprised that you should allow so much
space of your valuable work to be occupied with a dis-
cussion on the “Boehm Flute,” which seems to be
interminable, and can lead to no good. ‘Your corre-
spondents should remember that not 1-20th of your
subscribers are flute players, consequently, such matter
to them is quite uninteresting ; the piano-forte players
might with as much propriety, spin a yarn every week
respecting the superiority of the tone of a particular
maker of the piano-forte, over that of another. Excuse

this scrawl.
In haste, yours,

ANTI-MONOTONOUS.

No. Io.
(From a Professor of Counterpoint.)

(It should be mentioned, in order to make this letter
intelligible, that the Boehm flute was not the only
subject of personal rather than general interest, on which
a correspondence had been carried on in the columns of

‘The Musical World.’)

Mr. EDITOR,
Much as I have felt pleased with some of the recent

articles in your admirably conducted work, I think you
have allowed full scope to everything that can be said
346 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

about the “Boehm Flute,” as well as the Antiquarian
and Contrapuntists Societies ; and if I am not mistaken,
some of your correspondents upon these subjects have
been making use of the ‘Musical World’ for the
purpose of letting the public know that there are such
persons in existence, by avery “antiquarian” manceuvre,
somewhat detrimental to the interests of Somerset
Ffouse, and equally trying to the patience of your
readers.

For my own part, at least, what with antiquarian
doctors, /talian professors, the French Flowers of meta-
phor, used by certain dachelors (to say nothing of the
cabals about dissenting chapels), I have had (and so I
think your subscribers generally will say) quite verbum
sat. So roughly handled as the “essay” on the Boehm
flute was on the first “ review (?) ” of it, I am astounded
that the monotonous /oe¢/e tootle in your columns upon
that instrument should have been tolerated so long.
Many of the performers (?), I doubt not, would have
found themselves more in zype at a lathe or bow-string,
than in endeavouring to make fools of compositors, and
wasting the midnight oil of laborious editors in framing
their lucubrations into comprehensible phraseology ; and
as to the—the—country punsters (pshaw! you know
what I mean, although I can’t write or pronounce the
word,—conter—pun—pun—contrapuntists—aye, that’s
it), I thought these learned “pundits” would never
have brought their perscrutations to a point or finale.
Do, Mr. Editor, have a little mercy upon us pour l'avenir;
and if in noting your papers, you find any more con-
tributions from these advertising scribblers just pop them
into the fire; assuring them in your “notice to corres
spondents,” that as Fimothy Trueism and Peter nora s
letters are advertisements.” .

In tendering advice to these erudite gentlemen who
have made their debut for the first and (I hope), last
time, I am powerfully reminded by the soporific effect
LETTERS ON THE BOEHM FLUTE. 347

produced by these Bokemian and other correspondents,
of the lines somewhat paraphrased in the opera of Rob
Roy.
Before the first remembrance dies,
Lo “ Nicholson ” and “ Prowse” arise,
Whose place then “ Hodgkinson ” supplies,
With bome! bome! bome !
* Hark,’hark, from some one member’s nose,
A cadence deep—a dying close,”
At which the Contrapuntists rose,
For home! home! home!

A: PROFESSOR OF COUNTERPOINT.
348

MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL.

—+o2——

IN an age like the present when signs-of a decline of in-
dustry, the sure forerunner of national decay, meet the
eye on every side, to trace the career of an orphan, who
by untiring assiduity won for himself a front place in the
race of life, is a task at once agreeable and instructive.

Carl Emil von Schafhautl was the son of a Bavarian
army surgeon... He was born at Ingolstadt on the
16th of February, 1803. Early in youth he had the
misfortune to lose both his parents. His education was
commenced in the elementary school of his native town,
and was continued at the Priests’ Seminarv and Gram-
mar School (Gymnasium) at Neuburg on the Danube.
Schafhautl was endowed by nature with a passionate
love of music; throughout his long life music, as he
tells us in his biography of Boehm, though he could
only regard it as a side issue, filled his whole heart. At
Neuburg he was so fortunate as to receive instruction in
the art to which he was so ardently attached, as music
formed part of the curriculum of the school. He was
taught the pianoforte and singing; he also learnt
orchestral playing, for in the Roman Catholic institutions
of Germany the pupils formed a band of their own
which played in church on solemn occasions.?

! For the materials of this biographical sketch the author is
chiefly indebted to a comprehensive account of Schafhiutl’s life
and work by Herr Ludwig Boehm, which appeared in the Bayer
LIndustrie- und Gewerbeblatt, No. 17, 1890. 2 Infra, p. 396.
PLATE VII.

 

To face p. 348:
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 349

On leaving school Schafhautl returned to Ingoldstadt
where he joined a member of his father’s profession, an
apothecary. With him he learnt pharmacy, and what
he valued more highly, practical chemistry. His leisure
he employed in practising the violin and the double bass,
in playing on the organs in the different churches, in
studying German literature, and in writing verses, essays
and stories for the Ingolstadt weekly paper. One of his
early literary productions, a tale for children entitled
‘The Old Man of the Mountains, which appeared in
1819, is still to be found in booksellers’ shops.

We next hear of Schafhautl as a student at the. Uni-
versity of Landshut devoting himself to mathematics
and natural science. From Landshut he returned to
Ingolstadt, and occupied himself with experiments.
The following incident shows the determination with
which he met the obstacles which beset his path. The
comet of 1818 having drawn his attention to astronomy,
he had proceeded to study that science, but he had no
telescope with which to gratify the curiosity his studies
had aroused. He therefore entered into an arrange-
ment with a watchmaker in whose house he resided, by
which, in return for instruction in mathematics and
physical science, he was taught the arts of turning and
grinding ; he was thus enabled to construct for himself a
reflecting as well as a refracting instrument, the glasses
for both of which he ground with his own hands.

It was not until 1827, when Schafhautl was twenty-
four years of age, that there came a turning point in his
career. Scheifele, the Rector of Ingolstadt, who had
taken an interest in the fatherless but persevering youth,
now used his influence to procure for him an appoint-
ment in the Library of the University of Landshut, a
library in which were enshrined many literary treasures
of suppressed Bavarian monasteries. The University
of Landshut had just been transferred to Munich, so to
Munich came Schafhautl. How he revelled in the riches
350 HISTORY OF THF BOEHM FLUTE.

of the bibliothecal shelves with which he was surrounded
can easily be imagined. But Munich -had for him
another and a more potent attraction—its music. Not
to mention its concerts and its opera, in Caspar Ett, the
Court organist, it possessed a skilful performer, a man
of high repute as a composer of church music, and a
learned musical antiquary. Moreover, being a clever and.
conscientious: choirmaster, he had brought the singers
of St. Michael’s, the Court church, into a state of un-
usually high training, and thus by the production of
such works as the Penitential Psalms of Orlarido di
Lasso, an’ Alleluia of Handel, Allegri’s Miserere, he
regaled the ears of the delighted Schafhautl with feast
after feast, until the impressionable young man began to
regard him with a feeling not far short of idolatry.

Schafhautl had not been long in Munich when there
sprang up the friendship which has brought his name
into these pages. Theobald Boehm, who was a hand-
some man of prepossessing manners, was now in the
prime of life and at the zenith of his reputation as a
flute-player. He was not only gifted with the natural
talent and temperament necessary to form a musician,
but he was endowed, in addition, with the two essential,
requisites for an artist of the true type, intelligence and
sensibility. Asa performer he was remarkable for his.
great execution, for the beauty of his tone, for the refine-
ment of his style, for the tenderness and delicacy of his
expression, and for the skill and conscientiousness of his
phrasing. Like Ett, he was a Court musician. Long.
before this time his artistic gifts had attracted the atten-.
tion of King Maximilian, who, on the. occasion of a
vacancy, had taken the opportunity of introducing him
into his orchestra, and placing him by the side of his
former teacher and ever warm friend, Kapeller.

But the magnetic attraction of musical sympathy was
not the only bond of union between Schafhiutl and
Bochm ; they were drawn together by a higher and a
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 351

deeper tie. Both were athirst for knowledge; both were
ready to devote themselves to the task of wresting her
secrets from Nature by the tedious and toilsome process
of cross-examining her through her operations; both
were eager to turn to account the information they might
thus elicit. Moreover they were admirably qualified to
work together. Boehm was a clever mechanic, possessed
of great manipulative skill, and endowed in a rare degree
with the faculty of invention; whilst Schafhautl was a
highly trained -mathematician, and- a physicist - well
steeped in theory and scientific lore; thus one could
supply what the other needed.

To eke out his slender salary of 300 florins, Schaf-
hdutl, under the pseudonym of Pellisov,? began to
contribute to various periodicals as musical critic’ and
essayist. An extract from a production of his in this
capacity—an account of one of the first concerts at which
Boehm played on the flute which bears his name, has
already been given in this volume* He did not, how-
ever, confine himself to ordinary journalistic work, but
wrote, for publications of-a more scientific character, on
acoustical topics, such as sound, tone, and detonation ;
on musical instruments in general; on the theory of
covered cylindrical and conical pipes, and German flutes..

His articles soon brought him into notice, and pro-
cured for him the acquaintance of most of the artists
and composers of Munich. Amongst his essays was a
paper on the AZolian harp, in which was propounded a
theory which Schafhautl conceived could be applied to
the construction of the pianoforte. How he communi-
cated his views to Boehm ; how Boehm quickly put them
into a practical shape ; how the workmen who made the
model, instigated by their employer, betook themselves
to London and forestalled Schafhautl’s agents, Gerock

8 Pellisov, i.e. pellis ovis, a Latin translation of the word

Schafhautl, which signifies sheepskin.
* Supra, p. 25+
352 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

and Wolf, in taking out a patent; how, in consequence,

‘litigation arose which obliged Schafhautl to come to
England, has already been alluded to in this work,® and
will be told in Schafhiutl’s own words on a subsequent
page.®

Schafhautl arrived in London in October 1834. Here
were disclosed to him the wonders of a new world. The
vast life and turmoil of the English metropolis ; the rich
treasures of science and art in the British Museum and
other collections ; the Medical Schools ; the works for
the construction of machinery and of organs and piano-
fortes, all on so gigantic a scale compared with those.
with which he was hitherto acquainted, served to con-
firm the opinion which he had previously formed from
Boehm’s description, that England was the Promised
Land of technical art.

No sooner was the lawsuit brought to a successful
termination than Schafhautl and Boehm set out for
Sheffield to make a study of the iron and steel works
for which the town is so celebrated. At that time a
method of getting rid of certain impurities, such as
carbon, silicon, phosphorus, and sulphur, which have a
tendency to render malleable iron brittle, was a desi-
deratum. This was a subject with which Schafhdutl
and Boehm were already conversant, they having
previously attempted, but unsuccessfully, to solve the
problem. They now so impressed an ironmaster that
he took them under his auspices, A chemical labora-
tory in which the two friends were installed was set up
in Mr. Hounsfield’s villa, in the suburbs of Sheffield,
where they made the discovery that by introducing into
the metal, when in a state of fusion, black oxide of man-
ganese, salt, and potter’s clay, the elimination of the
impurities was greatly facilitated, Whether the sug-
gestion was first made by Schafhautl or by Boehm is

5 Supra, p. 46. ° Infra, p. 427.
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 53
left open, for the Doctor, in his account of the matter,’
does not claim the discovery for himself, nor does he
assign it to-his fellow worker.

On the 13th May, 1835, the ironmaster took out a
patent for the process in Schafhautl’s name. In the
specification he is described as Charles Schafhautl,
gentleman, of 77 Cannon Street, in the City of London,
but the document appears to have been executed at
Sheffield. In June, Boehm left England to make the
patent powder and its use known in Germany, whilst
Schafhautl, who had resigned his post in the library at
Munich, remained behind in order to introduce it into
various foundries at Sheffield and Birmingham.

But the Patent Office shows that another project con-
nected with the iron industry had engaged Schafhautl’s
attention. The conversion of pig into dar iron, as the
purification of the cast iron which runs from the blast
furnace is called, is effected by an operation termed
puddling. The cast or pig iron, having gone through
the preliminary process of refining, is fused in a rever-
beratory furnace,.the materials to aid in the purification
(the salt, the potter’s clay, and the manganese dioxide
of Schafhautl’s patent, or some one of the other sub-
stances which have since been recommended) being
added. When first fused the metal is comparatively
liquid, but as it boils giving off bubbles of carbonic
oxide, it thickens by degrees until it is converted into a
semi-solid mass of a pasty or porridge-like consistence.
Throughout the operation a half-naked workman or
puddler, furnished with a raddle and a paddle, as his
tools are termed, watches the contents of the furnace,
keeps them constantly stirred, and, when he considers
that the process is complete, or to use his own phrase,
when the metal has come to nature, collects it and
forms it into puddler’s balls.

G2

7 Infra, p. 431-
354 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

The object which Schafhautl had in view was to work
the puddling or stirring tool by machinery instead of
by hand, so that “a larger puddling furnace might be
used, and more work done in a given time.” There is
a drawing of the apparatus in the specification of the
patent. It shows an elaborate machine with wheels,
rods, bars, cranks, and levers, by means of which, motions
both transverse and longitudinal, similar to those given
by the hand of the puddler, are imparted to the stirring-
tool. Whether or not Boehm, to whose “marvellous
gift for combination” the Doctor bears testimony, had
or had not a hand in the invention, can now be only a
matter of conjecture. But when one considers that the
puddler’s work is so exhausting that it has been pro-
nounced to be probably the most severe labour in the
world, it can occasion no surprise that since Schafhautl’s
time many mechanical rabbles, as such contrivances are
called, should have been brought forward with a view of
lightening his task; indeed it has been proposed to
cause the furnace itself to rotate. In fact, so revolution-
ised has been the manufacture of iron of late years that
the operation of puddling has been to a great extent
superseded, and threatens ere long to entirely disappear.

The patent was taken out on the 13th of June, 1836,
by which time Schafhautl seems to have left Sheffeld,
and to have gone to reside at Dudley in Worcestershire.
Notwithstanding the heavy claims which iron must have
had on his time, we have evidence that he did not
allow music to be overlooked. From 1834 to 1836 the
‘Allgemeine Musicalische Zeitung’ of Leipsic published
contributions from his pen on Catholic Church Music, on
the York Musical Festival, and English Music in general,
and on The English System of Organ Construction,
and the large Organs of Birmingham and York. :

During the next year, 1837, Schafhautl paid a visit to
France, where he taught the improved puddling process
in the large French ironworks such as those of Terre
~ MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 355.

Noire, Creuzot, and Alais. He then made geological
excursions to Arles, Avignon, and Marseilles. A fter-
wards’ he proceeded to the deep valleys of the Pyrenees.
To this remote region the art of puddling had not found
its way, although it had been known for half a century,
it having been patented by Cort, its inventor, in 1784.
Schafhautl attempted to introduce it, but he was not
successful; indeed it is said that to this day the
production of iron is here effected by the old Catalan
forge; a method not unlike that which is practised
in such countries as Borneo and Madagascar, and
believed to be substantially the same as the Roman
way of smelting.

On his return to England, Schafhaut] undertook an
elaborate and exhaustive examination of the chemical
composition of iron and steel. He embodied the results
of his researches in a paper which he read at the meeting
of the British Association in 1839. So important was
this investigation considered to be that Sir David
Brewster, the editor of the ‘London and Edinburgh
Philosophical Magazine,’ published it at full length in
that periodical, although it was necessary to give up to
it nearly sixty pages *® of the magazine. The next year
Schafhautl again attended the meeting of the British
Association and read papers in the Chemical section.
As the meeting was held at Glasgow, he took the oppor-
tunity of making a tour in the Scotch Highlands.

By the year following, 1840, the ubiquitous Schafhautl
had removed to Swansea, whither he had been taken by
Charles Manby, the engineer. He was engaged in inves-
tigating by means of chemical analysis the metallurgy
of copper, and was studying the geology of the district,
and making experiments with the Welsh anthracite or
smokeless coal. The outcome of this visit to Swansea

8 ¢On the Combinations of Carbon with Silicon and Iron and
athéer Metals, forming the different species of Cast Iron, Steel, and
Malleable Iron? By Dr. Schafhautl, of Munich. 1839-40.

2 A 2
356 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

was a patent which was taken out in January 1841, by
the Doctor in conjunction with Charles Manby’s brothers
Edward Oliver Manby and John Manby for “the con-
struction of puddling, balling, and other reverberatory
furnaces for enabling anthracite, stone coal, or culm to
be used as fuel.”

Schafhautl had now been resident in England for
seven years. In November 1835, he had received the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, and in March 1838, that
of Doctor of Medicine? He had been elected an Asso-
ciate of the Institution of Civil Engineers,!° and for his
communications to that Society, on a new universal
photometer," and on the circumstances under which
explosions frequently occur in steam boilers and the

® These degrees are said to have been conferred on Schafhiutl
by the University of Dublin, but the statement involves a seeming
impossibility, inasmuch as the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is
one which that university has never granted. Nor can Schafhautl’s
name be found in the list of Dublin Doctors of Medicine. But
although there is little likelihood that either of the degrees was of
British origin, there can be no doubt that: Schafhiutl began to be
styled . Doctor during his residence in England. That he was
officially recognised in Germany as a Doctor both of Philosophy.
and Medicine is evident from the words italicised in the follow-
ing, which is taken from his diploma of “Doctor Scientiarum
Politico Oeconomicarum ”"—an honorary degree which he received
from the University of Munich in 1860 :—“viro excelsi ingenii,
tam in literis quam in artibus versato, college carissimo, domino
Carolo Francisco Aemiliano Schafhaeutl, Ingolstadensi Bojo,
Philosophia et medicine Doctor, geologize et rei metallicze pro-
fessori publ. ord., bibliothecario supremoin Universitate, Academiz
scientiarum Regie in ordine sodali, Musei geologici in Academia
Conservatori, Ordinis meritorum civilium St. Michaelis, Honoris
Legionis Franco-Gallicze Equiti rel. rel. ob vastam ac exquisitam
scientiam doctrinamque presertim in re montana et anceallieay
honoris causa—”

* His election took place on the gth of February, 1841. He
was described as Charles Schafhaeutl, of Augsburg, Doctor of
Philosophy and Medicine.

" Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. iu
p. tol.
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 2357

causes to which such explosions may be assigned,!? he
had received the Telford Medal. Not to mention
private friends, he had made the acquaintance of many
distinguished men, such ‘as Thompson, Tennant, Mur-
chison, Lyell, Brunel, and Stephenson. It seemed then
as if he had made a new home for himself in this
country ; but the love of the Fatherland proved too
‘strong; in June 1841 he returned to Munich and
‘rejoined his old friend Boehm. The Boehm family
occupied a flat in a building which had once formed
part of one of the religious houses in which before the
suppression of such institutions in Bavaria, Munich
‘abounded."* It had been the residence of Boehm’s
father, and it is still in the possession, of the family, it
being inhabited by Bochm’s daughter and one of his
sons."* To this abode Schaufhautl: was welcomed by
Boehm, and here he passed the forty-nine remaining
years of his life,

From this time forward the biography of Schafhautl
becomes one long record of his unceasing activity. He
at once resumed his chemical researches in the labora-
tory of the Royal Academy. In defence of the opinions
put forward by his old friend and instructor in chemistry,

” Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. iii.
P. 435; also Proceedings, vol. i. p. 103. 7

3 Munich, the Villa Munichen, or Forum ad Monachos, received
its name from the circumstance that the ground on which it stood
was owned by monks.—C. W.

™% On the oth of April, 1894, it was the scene of an interesting
celebration. A festive gathering of the now very numerous Boehm
family was held in it to commemorate the centenary of Boehm’s
birth. After the family coffee, one of Boehm’s youthful descendants
recited some verses which he had composed in his great grand-
father’s honour, and the head of the family, Herr Ludwig Boehm,
in an eloquent speech recalled the chief incidents of his father’s
career, and held up his life as a pattern for the imitation of his
younger listeners. A glass of champagne was then drunk in
silence by each present in memory of the departed. Music and

dancing followed.
35 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Joh, Nep, Fucks, he plunged into a controversy which had
broken out in the scientific world on the nature and origin
of volcanoes. Immediately after his return'from England
he was placed on the Committee of the Munich Poly-
technic Association, as a member of which he continued
for thirty years, as the journal of the Association testifies,
‘to contribute reports and to read papers on subject
after subject at the evening meetings. In 1843 he was
appointed to the Professorship of Geology and Metal-:
lurgy in the University of Munich, a chair which, in
addition to the professorial work, involved the duties of
Keeper of the Geological Collections of the State. In
the previous year he had been received as a member of
the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences.

But post after post of a more practical kind began to
fall to the lot of this useful man. He acted as Bavarian
Government Commissioner at the Industrial Exhibition
held at Mayence in 1842, at Leipzig in 1850, in London
in 1851, at Munich in 1854, and at Paris in 1855, assist-
ing at the adjudications and drawing up detailed reports.
He was also placed on a commission which King
Ludwig I. sent to Pompeii, when in 1842 he erected the
Pompeianum, a copy of a Roman villa, in the park at
Aschaffenburg. In examining the remains of ancient
architecture which the excavations had brought to light,
Schafhautl ascertained that the brilliancy of the walls
in the baths of Herculaneum and Pompeii is produced
by the way in which they are plastered, not by means
of wax.!® On the establishment of the Bavarian State

“Railways in 1844, he was nominated commissioner for

18 The matter is discussed by the Doctor in some remarks ‘On
the Theory of the Setting and Hardening of Mortars, and the
Polished Stucco of the Ancients,’ appended to a paper entitled
‘Portland and Roman Cement. A Contribution to the History of
Cements and Hydraulic Mortars.’ There is a copy of the paper
in the original German, with a manuscript English translation, in
the library of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 359

testing locomotive boilers; the work thus thrown upon
him was afterwards increased by the addition of the
official control of the boilers of Upper Bavaria, so that
before the end of his life he had tested more than two
thousand steam boilers. In 1849, he undertook another
Inspectorship for the Government of Upper Bavaria,
that of the construction and erection of church organs,
in the discharge of his duties giving judicial opinions
which amounted from first to last to over four hundred
in number, In the midst of all these avocations he
found time to act from 1845 as examiner of the technical
schools of Munich and Augsburg, in the capacity of
Governmeut Commissioner for these institutions.

Amongst the appointments which were showered upon
Schafhautl there was one which it gave him especial
pleasure to accept, that of chief librarian to the Uni-
versity of Munich. During the seven years he had
spent in the library, in the subordinate - office of
secretary, he had become intimately acquainted with
its contents, and had learnt to appreciate its value.
To provide suitable catalogues for its three hundred
thousand volumes, and to arrange and display its
manuscripts and incunabula—a work which extended
over ten years—was to him a labour of love,

There still remains to be mentioned an undertaking
which probably entailed on the indefatigable Schafhautl
more trouble than any one of his many other occu-
pations. He was nominated President of the Geological
Section of a Royal Commission, which was appointed
in 1849 for the scientific examination of Bavaria, in
which capacity he devoted himself for nearly forty years
to the formation of a more complete National Geological!
and Mineralogical Collection by visits to the Bavarian -
mountains, by purchases from exhibitions, and by
obtaining contributions from Bavarian foundries. In
connection with this subject, not to mention communi-
cations to periodical publications, he produced in 1851
360 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

a work entitled ‘Geological: Researches in the South
Bavarian Alps, and in 1863 a ‘ Lethea Geognostica’ of
South Bavaria, with an atlas containing 100 plates..

Amidst all these diverse and distracting pursuits
Schafhautl never lost sight of music. Up to within a
few years of his death he was a constant attendant of
concerts and operas, although, like Boehm, he could never
reconcile himself to the innovations of Richard Wagner.
He gave lectures on ‘Ancient Music; on Mozart in
relation to his predecessors and successors; on the
Nature of Music and the so-called Music-Painting.
He wrote papers on Casper Ett; Joseph Haydn and
Gluck; Tannhauser and the Music of the Future;
Vogler’s celebrated Organ of St. Peter's; the Abbé
Vogler: a biography ; Meyerbeer’s ‘Africaine’ ; Church.
Music at Munich; Major and Minor in Nature; and
even on the abstruse subject of Chinese Music. Indeed,
so incessantly did he ply his pen, that there were
enumerated in the Almanac of the Bavarian Academy.
of Sciences of 1884, more than two hundred of his
literary works, and in that of 1890 there appeared a
supplementary list. Meantime, his labours did not
pass unrecognised. In addition to the University
degrees which were conferred’ on him, and the hono-.
rary membership to which he was -invited by learned
societies, he received from Bavaria two decorations,
the Order of Merit of St. Michael, and the Cross of
Knighthood of the Order of Merit of the Bavarian
Crown ; from Prussia the insignia of the Order ‘of the
Red Eagle; and from France the Cross of the Legion:
of Honour.

At length, signs that the great Leveller with his.
scythe was slowly but surely drawing near to the abode
of Boehm and Schafhautl began to appear; but the.
hand of Time, irresistible though it be, was powerless to
quench the fire of the old men’s energy. Weak and
stiff grew Boehm’s lips, so that he was forced to resign,
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 361

an older friend than Schafhautl, his flute,® but -he
sought still:to impart the secrets of his art by the aid of
the tremulous notes of his now feeble voice. Dim and
more dim waxed Schafhautl’s eyes, yet hour after hour
he sat, pen in hand, at his desk, though he could no
longer decipher the words the pen had traced. The
parting of the two friends was long delayed. It was
not till 1881 that Boehm was called to his last rest;
Schafhautl followed him in 1890, in the same year of
his age, the eighty-eighth.

_ Notwithstanding the strain Schafhautl must have
put on his mental and physical powers, he enjoyed
excellent health till within a few days of his death.
Moreover, he was a living refutation of the popular
belief that much work engenders dulness. Gifted with
a happy vein of humour, and possessed of an inex-
haustible fund of anecdote, which his extraordinarily
good memory placed always at his command, he was
a great favourite in society. His presence was highly
appreciated at the jovial gatherings of “Old England,”
a festive club, which numbered amongst its “ Lords,” as
the members were termed at their banquets, many of
the nobility and of the most distinguished men of
Munich. For the last twenty years of his life he gave
up his mountain excursions, and spent his summer
holiday at the Benedictine abbeys of Saltzburg, and
Einsiedeln in Switzerland, where he was received with
open arms; the genial disposition, the good stories,
the strict attention to religious observances, and the.
fraternal sympathy of the old bachelor rendering him
an ever-welcome guest. He was very popular with the
choir of St. Michael’s Church. For fifty years he was
present with them on the occasion of Church festivals,
his advice being always sought as to the music to be
performed. On his eightieth birthday (a day on which

8 Infra, Pe 477.
362 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

the magistrates of Munich offered him an address of
congratulation) they presented him with a souvenir of
their regard, and at his funeral performed a requiem in
his honour.

For so busy a man as Schafhautl to find time to
verify every statement he made was a physical im-
possibility. And, in addition to the want of accuracy
inseparable from too many undertakings (a habit which,
once established, has a tendency to drift into culpable
carelessness) he laboured under a twofold disadvantage,
his writing was difficult to read, and his eyesight was
exceedingly imperfect. To these causes may be as-
cribed many of the errors which are to be found in his
works. A bad hand is an especial misfortune for one
who, like Schafhautl, contributes to: periodicals, for in
such publications, the author seldom has an opportunity
of revising the proofs. In quotations from the Doctor's
articles given in this volume, the reader may notice
many misprints, due to the difficulty experienced in
deciphering his manuscript,such as Rapelle for Kapeller,”
Daru for Dorus,}* Cloche for Coche,’ remué for réunis,
attaquaient for atteignaient.”. Amongst the mistakes:
attributable to his defective vision there is a ludicrous
blunder in his account of a concert in which Boehm took
part; he so misread the programme as to credit Boehm.
with playing an air which was sung by a lady vocalist.

We are indebted to Schafhautl, as I have already
mentioned, for an extract from a lecture published in
Schweigger’s ‘Jahrbuch fiir Chemie und Physik’ (1833-
1834), on the theory of covered cylindrical and conical
pipes and German flutes) When Lord Rayleigh or
some other competent physicist shall turn his attention
to the subject, the theory put forward by the Doctor
will, no doubt, be examined, and an opinion expressed
as to how far he may be considered to have been

" Supra, p. 161. 8 Infra, p. 434. 1) Infra, p. 440.

2 Infra, p. 424. 2 Infra, p. 399.
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 363

successful in his attempt to grapple with the complex
phenomena with which it deals. Qne of his papers,
however, is of interest to flute-players generally, inas-
much as it bears on a subject which is with them a
matter of almost daily discussion, viz. whether the tone
of a flute is or is not affected by the material of which
the instrument is made. The paper, which was published
in the ‘Allgemeine Musicalische Zeitung’ (Leipzig) of
1879, is far too long to be reproduced in these pages,
but I will give an account, as brief as may be, of two or
three of the experiments described.

Dr. Schafhautl commences his essay with a quotation
of some length in which the writer considers it extra-
ordinary that such a “myth” or “superstition” as the
belief that the material of a wind instrument exercises
an influence on its sound should still exist. The choice
of the material to be selected was a question, he said,
not of the quality of the sound it gives, but of such con-
siderations as its strength, beauty, handiness, or price.
He admits, it is true, that Gladni (Chladni), at the
beginning of this century, still believed somewhat in a
weak resonance of the zinc or wooden wall of a pipe, but
he adds, “as a matter of fact, however, the wooden or
brass sides of a clarinet or of a trumpet do not vibrate,
but only the column of air which is enclosed within
them ; and three flutes, one of which is made of silver,
another-of glass, and another of wood, give out exactly
the same sound. That is a fact which rests on incontro-
vertible acoustic laws which can be proved by any trials,
and with regard to which there ought to be no more
discussion.”

The Doctor proposes to refer this oracular dogma
from Science to Nature. “In order,” he writes, “to
allow Nature herself to speak on this interesting ques-
tion, I selected a wooden organ pipe, which nearly gave
the G (or more nearly the G sharp of our old high pitch).
The body of the pipe was 72°2 centimetres long from the
364 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

plug to the open end; in the inside diameter at the lip
47°0 mm. wide, and 58..5 mm. broad ; we have therefore
a parallelogram of 2749°5 square millimetres in super-
ficial area. The wood of the body of the pipe was one
decimetre (?) thick, which thickness likewise, of course,
formed the width of the natural beard.”

After a further minute description of the pipe the
Doctor continues as follows :—

“Then J had a rectangular prism made, which exactly
filled up the body of the pipe, ie. the interior space of
the pipe, and over this prism I had three metal pipes
constructed, three pipes which, of course, perfectly re-
sembled each other, one of which consisted of tin, one of
lead, and the third of zinc. The tin pipe was of the
usual thickness in metal cf the principal pipes of this
size, namely 1 mm. The thickness of the lead pipe had
to be somewhat greater, as it could not otherwise have
been kept in shape, because of the softness of lead; it
amounted to 1°3 mm. The zinc pipe consisted of rolled
sheet zinc, 0°5 mm. thick.”

The three metal pipes, which were so constructed as
to resemble the wooden pipe “exactly in every detail,”
were placed side by side with it on a wind-chest. The
four pipes thus placed were then blown at a given pres-
sure of wind with the following result :—

“The wooden pipe did not quite come up to the height
of the G of our old orchestras, whose A made 896
vibrations. The wooden pipe made 404°98 oscillations
at 10° Réaumur.

“ According to Science we must, of course, conclude
that all pipes which are made alike down to the
minutest detail, will also make 404°98 oscillations ; but
Nature gave a totally different reply to our question.

“The tin pipe made at the same time 398, the leaden
pipe 390, and the zinc pipe 382 oscillations ; i.e. the zinc
pipe.was quite half a tone lower than the wooden pipe.
The tin pipe almost came up to the height of the G of
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 36

our earlier orchestra pitch, the A of which reached 8c
vibrations. It was about one-third of half a tone, ar
the leaden pipe about two-thirds of half a tone tc
deep.

“As here all the circumstances under which the foi
pipes gave their tone resembled each other, and only tl
material of which the pipes were made, varied, tl
natural conclusion is that the various materials of whic
the pipes were made were the cause of the various ton
quantities of the pipes with regard to their height ar
depth.

“Tn order, therefore, to bring the three metal pipes—tl
tin pipe, the lead pipe, and the zinc pipe—to the san
» height of tone as the normal wooden pipe, it was nece
sary to cut off 1°5 cm. from the tin pipe, 3°5 cm. fro
the leaden pipe, and 5°75 cm. from the zinc pipe.

“It is very easily proved that the vibration of the wal
of the pipes as a whole is the cause of the lowering of tl
tone in the pipes. For instance, I wrapped up the zii
pipe as tightly as possible with list, and it rose in to1
higher than the G of the French pitch by six vibratior
therefore, by a quarter of half a tone, whilst before th
it had stood below the G of the French pitch. At tl
same time the vibration of the pipe could be felt ;
strongly through the wrappers as when the bare pij
was held in the hand.

“ Here one sees the powerful influence of the materi
on the quantity of the vibrations or on the height of #1
tone, of which one had no suspicion previously. Inord
to demonstrate this influence still more clearly, I took
zinc pipe of the above-named dimensions, only it w:
about 5 mm. longer, and enclosed it in a second zinc pi
similar to the first in its dimensions, but about 2 cm. (
wider, which, therefore, stood off from the actual pipe t
about 2 mm. (?); the two substances were connected t
gether underneath by a watertight foundation of zir
The space 2 cm. wide between the two pipes could |
366 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

filled up with any substance one chose, in order, as it
were, to thicken the wall of the pipe to 2cm. The outer’
body of the pipe could, of course, not be brought quite
down to the level of the plug on account of the mouth,’
together with the lip; it was therefore connected exactly
above the upper edge of the lip, consequently 70} mm.
above the plug, by means of a horizontal watertight zinc
bottom, with the inner or principal pipe. This double
rectangular pipe had now a deeper tone than the single
pipe of the same length.

“ The free, single zinc pipe was now 0°77 of half a tone
higher than the F sharp of the normal scale; the double
one, on the other hand, was only 0°45 of half a
tone over F sharp. In sounding, the outer pipe vibrated
strongly and visibly.

“The space between the two pipes was now slowly
filled with water. The tone was at first powerful, but
as the water rose higher the octave of the fundamental
note began to mingle with it at the same time and at
last to appear quickly changing, and when the water
stood 9'4 cm. high in the intervening space the first
octave, namely G, was produced instead of the funda-
mental note, for which exactly a litre of water was
required, When the water got to nearly that height
and the octave was produced alternately with the funda-
mental note, it sufficed to place the finger on the upper
edge of the strongly vibrating outer pipe in order to
produce the octave without its fundamental note. As
soon as the water in the intervening space rose higher
the fundamental note again sounded pure, but in such
abundance as, was never produced by the mere pipe
itself. I now poured in water until it had reached over
30 cm., reckoning from the bottom of the outer prism,
or the outer pipe; and now the double octave began to
appear alternately with the fundamental note, as in the
first octave, until its double octave appeared pure and
full at a height of 36°3 cm. of the water. When more
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 367

water was poured in, the double octave soon made way
for the fundamental note, which again appeared very
powerful ; but’ the fundamental note had now become
nearly a half tone, 0°917 of a half tone higher.

“The intervening space which the water filled was now
filled up with gypsum. As gypsum grows hot in con-
gealing and solidifying the water, the height of the tone
could not be measured during the period of congelation ;
but meanwhile, before the pipe had grown quite cold,
the tone had not yet reached the height of the tone of
a similar cylindrical pipe, which will be mentioned
immediately.

“The double pipe sounded a vibration higher than the
G sharp of our pitch after it had grown cold, taking the
A at 870 vibrations. The double pipe which was filled
with gypsum had thus become 0°850 of a half tone
higher than the double pipe filled with water, and 1°77
of a half tone higher than the free double zinc pipe.
On the other hand, the tone of the double pipe with the
water wall was full and had a clear sound, the tone of
the gypsum wall had become thin and earthy ; it had
totally lost the full, strong, round sound of the water
wall.

“We see here what a powerful influence the material
of which the pipes are made exercises not only on the
quantity, ie, the height of the tone, but also on the
quality.

“The material of the body of the pipe, therefore, does
not only alter the tone in its height and depth, but it
also considerably alters the tone in its quality. The
tone of the pipe the wall of which consists of water,
the molecules of which are so mobile, produces an
extremely round, full sound; the gypsum wall, on the
other hand, gives forth a dull, poor, dry tone without
any music.”

I pass over the next experiment. Suffice it to say,
that three cylindrical pipes were taken, one of tin,
368 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

another of lead, and a third of zinc. They were so. con-
structed as to be exactly alike in their dimensions. On
sounding the three pipes it was found that instead of
yielding notes differing from each other in pitch as did
the rectangular pipes, they produced notes of the same
pitch. Dr. Schafhautl adduces at considerable length
theoretical reasons with a view of accounting for this
difference in the behaviour of the rectangular and the
cylindrical pipes, and then resumes as follows :—

“Tf the relation (Verhdltnis) of the oscillations of the
walls of the body of the pipe with the oscillations of the
air column is close (grosses), the vibration of ‘the walls
has only a disturbing and retarding influence on the
oscillations of the air column, as we have chiefly noticed
in our rectangular zinc pipes. But if the relation
between the oscillations of the walls of the body of the
pipes and the vibrating air column is less, the oscillating
walls have such a disturbing influence on the oscillations
of the air column that the formation of a clear musical
sound is not unfrequently prevented. We unfortunately
see this only too often corroborated in the deepest pipes,
the so-called 32-foot pipes of our largest organs. There ‘
are few pipes 32-feet long in existence which emit this
32-foot note clearly and certainly. Vogler says that he
scarcely ever heard a decidedly correct note from a pipe
which was more than 16 Rhenish feet high, but instead
of it only a certain humming; and this is the. reason
why organists declare that the 32-foot note only takes
effect when one draws its octaves, 16 and 8 feet, to it. I
myself formerly never heard a really clear decided 32-foot
note from the 32-foot pipe of an organ. Walker of
Ludwigsburg was the first who exhibited a 32-foot C at
the Munich Industrial Exhibition, the sound of which,
with its aliquot parts, could be heard at a distance of a
thousand yards from the glass palace. Walker had
discovered the cause of his former failures and his
present success quite correctly. The cause, as we have
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 369

shown just now, lies in. the fact that the greater portion
of the 32-foot pipes in our organs have walls which are
much too weak and thin, and that they are, therefore,
as Walker expressed it, only ciphering. Walker made
his pipes cylindrical, of strong wood, and covered them
with thick zinc. The 32-foot pipes of zinc, such as are
e.g. in the corner doors of the celebrated organ at Wein-
garten in Suabia, which stand out from the front, have
above all an upper lip which is far too weak for it to be
possible for a decided note to be produced, even if the
pipes possessed the requisite thickness of metal. The
large, magnificent 32-foot zinc pipe of nearly 50 cm. in
diameter in the cathedral organ at Lucerne is also much
too thin; the celebrated Swiss organ-builder, Haas, had
the greatest difficulty in making it speak when the old
organ was altered into the present grand new one.”
* * * * *

“Any one who has ever touched an organ pipe when
it was sounding, whether it were a wooden or a metal
pipe, will be sure to have remembered how powerfully
the sounding pipes vibrate and tremble. It is not, how-
ever, so much the height of the tone as the quality
of the tone, the tone colour, which depends on this

* In the earlier part of his paper Schafhautl mentions that
when he was acting as Bavarian Ministerial Commissioner in
London at the Great Exhibition of 1851 he met Schulze, the organ-
builder of Paulinzelle. In a conversation which took place, “I
remarked,” says Schafhdutl, “that the German and English
measurements, especially for the lowest basses of the organ, were
very different to each other; that the 32-foot pipes in Germany
were generally made much narrower and with thinner walls than
the English. Schulze replied, “ Tépfer, who wrote the well-known
work on organs, was opposed to the wide-measured basses.” I
said, “Just come with me,” and I took him to Williams’s (Willis’s ?)
large organ, and let him hear the sub-bass. “Did you ever hear
such a bass note?” I asked him. “No.” “Then just iook at the
dimensions of this sub-bass.” Schulze remained silent for some
time, looking at the pipes, and then said quickly, “ For the future
I also shall make such broad basses.”

28
370 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.
trembling in cylindrical pipes. The Abbé Vogler
employs a very characteristic phrase here when he says,
“The pipes must be grasped by the wind.” One need not:
even touch the pipes. If the principal pipes in an organ,
é.g. are moved to the front on account of the deeper
tone, and have come too near together, immediately
there ensues a very disturbing rattle of the sounding
pipe, which touches the next pipe in its vibrations. One
can even convince oneself with one’s hand of the quality
of any tone that a pipe emits. The wooden pipe vibrates
the least, its tone is therefore dull; the zinc pipe
vibrates most vehemently, and therefore its sound is the
strongest and finest. The pipe made of inelastic lead
also vibrates very considerably when it sounds. We
have then the irrefutable proof that the material of which
the pipe is made has a considerable influence even on.
the quantity of the sound, which was not even surmised
hitherto. But the quality of the sound is also so varied
according to the material that it strikes even an un-
musical ear.

“The tone of the wooden pipe is strong but dull; the
tone of the zinc pipe, on the other hand, the clearest and
fullest ; the tone of the leaden pipe is stronger than that
of the wooden pipe, but not so clear as the tin pipe.
The tone of the zinc pipe is fresher and more vigorous
than that of the wooden pipe, but not so melodious as
that of the tin pipe.

“T will adduce further proofs, from facts, of the influence
of the material on the tone of the pipes.

“Tn the organ of St. Michael’s Court Church at Munich,
which was built about a hundred and fifty years ago by
the celebrated organ-builder Fuchs in Donauwéorth, and
was afterwards altogether altered in the year 1814 by.
Vogler himself according to his system of simplification,
there was a bourdon, a lip pipe, in the lower manual,
which possesses the character of the most charming
bassoon tones.
MEMOIR OF DR. SCHAFHAUTL. 371

“When the well-known Professor Dr. Joseph Frohlich,
of the University of Wiirzburg, who was the founder and
director of the School of Music in Wiirzburg, was pre-
sent at an ornate High Mass in St. Michael’s Court Church
in Munich, he remarked, after service, to the well-known
Caspar Ett, who was at that time organist of that church,
“I say, your bassoonist elicits most charming sounds
from his instrument.” Ett smiled, and convinced him,
incredulous though he was, at last by ocular demonstra-
tion, that the bassoon-player who had produced those
charming sounds had been he, the organist himself, and
besides him, the bourdon which he had played. It was
well known that Frohlich was a very finely educated
musician who was very frequently hypercritical in his
demands on musicians and their musical execution, and
difficult to satisfy. It lay in the nature of that philo-
sophical man that his judgment was rather too severe,
than too lenient.

“The bourdon, which really imitates to perfection a

_ beautiful bassoon tone, is a narrowly mensurated flute
work: the proportion of its width to its depth is as
I:1°5; the front side which has the languette and the
mouth is of pine wood. The height of the mouth to the
width is as 2:2°33. The side walls are rather thinner
than the walls at the back. The wood of the pipe is so
dry and brittle than one can guess the tone of the pipe
by merely tapping it smartly. But a new pipe, made
exactly after the same dimensions, emits the usual flute-
tone of the bourdon; and a wooden lip stop has never
been constructed whose tone could remind any one of
that of the bassoon. It is the brittle wood, or rather it
is the molecules of the wood, which cause the character-
istic bassoon-like tone of the pipe.”

In another part of his paper the Doctor relates how
he had seven trumpets made, each of which gave the C
of the third orchestral octave, and describes the ex-
pedients to which he had recourse in their construction

2 -B 2
372 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

in order that the cavity of the interior should be of the
same shape and dimensions in all of them. The first
was of brass 0°52 mm, thick ; the second was also of
brass but was somewhat thicker, it being 0°85 mm.
thick. The third was of lead 11 mm. in thickness,
The fourth consisted of a pyramidal mass of gypsum.
The remaining three were made of pasteboard of
different degress of thickness. On the trumpets being
blown by a skilful trumpeter “we seven times heard,”
writes Schafhautl, “the same C of the third octave, with
always the same overtones, but what a differerice be-
tween the sound-colour of the notes! The trumpet
made of brass 0°85 mm. thick gave the clearest tone;
the trumpet of brass 0'52 mm. thick gave a noticeably
thinner tone. The tone of the leaden trumpet was strong
but dull; the tone of the paper trumpet sounded papery,
and excited universal laughter; but it was the trumpet
note C with all its overtones.”
PLATE VIII.

 

BOEHM WHEN AN OCTOGENARIAN

To face p. 373
373

SCHAFHAUTL’S
LIFE OF BOEHM.

THE following memoir appeared in the ‘Allgemeine
Musikalische Zeitung,’ of Leipsic, during 1882, the year
after Boehm died. A copy of it was handed to me by
Mr. W. P. Mills, who. received it from’ Mr. Walter
Broadwood, to whom it had been’ presented by the
author, Dr..Schafhautl. ‘It has beén ‘translated into
English by Dr.*Emil Reich, and ‘I -thave’added a few
notes, ‘

Flute-players wall value this biographical : ‘sketch for
the personal: incidents in’ Boehm’s ‘career with which it
abounds. . Such incidents cannot be without interest to
those who are brought: into daily and-hourly: association.
with Boehm’s ideas, as is every one who plays on an open-:
keyed flute. Unless I have mistaken the disposition of
my brother flautists, they will not be extreme to mark
anything that Boehm’s aged biographer may appear to
have done amiss, either in his composition, his history, |
his chronology, or his science. They will only see in
the stanch old man the loyal and devoted friend, eager,
as long as his trembling hand can hold the pen, to
defend Boehm from the attacks made upon him, and
incapable of even thinking that any one “can seriously
believe” what has been said against him by his jealous
tivals. They will be to his virtues very kind, and to his.
faults, should there seem to be any, a little blind: They
374 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

will leave the scalpel and the dissecting-room to Mr.
Rockstro, and, choosing the better part, will content
themselves with strewing flowers on the grave.—C. W.

THEOBALD BOHM:

THE LIFE OF A REMARKABLE ARTIST.

By PROFESSOR Dr. von SCHAFHAUTL.

Translated from the German
By Dr. EMIL REICH.

Amidst the infinite variety of individuals there may be
observed single minds that distinguish themselves from
the rest by a stamp of their own, pursuing, as they do,
particular directions to which their original bent leads
them. Amongst them may sometimes be found men
who reach their goal by more than one path, excelling
equally in various pursuits.

In the latter class of rare genius we must place him
whose career and work we are about to consider, who,
after a life of unremitting toil, has left this world in his
eighty-ninth year.

His birth takes us back to the end of the eighteenth
century, when Bavaria was ruled by Karl Theodor. At
that time the sultriness of the emotional atmosphere of
our days was unknown. The political tempest of the
west of Europe, and the horrors of the French Con-
vention had begun to affect seriously the nerves of
potentates; the countries on the eastern confines of
France had already commenced to reap some of the
fruits of the struggle for liberty and equality. Karl
Theodor was not only Elector of the Palatinate, but
also Duke of Jiilich, Cleve, Berg, &c, and between
1792 and 1799 he ceded to the French his lands on the
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. a5

other side of the Rhine, namely, the Rheinpfalz, Jiilich,
and Zweibriicken,

About that time there lived at Munich a celebrated
goldsmith and jeweller called Karl Frederik Bohm, to
whom a son was born on April 9th, 1794, who received
the name of Theobald, and was, of course, intended to
carry on his father’s business. Our Theobald was just
four years old when the old Elector, Karl Theodor, died,
the ruling Duke of Zweibriicken, Maximilian Joseph,
succeeding to the throne of Bavaria.

Poor Bavaria, without money or friends, was com-
pelled to ally herself with the victorious Napoleon. Out
of gratitude Napoleon, by the Proclamation of January
Ist, 1806, erected Bavaria into a kingdom, establishing
at the same time the so-called Rhine-league, whose
protector, or rather governor, he became, and by a
stroke of the pen on August Ist, 1806, he put an end to
the German Empire, which had existed for more than a
thousand years.

Young Bohm was by that time the boldest and most
expert amongst his comrades at climbing and jumping,
and very clever all round, spending his leisure hours
amongst the soldiers, or in his father’s workshop, where
he obtained a little work-table of his own. He soon
became perfectly familiar with the sparkling jewels, and
neither his eye nor his judgment could easily be deceived.
He also attended the famous drawing-school of Prof.
Mitterer, and guickly reached the first place among the
pupils; this accounts for the fact that his designs of
jewelry, bracelets, and such like were always noted for
good taste and elegance. Young Bohm left the beaten
track in all he did. When his father would interfere
with him, saying, “That will not do that way,” he only

1 Dr. Schafhiutl is here at variance with himself. If Boehm
died in his eighty-ninth year, as he has just stated, and as he again
states at p. 475, he was born in 1783, not 1784. The subject of
Boehm’s age has already been discussed in Note I, p. 3.
376 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

replied, “ Father, just let me do it in my own way.”
His father gave in, and the result was that the work
came out more rapidly and better finished than from the
hands of the best of his workmen.

In his fourteenth year, in 1808, Theobald Bohm was,
as a goldsmith and jeweller, of consummate skill. It
was on his account that his father was intrusted with the
repair of articles from the Royal Treasury, and was
appointed jeweller and purveyor of fancy articles to the
Court ; nay, even the celebrated anatomist and physio-
logist Sémmering, who, in 1808, was a member of the
Bavarian Academy of Sciences, availed himself fre-
quently of young Béhm’s talents, in preparing skeletons,
the articulations of which were to be movable as well as
invisible.

BOHM AS PUPIL OF THE FLUTE-PLAYER
KAPELLER.

When yet a child, Bohm was exceedingly fond of
music, and his first instrument was a flageolet, which,
however, he soon abandoned, commencing to play on
the flute. In 1810, the young artist constructed his own
flute after the model of an instrument with four keys from
the workshop of the celebrated Karl August Grenser, of
Dresden. All his neighbours bore unwilling testimony
to his enthusiastic ardour. Amongst them there was an
excellent flute-player, a member of the Court orchestra,
one Johann Nepomuk Kapeller. One day he met our
incipient virtuoso on the staircase, and laughingly said
to him, “You young flute-player, I can no longer stand
your noise; come to me, I will show you how to set
about it.” Young Bohm thought he heard the voice of
an angel. He gratefully accepted the proposal and
became for two years the most painstaking of Kapeller’s
pupils. He also constructed new flutes for himself and
his teacher—both working at the improvement of the
faulty old flute. They attempted to equalise the purity
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 377

of the scale in the higher and lower registers, and to
make the embouchure movable. Karl Maria von Weber,
who made a trip from Darmstadt, where he studied
under Vogler, by way of Wiirzburg, &c., to Munich,
reports on that in the ‘Leipziger Musikalische Zeitung’
of April 3oth, 1811, according to the written declaration
of Kapeller (p. 377). The invention was attacked in
the same periodical of the same year by the celebrated
Grenser, of Dresden (p. 778) ; to which Kapeller replied
in the ‘ Miinchener Gesellschaftsblatt,’ 1812, No. 1, prov-
ing that Grenser did not know Kapeller’s flute. The very
ingenious mechanism of that flute had been invented by
young Bohm. In course of time, however, it was found
that the new contrivance scarcely repaid the amount of
labour spent on it, and it thus soon fell into oblivion.

Young Béhm made astonishing progress under the
tuition of his delighted teacher. After less than two
years’ practice his playing was admired at public recitals.
One day he played a solo at a solemn morning mass in
the Church of the Holy Spirit in Munich, while his
master stood near the high altar. In the afternoon,
when Bohm came to take his usual lesson, Kapeller
asked him, “Was it you who played the flute solo
this morning?” The pupil answered in the affirmative.
Then said the old professor, “I congratulate you, I
have nothing more to teach you.” Kapeller gave up
teaching young Bohm, but remained his warmest friend
to the last. .

? A translation of Weber’s account of Kapeller’s flute is given in
Mr. Rockstro’s Treatise on the Flute, section 521, p. 279. It was
on this flute that the youthful goldsmith’s idea, a sliding embou-
chure of gold, appeared, Boehm’s statement regarding which gave
rise to Mr. Rockstro’s sarcastic remark, “He {Boehm) does not
tell us that the sliding gold plate of the mouth-hole was invented
by his old teacher Capeller.”

The D shake key, too, which led Coche into his solitary error,
“ excessive generosity towards Boehm” (see p. 272), formed part of
the mechanism of this flute—C. W.
378 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

First APPOINTMENT IN AN ORCHESTRA, 1812.

Young Béhm’s command of the flute had become the
topic of the day in Munich, and accordingly he was
appointed first flautist in the orchestra of the new theatre
at the Isargate, this being his first appointment. The
new theatre was opened in 1812, when Bohm was
eighteen years old.

At that time Munich possessed only one theatre, the
Theater an der Residenz, the Court theatre. Originally
it was intended for the Court and invited guests only.
At the time of Bohm’s appointment, however, it was open
to the general public as well, and Italian and German
operas, together with high-class dramatic performances,
were given. A second theatre became a necessity
for the rapidly growing population. A new theatre, in
the east end of Munich, in front of the gate leading to
the Isar bridge, was therefore built in the year 1811,
where drama and comedy were to be performed. The
director of the new theatre was Karl, an actor well
known for his burlesque pieces; the conductor of the
orchestra was Peter Joseph Lindpaintner,? a worthy and

5 Lindpaintner wrote extensively for the flute. The greater part
of the following works are in my own collection of flute music :—

Op. 28, Concerto, Breitkopf and Hartel.

Op. 28, Solo de Concert, Fl. and P.F., Aulagnier (an abridg
ment of the first movement of the Concerto).

Op. 29, Andante and Rondo, Fl. and P.F., Aulagnier (the
Andante and finale, Allegro giocoso, from the Concerto).

Op. 46, Concerto, dedicated to Kriiger, Fl. and Orch. or P.F.,
Probst also Kistner.

Op. 46, Concertino, Fl. and P.F., Aulagnier (the Concerto
reduced to little more than half its original length).

Op. 47, Grand Polonaise, Fl. and Orch., Breitkopf and Hartel.

Op. 47, Grand Polonaise, Fl. and P.F., Aulagnier (abridged
edition).

Op. 61, Potpourri in G, Fl. and Orch. or P.F., Breitkopf and
Hartel.

Op. 61, Fantaisie brillante, Ballet de Joko, Aulagnier.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 379

very able composer, who died on August 21st, 1856, as
conductor of the Royal Wiirttemberg orchestra. Lind-
paintner was then only twenty-one years old, full of en-
thusiasm and ardour, and he picked out for his orchestra
the best men that could be found in Munich and Bavaria.
He could not fail to notice young Béhm, who thus
became his friend and the glory of his orchestra.

During the day Bohm worked as a jeweller and gold-
smith in his shop; in the evening he sat as first flautist
in the Royal theatre at the Isargate. Bohm counted
those days amongst the most pleasant of his life. There
was complete harmony between the conductor and the
members of the orchestra, and everything went to form
a real artist’s life ; there was no trace of jealousy, envy,
or intrigue. The theatre at the Isargate soon acquired,
through its director’ Karl, a character for gaiety and fun,
that attracted every one who liked mirth. Amongst
these was King Max I. He was an old soldier, very

Op. 62, Fantaisie with a Bolero, Fl. and Orch., Haslinger.

Op. 62, Fantaisie brillante, Thémes originaux, Fl. and P.F.,
Aulagnier (an abridged edition of the preceding).

Op. 67, Three Divertissements, Fl. and Orch. or P.F., Peters.

Op. 67, Three Thémes variés, Fl. and P.F., Aulagnier (an
abridgment of the Divertissements).

Op. 105, Grand Concert pathétique, dedicated to Count Eméric
Wass, Fl. and Orch. or P.F., Haslinger. The flute part alone of
this elaborate work covers thirteen pages.

Op. 105, Solo pathétique, Fl. and P.F., Aulagnier (an abridg-
ment of the first movement of the Concerto).

Op. 106, Andante and Rondo, Fl. and P.F., Aulagnier (the
Larghetto affectuoso and the Rondo of the Concerto abridged.)

Op. 120, Souvenir d’Appenzell, Fantasia, dedicated to Dorus,
Fl. and Orch. or P.F., Schott.

Op. 121, Le Tremolo, Air varié, Fl. and Orch. or P.F., Schott.

Op. 122, La Straniera, Fantaisie brillante, Fl. and Orch. or P.F.,
Schott.

Op. 125, The Standard-bearer as a Fantasia, Fl. and Orch. (?)
or P.F., Wessel.

Op. 126, Fifty Grand Studies in four books, Wessel.—C. W.
380 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

affable, of a benevolent disposition, and fond of laughing ;
quite a contrast to his wife, the queen, a very highly cul-
tured woman, who founded and resuscitated the Italian
opera in Munich. King Max came very frequently to
the theatre at the Isargate, even at a later period when
the grand Court and National Theatre had been built in
1818. On receiving the newly appointed manager of
the new Court and National Theatre, the king said to
him, “If you will only take care that I may get an
opportunity every week of having my laugh, and my
wife her cry—as to the rest you may proceed as you
please.”

King Max held Bohm’s flute-playing in the orchestra of
the Isargate theatre in especial favour, and commanded
the director to so arrange matters that whenever he
should be in his box, Bohm should play a flute solo. It
was therefore the king’s particular wish that Bohm shou!d
be appointed member of the royal Court orchestra, even
before the new Court and National Theatre was finished.

BOHM’s TOUR AS GOLDSMITH AND MUSICIAN, 1816.
MusicaL BoXEs.

The ill-starred Russian war broke the power of
Napoleon ; the battle of Waterloo, June 18th, 1815, anni-
hilated the man himself. Louis XVIII. again sat on the
throne of his fathers, and the Allies signed the second
treaty of peace in Paris. At that time Bohm started, on
August Ist, 1816, on his first tour as jeweller, goldsmith,
and flute virtuoso, or as “goldsmith and musician” as
his passport had it, to Switzerland. His goal was
Geneva. He travelled by way of Winterthur, Zurich,
&c., and arrived at Geneva on August 2oth.

At that time the musical boxes and similar produc-
tions on a larger scale in which sounds were produced
by vibrating sound-quills (“Tonfedern ”), were making
their way through the world. Bohm took more interest:
‘SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 381

in this new invention than in his jewels, and his first
care was to make himself thoroughly acquainted with
the mechanism of those toys, the precise nature of
which was as yet fairly enigmatic. He therefore took
job-work as simple mechanic in one of the first factories
of Geneva. These musical boxes were constructed on
the principle of our hand-organs, only in lieu of organ-
pipes the tone was produced by the so-called sound-
quills. The principle of hand-organs consists, as is well
known, in a cylinder turning on its axis, an which the
notes of the piece of music are represented by pins more
or less wide apart driven into the cylinder; these pins
touch and lift up the sound-quills at proper intervals, and
thus produce the requisite notes. In musical boxes
these cylinders are, of course, very tiny, sometimes to
such an extent that they can be prepared only under a
microscope.‘

Driving the pins into the cylinder was a very toilsome
and tedious process. Béhm invented and constructed
in a short time a small machine, by means of which he
was able to drive the pins into four cylinders during
the time required by the ordinary hand-work for one
cylinder. This circumstance drew the attention of the
proptietor of the factory to B6hm. When he was show-
ing the proprietor his new machine and the cylinders
he had made, the wife of the latter, sitting at her piano,
was just complaining that her flute-player, who was to
take part with her in a concerted piece for the piano
and flute, kept her waiting. Boehm said modestly,
“With your kind permission I am willing to accompany

4 Musical boxes owe their small size to the circumstance that
they were at first made to resemble the article from which they
took their name—an article at one time as frequently carried by a
gentleman as is the cigar-case at the present day—the snuff-box.
The notes are produced by a sort of steel comb, the teeth of which,
here termed sound-quills, are brought to a point bearing a certain
resemblance to the nib of a pen. These nibs are twitched by the
pins as the barrel moves round.—C. W.
382 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

you.” The owner of the manufactory looked at Bohm
somewhat doubtingly and said, “Do you play the flute?”
“Yes.” “Well then, here is the flute part, will you try
it?” Bohm came with his flute, elegantly dressed,
presented himself to the lady of the house with much
propriety, and being invited to do so, took a seat at the
music-desk near the piano. The lady played with no
particular care, but she soon discovered that unless she
mustered all her strength, she would be unable to
follow her agcompanist. The brilliancy of Béhm’s tone,
the surety of his delivery, were astounding. The lady
and the gentleman of the house looked at each other
with astonishment. “How have you attained such
command of the instrument?” Bohm replied with a
smile, “I am first flute at the Royal Isargate Theatre
of Munich.” From that day Béhm’s relation to his
employer became quite changed. During the day
Bohm worked as a mechanic in the workshop; in the
evening he appeared as a gentleman in his employer’s
drawing-room. He was introduced to the most promi-
nent families of Geneva, and his art was as much praised
as it was sought after. This peculiar position of his
gave rise to many a comic scene. It so happened that
a celebrated violinist wanted to give a concert in Geheva,
whither he had come with a warm letter of introduction
to Bohm’s employer. The latter received the violinist
with great kindness, gave him advice regarding the mode
of arranging the concert, and of inviting the musicians
of Geneva, winding up with, “I will introduce to you
an artist who will certainly prove a great attraction
to your concert.” He had Bohm called; the footman
went forthwith to fetch Bohm, who left the workshop
in his usual working suit, the chief ornaments of
which were an apron and a pair of slippers, and without
washing his hands—hands that did not seem fit to be
enveloped in kid gloves. “Bohm, do you mind playing
the day after to-morrow at this celebrated gentleman’s
SCHAFHAUTLS LIFE OF BOEHM. 383

concert?” “Certainly not, if you wish me to do so.”
The violinist regarded Bohm with rather doubtful looks,
and the latter had no sooner ieft the room than he
turned to his Mecenas and said, “Do you really mean
it?” “Don’t be alarmed,” interrupted the manufac-
turer, “you will enjoy his acquaintance very much.”

At last Bohm left his employer, who, together with
his family, had become his friend; gave concerts in
various parts of Switzerland, went from Geneva to
Strassburg, and returned after numerous adventures, in
which his prowess and bodily strength had saved his
life, back to Munich, laden with glory and gold.

FLAUTIST IN THE COURT ORCHESTRA, 1818.
PETER WINTER.

On the death of the old Court flautist Becke, Bohm
was appointed in the room of the deceased, on June Ist;
1818, with a yearly salary of 350 florins (600 marks).
In that capacity he was placed under the composer and
conductor of world-wide celebrity, Peter Winter, who
admired not only Béhm’s flute-playing, but more
especially his reading and phrasing, the real musical
interpretation which Winter rightly declared to be the
very crown of all musical virtuosity. At the same
time Winter understood how to avail himself of the
mechanical genius of Bohm. Winter, when not at
work at his writing-desk, was like a thoroughly naughty
child. He used to amuse himself, for instance, for a
large portion of his leisure time, with a representation
in figures of the life of Christ, commencing with His
birth. Winter spent a good deal of his fortune on that
toy. Bohm was obliged to make swords for Winter's
“three holy kings,” and also carriages and harness ;
in return for which Winter promised Bohm to teach
him composition, and to compose a concerto for the
flute for Bohm’s use. However, what Winter could
384 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

teach Bohm the latter had already learnt from practice’;
and after having spent whole nights on Winter’s toys
he never got the promised concerto, which Winter soon
forgot. Bohm who had already tried his hand at com-
posing, now began to study composition seriously under
the celebrated teacher of counterpoint Joseph Graz,
who enjoyed in Bavaria the same reputation that
Albrechtsberger did in Vienna. He who wanted to
pass for a solid and genuine composer had to go through
the schooling of Graz. For economy’s sake Bohm took
his lessons of Graz at the same time as three other
pupils; but B6hm was so far in advance of the others
that the good-natured Graz resolved to teach him for
nothing, and during an hour specially reserved for him.
In the art of scoring for orchestra he was instructed by
his friend, the future Court-crchestra conductor Stunz,
who had just returned from Italy, and was appointed
conductor in the place of Winter.

Soon after that, Bohm’s first composition, a concerto
in G major, was published, 1822, by the music pub-
lisher Aibl, who was also Bohm’s pupil.

During his vacations Bohm frequently visited Switzer-
land, where he was always received with open arms.
An English lord who took a fancy to Bohm and his art,
proposed to him to accompany him and his family on
a trip through Italy. Bohm could charge anything he
liked, the only condition being that he would now and
then play on the flute with the nobleman. The pro-
posal was, of course, very tempting, and Bohm was
anxious to accept it. However, the news of his father’s
illness called him back to Munich. His father died and
he was compelled to carry on the jewellery business on
behalf of his mother and sister. Before this, in the
year 1819, Bohm had received various invitations to
take the post of flautist abroad, and finally he told
the director of the Court theatre, Baron von Riimling,
that he could not live on his small salary, and unless
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 385

it were increased, he would be obliged to accept a
foreign appointment. The director was in a great pre-
dicament and brought the matter before King Max,
and the King, who would not part with Béhm under
any circumstances, added 250 florins out of his own
private income, thus raising Béhm’s salary to 600 florins
(November 20th, 1820).

By that time Béhm ranked amongst the favourite
virtuosi of Munich. In the fourth of a series of sub-
scription concerts at Munich, on December 2nd, 1820, he
played his G major concerto for the first time, with
boundless applause. On a tour through Augsburg,
Nuremberg, Leipsic, Dresden, Prague, &c. to Vienna,
he was, November 14th, 1821, received with great ap-
proval in the last named city. (The ‘Allg. Mus. Zeitung,’
24th year, 1822, p. 59, says: “ We had also opportunity
of appreciating the Royal Bavarian Court musician
Bohm, as an excellent virtuoso on the flute.”)

Such success caused, in 1822, a further increase of
100 florins in Béhm’s salary, and now he considered
himself rich enough to give up working as a goldsmith,
and to devote himself entirely to music.

BOHM AND MOLIQUE. CONCERT-TOURS.

Bohm became associated with a genius of a similar
nature to his own, the violinist Bernhard Molique.
King Max took this highly gifted boy when thirteen
years of age under his protection, and had him taught
by Pietro Rovelli, a great violinist, and member of the
Royal orchestra. Two years later Rovelli sent the boy
to Vienna, where he was received with joy. Rovelli
never found himself quite at his ease in the ungenial
climate of Munich, and in 1820 left for his native city
Bergamo. Young Molique was appointed first violinist
in the room of Rovelli; he soon attached himself to
Bohm with great fervour, although the two were quite

2 ¢
386 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

different in their mode of life, and only in unison in their
aspirations for a common noble aim.

About the middle of the year 1822 Molique and
Béhm went on a concert tour to the north of Germany.
In December 1823 they were at Nuremberg. On the
sth of December, 1823, they gave a concert in the
“Goldener Adler” Hall, and the good people of Nurem-
berg were treated by them to a second concert, on
the 8th of the same month, at the Museum Hall.
Everybody was enchanted with the two artists. Of
Molique they wrote: “Mr. Molique appears as a perfect
violinist, conversant with every description of phrasing ;
it is particularly his exquisite Cantabile, that surpasses
everything that we have ever heard from great artists,
save, perhaps, Spohr, Rovelli, and Mayseder. The
difficulties he conquers are incredible, and the force of
his playing carries his hearers away with a feeling of
confidence in his safety and correctness. Bohm, on the
other hand, appears differently as a flautist. The
characteristic of his playing is a soft development of a
mild elegiac sentiment, a beautiful romantic longing ;
his singing on his instrument springs from a profoundly
sensitive breast. He is distinguished by the way he
expresses all the shadings and zuances, and the sweet
melancholy of his charming style (taking the latter
adjective in the sense of ‘the art-term used by Kant and
Schelling), which give him a place among the foremost
flautists of Europe. One fears to breathe, lest the beauti-
ful blending of the tone,-the spell of his music, should
be interrupted. It was a feast, to listen alternatively to
these two artists, each of whom excelled in a particular
way ; for anything excellent will not be obscured or
dimmed by another excellence ; one elevating the other.
May the two artists be pleased to accept our thanks
which we consider ourselves happy in expressing thus
publicly.” (‘Correspondent von und fiir Deutschland,’
No. 249, December 15th, 1823.)
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 387

From a report in Berlin: “On the 31st of January,
1824, two Bavarian Court musicians gave an evening
concert. Herr Bernhard Molique played the violin part
of a quartett of Spohr, and a Potpourri of the same
composer ; and Herr Theobald Bohm played a Diverti-
mento for flute, of his own composition, and also
variations by Drouet. Both were much applauded.”

A report from the same capital, dated F ebruary, says:
“Herr Molique and Herr Bohm, the Royal Bavarian
court musicians, of whom we have already spoken with
much pleasure, gave a concert on the 2oth, at which the
first-named artist played a violin concerto in E minor by
Spohr ; the latter a concertino for flute by Drouet ; on
the 29th Herr Molique played a fantasia of. his own
composition, Herr Bohm a concertino. Molique dis-
played pure intonation, a grand tone, great technique, a
fine bow, and much precision in /egato and staccato
passages; Bohm excelled in a full tone, in tender
delivery and technique, especially in doubles.” (‘ Allg.
Mus. Zeitung,’ 26th year, 1824, pp. 109 and 170). The
Leipsic criticisms, dated January 13th, are still more
elaborate. (Ibid.,p. 206.) Molique is especially. praised
for his soft and fine, frequently surprisingly beautiful
delivery. “The concerto for flute by M. Béhmn, played
by the composer, although not of the highest order, and
here and there too much of an imitation of Spohr’s com-
position, yet takes an honourable place among the works
of that kind. Herr Bohm’s playing, too, is solid, that is
to say pure and clever, with a beautiful, soft, yet full
tone, and in the very difficult task of Drouet’s variations
he acquitted himself so creditably and with so much
good taste, that we owed the artists a highly enjoyable
evening.”

In the year 1824 we meet with the two virtuosi again
in Munich, when they gave together six evening concerts.
In a report it is said: “We again heard Herr Bohm,
after the lapse of some time, in a concerto for the flute

2&2
388 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of his own composition. The Ritornello of the first
Allegro movement is somewhat trivial; the Allegro
movement itself, however, is exceedingly brilliant, and
the playing was excellent. An Adagio in B flat major,
in which a modulation in D flat occurs, which, for an
instrument like the flute, may be called venturesome, is
conceived in a very fine style for this instrument, and
the orchestration reminds one of Mozart's works. The
artist played it with full fine tone, gracefully and
feelingly, and with faultless purity of execution. The
Rondo alla Polacca, immediately after the Adagio, is
undoubtedly the best work of the master, Brilliant
passages succeed each other without fatiguing the
listener, and the cantabile parts interwoven in the former
produce an agreeable change of colour. Herr Bohm
proved to us that evening that a talent like his is in no
need of borrowing from others, in order to stand out in
its own greatness, and that there is, for the tone artist,
something more solid and better than the mere cham-
pagne-intoxication brought about by Drouet. - His
playing was received with enthusiastic:applause, and the
modest artist had several recalls.”*> Molique concluded
the evening with a concerto of his own composition.
The reviewer says: “We have before had an oppor-
tunity of appreciating the excellent gift for composition
in this very young man (he was then nineteen years old) ;
to-day we were quite surprised at his concerto, which is
proof of his ability to become a truly ingenious *®

5 How strangely do critics differ! To the Munich writer Boehm
appears to’be a “tone artist,” whilst Mr. Rockstro records his
impressions of his playing as follows:—‘‘ He (Boehm) was good
enough to play me a solo on it (his silver flute), but I must confess
that [ was grievously disappointed both with the instrument and
the performance, the tone that he produced being extremely ‘loose’
and impure, especially in the lowest octave."— Treatise on the Flute,
p. 617.—C. W.

® Molique’s Concerto for the flute, Op. 69 (Ashdown), is dedi-
cated to “his friend, Theobald Boehm.” Molique has arranged the
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 389

composer.” (‘Die Grazien. Blatter aus Bayern, zum
Nutzen und Vergniigen,’ Thursday, December 23rd,
1824, p. 305.)

BOuHM’s PLAYING. BOHM WITH CATALANI.

These criticisms have so fully grasped the essence of
Bohm as a virtuoso and composer, that we can accept
them with full conviction now, 58 years later, Bohm
having left the scene forever. The peculiarity of Bohm,
one in which he stands unsurpassed, was the charm, the
soul of his phrasing. Béhm studied singing with an
excellent Italian singer. He would sometimes practise
for days the interpretation of a musical phrase, until his
maestro would say, “Well, that zs singing.” Before
commencing the study of a composition, for instance by
Drouet, or before putting his own ideas into musical form,
he studied or organised carefully the arrangement of the
several musical phrases, in order to seize completely the
sense of the composer, or to give his own composition
the best shape. The very fact that he thoroughly
assimilated the compositions he played gave him an
enormous advantage over all virtuosi of the flute; and
thus it is easily explicable, that an English lady once
exclaimed : “I do not know how it is, but when Bohm
plays a well-known composition, it sounds quite different
from what any one else can make of it.” Of all melodies
Béhm preferred those with words, and in analysing

 

orchestral parts for the P.F.@ guatve mains, The Andante of the
Concerto, in the key of F, can be had separately with a pianoforte
accompaniment for two or four hands. There is also published
an Andante in G, which was originally written for this Concerto.
In addition to this Concerto. Molique has composed a quintett
for flute and strings, Op. 35 (Rudail, Carte & Co.), as well as an
Introduction, Andante and Polonaise, Op. 43, for flute and P.F.
(Rudall, Carte & Co.) ; also a duett, Op. 2, for flute and violin

Ashdown).
390 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

musical phrases, he tried to think of words for them.
This reminds us of the words of Paganini to Professor
Schlett at Munich. Being asked how he had arrived at
such original interpretation, he answered: “I try to make
my violin speak, leaving the rest to myself.” (‘ Allg.
Mus. Zeitung, 32nd year, 1830, p. 70.)

An interesting triumph was scored by Bohm on
November 11th, 1826. The celebrated Angelica Cata-
lani visited Munich for the second time, with a view of
giving two concerts. Between her first visit and the
second there was an interval of ten years. In the year
1826 she was a woman of 43 or 47 years of age, and her
heyday was of course over. On November 26th she
gave her first concert. The intervals requisite for the
repose of the great singer were filled up by the violon-
cellist Sig], our Bohm, and the singer Krieninger. Sigl
played in the first part of the concert, and Bohm com-
menced in the second with his. variations, calling forth
an enthusiasm so intense, that it threw into shade the
applause given to the great Catalani. At the end of the
concert Catalani was called for, but the storm of applause
was allotted to Bohm. The correspondent of the ‘Allg.
Mus. Zeitung, M. Schlett, instead of giving a true
report of the concert, hushes up the facts, mentioning
only that the second part of the concert was commenced
by M. Bohm with “fancy variations.”

For the second concert that Madame Catalani wanted
to give, Bohm was likewise to play; but the judicious
singer could not, after Bohm’s success, be prevailed upon
to let him have a share in the concert, and inferior
musicians were picked out by her. The concert was
given for the benefit of the poor of Munich; the house
was crammed ; the applause, however, was meant rather
for the great name of the singer than for her actual
performance. Madame Catalani, at. that time, had
already begun to sing out of tune. However, the
correspondent calls her nevertheless “a very instructive:
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 391

pattern of high, noble singing. Years,” he says, “cannot
quite do away what has been created in the serious
Italian school; a school which at present has nearly
disappeared.”

In that year Bohm received a Royal intimation, that
of the annual 250 florins only 50 would be considered as
emolument, the remaining 200 being counted as part of
his regular salary. His salary thus amounted to 700
florins.

After that concert Bohm repaired to his beloved
Switzerland, and gave a concert in Zurich, November
22nd, being much applauded by his hearers. (‘Allg. Mus.
Zeitung, 1826, p. 397.) He played his own compositions,
and also variations by Drouet. From Zurich he made
various trips to other Swiss towns, was everywhere
received with the greatest applause, making dear friends,
-who never forgot him to the end of his life. Amongst
.other places he went to the small town of Morges (‘Allg.
Mus. Zeitung,’ 1827, p. 362), or Morsee in German, a
town in the Canton Waadt, west of Lausanne, on the
Lake of Geneva. It is a commercial place, the people
of which care very little for art. However, A. Spath,
formerly member of the orchestra of Coburg, succeeded
in‘ uniting a number of music-loving people into a
society, which, commencing with playing quartetts,
-grew to a complete orchestra, consisting of fifty-eight
members. Bohm accepted the friendly invitation ex-
tended to him by Spath, and gave three “ winter
concerts.” At Vevey he saved his life when attacked
by some drunken Savoyards, by a bold leap over a pile
of beams five feet high.

At Geneva the “Société de Musique” elected him a
member on February 2oth, 1827, “ jaloux de posséder au
nombre de ses membres un Professeur aussi distingué”
(anxious to have amongst their members so distinguished

a professor).
392 HISTORY OF THE BUEHM FLUTE.

BOHM ESTABLISHES A FACTORY FOR THE MANU-
FACTURE OF FLUTES. PAGANINL.

Bohm’s financial position as Court musician was, as
we have already seen, not very splendid, especially
considering the rapid growth of his family. The neces-
sary means were found by giving concerts and lessons,
and by the sale of his flutes, which he had made by the
instrument-makers of Munich under his superintendence.
The work of these handicraftsmen, however, who were
not used to consummate mechanical precision, did not
satisfy Bohm, and he made up his mind, in- 1828, to
found a factory of his own. There he found ample
opportunity for the full development of his genius.

At the beginning of 1828 Bohm went again to Vienna,
to procure suitable wood, &c., for his new factory, and
to acquaint himself with the state of music in Vienna.
Bohm played there his Opus 3, Axdante and Polonaise in
A major, which the publisher Diabelli forthwith accepted
for publication. Béhm found Vienna what he had seen
it seven years before, the old, easy-going, merry-making
town. The celebrated firm, Haslinger, publishers of
musical composition, were then building a splendid
house, and Bohm remarked jokingly, “ There you have
the fruits of classical music!” The publisher answered,
“Far from it—look here, there are the compositions
that enable me to build my house!”—pointing to piles
of dance-music by Strauss and Lanner.

About that time Nicolo Paganini, the greatest violinist
of all time, was exciting to ecstacy the music-loving
Viennese (he had just given his twelfth concert); and
the enthusiasm for his art had reached such a pitch, that
Mayseder, one of the pets of Vienna, took great offence
at it, swearing never to play there again. Mayseder, as
well as the majority of his colleagues, were quite sure
that Paganini was only a charlatan—just because he was
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 393

SO immeasurably above them. Bohm was so transported
with Paganini’s playing that he tried to get him over to
Munich, Haslinger presented Bohm to the great violinist.
Paganini was lying on a sofa, wrapped up in rugs, like a
corpse. On Haslinger’s explaining to him the object of
Bohm’s call, Paganini said in a feeble voice, “ Munich is
only a poor city, it is not worth while to go there.”
Bohm, who was an intimate friend of the then director
of the theatre in Munich, Baron von Poissl, replied, “I
guarantee you three concerts at our Court theatre, and
you will see that the house will be crammed at the
fourth.” A year later, in November 1829, Paganini
came to Munich, and Bohm’s promise was redeemed
twofold (‘ Allg. Mus. Zeitung,’ 1830, p. 71).

On August 16th, Bohm left Vienna, travelling by way
of Triest, Padua, and Verona to Venice, where he arrived
on the 18th. At Venice he played his Concerto op. 3,
an Andante and Polonaise, with interminable applause.
Towards the end of August he returned to his factory
at Munich.

DEFECTIVE MECHANISM OF THE THEN
EXISTING FLUTES.

‘Bohm’s chief object was henceforth the production of
‘a musically perfect flute. In his capacity as an artist he
had had plenty of opportunities of finding out the
imperfections of an instrument otherwise so charming,
and he resolved to remedy its defects one by one. On
the flute, for every note of the chromatic scale a side
hole ought to be bored, since the air-column of the flute
must be shortened for every higher note, in order that a
pure scale may be obtained. For the production of the

chromatic scale on the flute, beginning from ¢ up to 4,
fourteen holes. of that. kind would be necessary. The
player, however, has only nine fingers at his disposal, the
thumb of the right hand that supports the flute, not being
394 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

available, although it has been attempted, for any rapid
movement, There is therefore no other means than the
discovery of a mechanism that would enable the nine
available fingers to have a command over the other five
holes of the flute. As a means of shutting the holes,
so-called eys, that is, round metal cones covered with
chamois leather, fixed at the end of a double-armed
lever, and pressed down on the holes by means of a
spring, are used.

From the first French D sharp key onwards, key after
key was applied to the flute, in order to answer the
requirements of players, and finally the flute had seven-
teen sound-holes, and eleven keys, together with four
special levers. The keys kept certain holes shut, as
long as they were not lifted up by the pressure of the
fingers. The key consisted of a double-armed lever,
widening out to a plate at the end, covered with soft
leather, shutting the hcle as long as the player did not
bear on the other end of the lever, thereby raising the
key. The double-armed lever had of course to turn in
the middle on an axis. The frame for the D sharp key,
which carried the fulcrum of the key, was at first like
two cheeks, made of the wood of the flute itself, a brass
wire being put asa fulcrum through the centre of the lever
and the two wcoden cheeks. A brass‘spring underneath
that end of the arm of the lever which was pressed down
by the finger, forced the end of the lever upwards, shutting
thereby the key-hole. In lieu of the frames made of
the wood of the flute itself, frames made of rectangularly
bent brass plates were also used as axle-frames.

BOuHmM’s IMPROVEMENTS: His First FLUTE.

For this crude and rudimentary device Bohm sub-
stituted a key mechanism, which could only have been
the work of a first-class mechanician. His skill as a
goldsmith stood him in good stead. In lieu of the wood
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 395

cheeks or brass plates Béhm turned short columns? of
silver with small balls at the upper end to serve as axle-
frames, the balls being perforated for the axles or so-
called “corns,” at the tips of which the axles turned.
These columns were screwed into the wood of the flute
at their bases by means of sharp screws, or soldered with
their bases on the metal flute. A separate and very
ingenious machine, invented by Bohm, secured that
these columns were placed exactly in due relation to
the axis of the flute, or precisely as the elongation of the
radii of the cross-section of the flute. The “corns” and
pivots of the axis are of steel. This alone makes the
movements of the keys smooth and uniform, needing
very little effort on the part of the player. The manu-
facturer is thus enabled to make the keys much less
clumsy, thereby ensuring a perfect action in the most
rapid movements.

This was the first flute manufactured in the workshop
of Bohm, towards the end of 1828, and on which he
played at his first performance in Paris. This flute was
received with so much approval, that Bohm’s factory
could hardly furnish the number of flutes ordered.

The levers of the keys which controlled the low notes
had to be made very long to come within reach of the
fingers, and it thus became necessary to connect two
two-armed levers; this occasioned the shutting of the

™ The contrivance here described is that with which we are so
familiar as the French pillars. The Doctor, having first seen these
pillars on Boehm’s flute of 1828, came to the conclusion that they
were the invention of Boehm, just as we have seen Coche attributing
to Gordon the invention of the éxcavation to receive the lower
lip, and Clinton the idea of open keys and equalised holes, they
being under the belief that these inventions first appeared on
Gordon’s flute. Boehm does not claim to have invented the
French pillars. What he says is that in 1828 he began to construct
“ various machines ” (the words in the manuscript are “ mechanical
means”) for making them. See his Essay on the Construction of
Flutes, p. 12. In the French translation the words are “ des outils
spéciaux et des machines auxiliaires,”
396 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

sound-hole by pressure on the key, just as pressure
on the end of the ordinary and simple keys caused the
sound-hole to be opened. On an old flute thus rendered
more perfect there were some keys placed lengthwise
and others crosswise. The flutes looked as if young
leeches had taken hold of them. One key would move
easily, another with much difficulty, in short, the
mechanism of the old flute previous to Bohm was the
result of the necessity of boring more and more holes
into the flute in addition to the six holes of the diatonic
scale, the greater development of instrumental music
requiring more and more chromatic notes. These side-
holes had, moreover, to come within reach of the six
fingers by means of keys and levers. The way in which
Bohm replaced this crude mechanism by a rationally
arranged system of key-mechanism will be seen in
treating of his second flute, based on acoustic principles.

BOHM’s CONNECTION WITH PROFESSOR VON
SCHAFHAUTL. ACOUSTIC IDEAS OF THE LATTER.

At the end of 1827 an appointment in the library of
the University brought me to Munich. In my younger
days it was customary to teach children music, and in
the Catholic institutions the pupils formed an orchestra
of their own which played in church on solemn occasions.
I was therefore well acquainted with music, and had
paid much attention to the construction of musical
instruments, especially of the organ. It was the love
of music that attracted me to Munich; music, although
I could consider it only as a side-issue, filling my whole
heart. Bohm’s new flute and his flute-factory greatly
interested me. I therefore made his acquaintance at
once, and was his friend for fifty-four years from that
time. We exchanged our ideas more especially on the
subject of the scientific construction of .pianofortes on
which I had been meditating for some time, sketching
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 397

out my plans and views. The nature of musical tone
had also occupied me from my youth upwards. The
general and rapid development of the mathematical laws
of motion had matured the view that musical tone, too,
consists only of transverse and longitudinal oscillations
of acoustical bodies. Thus the string, which, if stretched
over a non-elastic support, is hardly audible, was con-

sidered the sounding body ; and the elastic support, for
instance the body of an Amati or Stradivari violin, is
considered to the present moment as serving merely to
swell the tone of the string.

Deaf persons can be made to hear the playing of a
pianoforte by connecting their frontal bones with the
sounding-board of the piano by means of a firwood-rod ;
they will thus hear not only the notes, but the whole of
the harmonies of the person who plays. This fact, how-
ever, cannot be accounted for by the assumption of an
impact of waves which, starting from the sounding-
board, proceeds from molecule to molecule into the
frontal bone of the deaf person.’

8 The peculiar affection of the organ of hearing here alluded to,
in which sounds, which cannot be heard through the passage
leading from the outer ear, are rendered audible in the way de-
scribed, is known as middle ear deafness. It is comparatively
uncommon, the proportion of cases amongst the deaf being only
five per cent. For its alleviation an ingenious instrument, called
the audiphone, has been devised. It consists of a thin plate of
ebonite, which, when in use, is slightly bent, so as to be put into a
state of tension. The deaf man holds one end of the plate between
his teeth ; the voice of the person who is addressing him throws the
plate into vibration, and the vibrations thus generated are com-
municated through the teeth to the bones of the skull.

Strange to say, those who suffer from this form of deafness can
hear better when they are in an atmosphere of sound, such as the
rattling of a railway carriage, or the roar of the traffic of a great
thoroughfare. Readers of Dr. Burney’s History of Music will
recollect that it is related, amongst the marvellous effects ascribed
by the ancients to music in the treatment of disease, that Ascle-
piades cured deafness by the sound of the trumpet. This is too
much for Burney. ‘‘ Wonderful, indeed,” he exclaims, “that the
398 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Exactly at the time of Béhm’s departure from hence
for London, fifty-one years ago, I published, in Poggen-
dorffs ‘Annalen der Physik’ (1831), my ideas on the
Eolian harp, stating, that the sounding body in the
case of the violin is the sounding board, the vibrating
string being the energy of a tone determined by the ten-
sion of the string. In a subsequent essay, “ Correction of
a Fundamental Theorem in Acoustics” (‘Neues Jahrbuch
fiir Chemie und Physik,’ vol. vii, 1833) I enlarged my
views, instancing the strings of a pianoforte, stretched on
one side of a wall and, by means of firwood-rods, con-
ducting the tone through the wall to a sounding board
in another room, &c. To-day my views, uttered half a
century ago, have been confirmed by the telephone and
microphone. Since November 1881, the palace of the
Crown Prince is connected with the Royal Opera House.
by microphone wires. Every note sung by the singers
can be heard with the greatest distinctness in the apart-
ments of the Crown Prince, nay, one can distinguish
the persons singing.

BOuHM’s JOURNEY TO LONDON,

In January 1831, Bohm repaired to Paris, where he
caused the greatest sensation with his playing, and his

same noise which would occasion deafness in some, should be a
specific for it in others! Itismaking the viper cure her own bite.”
He endeavours to explain the statement by supposing that Ascle-
piades was the inventor of the ear-trumpet, or perhaps of the
speaking-trumpet, “which,” he adds, “is a cure for distant deaf-
ness.” However, he goes on to give a modern instance, that of a
lady who could only hear when a drum was beating, insomuch
that her husband hired a drummer as her servant, in order to enjoy
the pleasure of her conversation. But even the authority of the
distinguished physician, Dr. Willis, who gives an account of the
case, is not sufficient to convince the incredulous Burney. He
thinks that such stories are only told to prove “that Greek noise
could do nothing which the modern would not operate on as
effectually.,—-C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 399

flute. From there he left for London, at the end of
March. He was much admired at private concerts, and
asked to play in public, Thus he was requested to play
at the annual concert of the Choral Fund Society, which
was given for the benefit of indigent musicians, or for the
widows and children of musicians. Amongst the patrons
of that concert, besides the Queen,® and numerous Dukes
and Duchesses, was Prince Jeopold of .Saxe-Coburg.
The concert was of a mixed character, consisting of
vocal music interspersed with instrumental compositions.
The instrumental artists were Moscheles, the pianist;
Béhm, who was mentioned on the programme as His
Majesty the King of Bavaria’s first flautist, and as
appearing now for the first time in this country. The
concert took place on April 15th, 1831, at Hanover
Square.!? Bohm played his fantasia on a recitative and

® The concert was given under the patronage of “ Their most
Gracious Majesties.” Dr. Schafhautl was nearly eighty years of
age when he wrote the memoir of Boehm, and his sight was in a
deplorable state, so that for “their Majesties” he appears to have
read “her Majesty.” To his mistake respecting the solo which
Boehm was announced to play, a mistake which seems to be
attributable to the same cause, I have already drawn attention
(p. 362).

10 The Hanover Square Rooms, where the concert took place,
were then styled “The King’s Antient Concert Rooms,” the
Directors of the Concerts of Ancient Music having taken a lease of
the premises. For a copy of the programmes here given of this
and some of the other concerts at which Boehm played, I am
indebted to Herr Ludwig Boehm.—C. W.

PART I.

Overture (Esther)... + e+ + 6 «© + es Handel
Solo, Miss BRUCE, and Chorus, ‘‘O the pleasures of the

plains!” (Acis and Galatea). . . . . . «. » Handel
Song, Mr. PARRY, jun., ‘‘ Honour and arms”? (Samson). Handel
Recitativo ed Aria, Miss BRUCE, ‘Della Tromba”. . . ucitta
Fantasia, Flute, Mr. BozuM (Principal Flute to the King

of Bavaria— his first public performance in this country)
Duet, Madame STOCKHAUSEN and Mr. Branam, ‘Che

intesi” . 2. toe ee ee ee eg Mayer
Scena, Miss Huaues, ‘‘Softly sighs the voice of evening” ie

So ee pe A BE eg “eber

(Der Freyschutz) .
400 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

aria of Pucitta amidst colossal applause ; his brilliant
delivery and feeling adagio were especially admired,
A storm of applause followed the grand scene and air
from ‘Freischiitz’: ‘Wie nahte mir der Schlummer,’
sung by Miss Hughes, celebrated for her magnificent
voice. The drinking song by Marschner : ‘Im Herbst,
da muss man trinken,’ which was announced as a ‘ Bac-
chanalian song,” and sung in German by Mr. Phillips, ex-
cited also great enthusiasm. In the second part of the
concert Moscheles played the grand fantasia with orches-
tral accompaniment, called ‘The Strains of the Scottish
Bards, a work of his own composition. On Friday, April

 

Scena, Mr, Sinclair, ‘‘ Fra un istante” . Rossini
Glee, Miss Bruck, Mr. TERRAIL, Mr. VAUGHAN and. Mr.

BELLAMY, ‘‘ The red, red rose” . Knyvett
Song, Miss CRAMER, ‘* Gratias agimus tibi,” accompanied

on the Clarinet by Mr. WILLIAM. Guglielmi
Song, Mr. BRAHAM, ‘* The Rover’s Bride,” accompanied

by himself on the Pianoforte. . A. Lee
Bacchanalian Song, Mr. PHILLIPS, “Im Herbst, da muss

Man trinken” Marschner
Recitative and Air, Madame ‘STOCKHAUSEN, ‘ce With ver-

dure clad” (Creation). . ~ + « . « Havdn
Grand Chorus, ‘‘ Hallelujah” (Messiah). » 2 « « « Handel

PART IT.

Grand Sinfonia.
Chorus, ‘* He gave them hailstones” (Israel in Egypt). . Handel
Aria, Miss FANNy Aytoy, ‘‘ La Biondina” ; with varia-

tions by. Paer

Recitative and Air, Mr. BENNETT, «“ Oo Liberty,” accom.
panied on the Violoncello by Mr. LINDLEY (Judas

Maccabeus) . Handel
Duet, Miss HucuEs and Mr. PHILiips, “Crude, perché
finora” (Figaro) . Mozart

Swiss Air (by desire), Madame STOCKHAUSEN, “The
Harvest Home,” eceomipuied on the Harp by Mr.

STOCKHAUSEN. . so 2 4 + 4 Stockhausen
Song, Mr. S1Incxair, ‘ The spring time” | Sinclair
Grand Fantasia, Mr. MoscHELss, ‘‘ The Strains of the

Scottish Bards,” with Orchestral Accompaniments. . Moscheles

Glee, Miss Hughes, Mr. TERRAIL, Mr. VAUGHAN, and
Mr. BELLAMY, ‘‘ The rose of the valley” . . . . Knywett

Song, Miss BRUCE, ‘*The Soldier’s Tear”... A. Lee
Terzettino (by particular desire), Miss HUGHES, Mr. Sin-
CLAIR and Mr, PHILLIPS, ‘ Vadasi via di qua”... Martini

Grand Chorus, ‘God save the King” «+ « « « Handel
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 401

‘15th, 1831, Bohm played at a morning concert," “for
the benefit of an author,” his divertissement for the flute.
Among the other artists in that concert were Santini,
de Begnis, Madame Marie Lalande, the blind violinist
A. Tolbeque, a pupil of R. Creuzer, and Madame
Dulken.

On the 31st of May, Madame Dulken gave her grand
matinée, under the patronage of the Duchess of Kent.
The concert was rendered quite extraordinary by the
co-operation of Madame Pasta, the greatest singer of her
time, and perhaps of all times; of Rubini, the greatest
tenor of this century ; and of Lablache, the greatest and
most marvellous basso of the age, who sang twice, once

n Kine’s THEATRE, CONCERT Rooms,
Au Bénéfice d'un Homme de Lettres.

MORNING CONCERT.
Friday, April 15, 1831.

 

PART I.

Fantaisie en trio, sur un Air Espagnol, Piano, Oboe, and
Bassoon, Mr. . . . , MM. BarReET and BAUMANN Brod

Cavatina, Melle. Du Puy, Quandoo Core. . . . « acini

Duetto, Con pazienza, Mme. MERIC LALANDE and Signor
-DEBEGNIS . -.- - e+ + + © + «© + « Mayr

Divertissement sur ]a Flute, Mr. THEOBALD BoHM . . Bohm

Duo, Signori SANTINI and De BEGNIS. . . + + +

Duo, Signori CURIONI and DELLa Torrg, Ail’ Idea. . Rossini

Cavatina, Miss FANNY AYTON, The Deep, Deep Sea . Horn

Air, Signor DE Brcnis, Le Fifre (words by Mr. Mars) . Donnadieu

Fantasia, Piano Forte, Mme. DULCKEN . . . . Moscheles

“On one of Erard’s patent action Grand Piano-fortes.”

PART It.

Variations sur air de Céline, Bassoon, Mr. BAUMAN. . Berr
Comic Trio, Mme. Meric LALANDE, Signori CURIONI

and Dr BEGNIS, Vadasiviadiqua. . . - + + Martini
Duetto, Miss FANNY AYTON and Signor SANTINI, Dun- ;
quéioson. «6 ee ee ee Rossini
Air varié, Violon, Mr. A. TOLBECQUE . » + + + + A. Tolbecque
Aria, Signor DELLA TorRE, Udite. - - + + + + Cimarosa

Fantaisie, Violoncello, Mr. ROUSSELOT. sees . Rousselot
Romance, Melle. Du Puy, le Bonheur de se revoir Amédée de Beauplan

2D =.
402 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

in a trio of Mozart, and the other time in a duo of
Cimarosa.”

Bohm opened the secon part with a fantasia. His
brilliant delivery, his double tonguing, his feeling adagio,

12 Great Room, KING’s THEATRE.
Under the immediate patronage of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent,
MADAME DULCKEN

Respectfully announces to the Nobility, Gentry, her Friends, and the Public
in general, that her

MORNING CONCERT
will take place at the above rooms on Monday, May the 23rd, 1831.

 

PART I.

Overture (Oberon) . . . Weber
Trio, Miss MASSON, Monsieur BEGREZ, and Signor "ae

BLACHE . » 6 » Mozart
Aria, ‘‘ Risplendi o “suol beato,” Signor Rusinr . Raimondo
Duo, ‘‘Se fiato in corpo avete,” Signor LABLACHE and

‘Signor DEBEGNIS . . Cimarosa
Duo, “Mille sospiri e lagrime,” Miss Masson and Madame

PASTA. . . . Rossint
Concerto in A flat, Pianoforte, Madame DULCKEN - . Hummel
Aria, ‘*I tuoi frequenti palpiti,” Madame Pasta . . . Pacini
Fantasia, Horm, Signor PuzzI . . . . . . . . Pueet

PART IL.

Fantasia, Flute, Mr. BOEHM. . Boehm
Duo, ‘‘D’un bel uso,” Signor SanTint and ‘Signor DE

BEGNIs. . oe « « «© « Rossind
Fantasia, Harp, Monsieur LABARRE. 3 . . Labarre
Duo, Signor RuBINI and Madame Pasta (Medea) - « Mayer
Brilliant Variations on Weber's Hunting Chorus (Eury-

anthe), Pianoforte, Madame DULCKEN. . Czerny
Trio, ‘‘ Vadasi via di qua,” Miss Masson, Monsieur

BEGREZ, and Signor DE BEGNIS . . . . . . Martini
The Band will be numerous, and consist of the most eminent Performers.

Leader, Mr. Mort.
Conductor, Signor Costa.

Tickets, Half-a-Guinea Each,

To be had of the principal Music Sellers; and of Madame DuLcKEN,
17, Howland Street, Fitzroy Square, to whom Applications for Boxes are
requested to be made.

The Concert will commence at Two o’Clock precisely.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 403

called forth enormous applause ; however, an English
critic said : “As to volume of tone our Nicholson stands
unsurpassed.”

In another matinée® on Saturday, May 28th, Bohm
played a solo for the flute. Besides Santini and de
Begnis, the violinist A. Tolbeque also took part.

On May 3rd Moscheles gave his great concert at the
King’s Theatre. The bill announcing it was 63} centi-
metres wide, and 1 metre high. Bohm played in the
second part a fantasia on the Bavarian national air:

13 ARGYLL RooMS, REGENT STREET.
MORNING CONCERT.
Saturday, May 28, 1831.

 

PART I.
Overture
Duetto, Signor TorR1 and Signor SANTINI, ‘‘Che bella
Vite’ se we se oe se & & «» » Generali
Solo, Flute, Mr. BOEHM . - e+ 6 + + et et Boehm

Aria, Mademoiselle DU Puy  « - + + 5 ee Mercadante
Duetto, Miss DuNN and Miss M. Dunn, “T know a

AMIE! ce oh ek Deh ton Gt gh a OE
Duetto, Madame STOCKHAUSEN and Signor DE BEGNIs,

“Nella casa”. . 6 2 + ee ee et Generali
Solo, Harp, Mr. Davies . . - » oe « 2 Bochsa

Ballad, Miss Dunn, ‘‘ Rest, warrior, rest? ge
Duetto, Signor DE BEeGnis and Signor SANTINI, **No

donnemienonvé” . . . + + + + + + + Morandi
Terzetto, Madame STOCKHAUSEN, Signor Torr, and

Signor DE Brenis, ‘“‘ Vadasi via di qua.” Altered

from Martini by Signor De Begnis.

Between the Parts,
The Musical Imitations of
DeER BAYRISCHE TONKUNSTLER.

PART II.

Fantasia, Pianoforte, by an Amateur. . +: +e Moscheles
New Rondo, Signor De Brenis, ‘‘Je suis le petit

tambour.” Arranged by Signor De Begnis.
Solo, Violoncello, Monsieur RoUssELOT . . « «6 Rousselot
Duetto, Mademoiselle Du Puy and Signor VERCELLINI, :

“Ahsedemalimiei”?” . - + - + * *,4 ¢ Rossini
Swiss Song, Madame STOCKHAUSEN ; accompanied on

the Harp by Mr. SrOCKHAUSEN - + + + + Stockhausen
Solo, Violin, Monsieur TOLBECQUE  - oes Tolbecque
Aria, Miss M. Dunn, ‘Il braccio mio conquise”. . . iécolni
Finale, Overture - - + - * + 7° ee Mozart

2 D2
404 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

“Du, du liegst mir im Herzen.” Nearly all the cele-
brated artists then in London appeared at that concert,
amongst others the tenor Rubini. First he sang an
aria by Costa, then a duet with de Begnis, named,
“Fin che el mar.” Moscheles played as his second
piece a grand fantasia, “Recollections of Denmark,”
with orchestra, and also a trio, both of which he had
composed specially for that concert. The celebrated
violinist, F. Cramer, played too, and also Lindley, the
greatest violoncellist of his time, whose tone has never
been surpassed in fulness and beauty. “At the request
of the public,” Moscheles played his “Fantasia concer-
tante,” for voice, harp, horn, and pianoforte, ona Romanza
of Blangini. The concert was brought to a close by
Moscheles, who played an improvisation on a theme
given him by one of the audience.*

14 Kinc’s CONCERT Room, Kine’s THEATRE.

Mr. MoscHELEs

Respectfully informs the Nobility, Gentry, and his Friends in general,
that his

MORNING CONCERT
will take place at the above Rooms on Tuesday, May 3rd, 1831.

PART I,
Overture (Oberon). . Weber
Duetto, Signor SANTINI and Signor DE BEGNIS, “No
donne mienonv’é” . . . . . « . .) .) .) Movandi

THE RECOLLECTIONS OF DENMARK,
A Grand Fantasia, with Orchestral Accompaniments
(second time of DeETATSSEUCS), BASEN Mr.

MOSCHELES . Moscheles
Duetto, Madame Puzzt and Miss” Masson, “ Serbami

ognor” (Semiramide). . . . . + oe. Rossini
Scena ed Aria, Signor RuBInI . . » « Costa

Fantaisie 4 la Tirolienne, French Horn, Mr. Puzzi.

A NEW GRAND TRIO CONCERTANTE,
Composed expressly for this occasion. Pianoforte, Violin
and Violoncello, Messrs. MOSCHELES, F. CRAMER
and LINDLEY. . Moscheles
Grand Scena (MS.), Miss INVERARITY (composed. ex- :
pressly for this occasion). . . 2... .. , Murray
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 405

THE ENGLISH FLAUTIST NICHOLSON AND HIS
INSTRUMENT.

Every one was struck with the purity of Bohm’s flute
in all the scales, and particular interest was taken in
him and his flute by Messrs. Rudall and Rose, the
largest and oldest firm for manufacturing wind instru-
ments in London; George Rudall himself being an
excellent flute-player. Amongst other flutes, those of
Nicholson were also made by the said firm.’ Through
Rudall, Bohm made the acquaintance of the amiable

PART II.

(By particular desta) the Fantasia Concertante on a
favourite Romance by Blangini, for Voice, Harp,
Horn, and Pianoforte, Madame Puzzi, Miss E.

BissET, Messrs. PuzzI and MOSCHELES . . Moscheles
Duetto, Signor | RuBini and Signor De pee “Pin

che al mar” . . De Begnis
Ballad, Miss ee “es The Soldier’ s Tear” ‘ A. Lee
Fantasia on a Bavarian Air, Flute, Mr. Boum: (Principal

Flute to the King of Bavaria) . 3 Bohm
Aria, Miss Masson, ‘‘ Se m’ abbandoni ‘» (N. itocri) . . Mercadanie

NAPOLEON’S MIDNIGHT REVIEW,
Anew MS. Cantata, Mr. Parry, aes ae time of per-
formance). . - + «+ + . « . Meukomm

‘Extemporaneous Performance

On the Pianoforte by Mr. MoscHELEs, on which occasion
he requests any of the Company to give him a written
Theme to perform on. z

Leader of the Band, Mr. F. Cramer.

Conductor, Sir George Smart.
The Concert to begin at Two o’clock precisely.

Tickets, 10s. 6%. each, to be had of Mr, Moscheles, No. 3 Chester
Place, Regent’s Park; at the Box Office of the King’s Theatre ; and at
the principal Music Shops.

An early upplication for Boxes is requested to be made to Mr.
Moscheles.

1% The Doctor is mistaken. Nicholson’s flutes were made by
Clementi & Co.
406 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Charles Nicholson? and his flute. The Nicholson flute
was the ordinary one; but the tall and vigorous Eng-
lishman, led by a true instinct, had the holes so in-
creased in size as to suit his large and powerful fingers.
Nicholson was the greatest English flute-player—his
tone surpassed in fulness and force that of all other
flautists of his time, and that is a quality which responds
well to the character of the English people. The English
love in all musical instruments a full, powerful tone;
in contrast to the French, as may be seen in the pianos
of the two nations. Moreover, his adagzo was character-
ised by a peculiar vibrato in sustained notes, some-
thing like the fine tremolo in singing.

The extraordinary, the previously unheard of force of
Nicholson’s tone riveted Bohm’s entire attention, and
set him a-thinking on the nature of the musical tone,
inducing him to make countless experiments and trials,
out of which sprang his flutes up to the last—the silver
flute, the most perfect of all wind instruments with keys.

GORDON’S EXPERIMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
OF THE FLUTE.

In London, Bohm made the acquaintance of a Swiss
of Lausanne, a dilettant on the flute (late pupil of
Drouet), who had devoted all his energy and his fortune
to the improvement of the ordinary flute and to the
invention of a perfect instrument. His name was
W. Gordon ; he had been one of King Charles Xth’s
Lifeguards, and after the abdication of Charles X., he
was, of course, pensioned. Gordon, too, had learned in
England that the enlargement of the hole enlarges

16 In 1836 important musical engagements held by Nicholson
were placed at Boehm’s disposal, but at that time he was still
occupied with the iron industry. In after life he expressed the
opinion that he ought not to have declined the offer. Nicholson
lived until the close of the winter of 1836-7.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 407

the volume of the tone; however, the notes produced
by the enlarged holes were not in harmony with one
another. Having no idea of the acoustical principle,
according to which the holes are to be placed, he tried
to find out the right places in an empirical way, that
is, in the very way in which the place of all holes had
been discovered up to this hour. The experiments
were very expensive, nearly every experiment requiring
a new model. When the finger-holes were too high
the remedy was simple enough ; Gordon enlarged them
until the note was correctly tuned. Thus, for instance,
the finger-hole for ¢ was the largest of his finger-holes.
When he wanted to make the finger-holes smaller he
was obliged to fill them up, and this proved very
difficult work and could only be done unsatisfactorily.
However, all flutes were tuned in that manner. Every
flute, even the very best, possesses holes of varying
sizes. See, for instance, the holes and their respective
places on the best English flute with cight keys, on
the plate, Fig. 4.17

The models of Gordon were executed in London by
the flute-maker, Cornelius Ward. The change in the
place of the finger-holes made a change in the system
of fingering necessary. Gordon communicated his ideas
to his teacher Drouet and the flautist Tulou, who ap-
proved of his undertaking, but would not listen to
changing the fingering. Gordon now had the unfortu-
nate idea of making his new flute with the new
arrangement of finger-holes playable by means of the
old fingering. He also consulted Bohm about his
project.

Bohm tried to explain to him that his method of

4” In a supplementary chapter to his Life of Boehm, Dr. Schaf-
hautl published the fingering of the Boehm flute, and some drawings
and illustrations of Boehm’s different instruments. It is one of
these which is here referred to. A similar figure will be found in

this work, p. 205.—C. W.
408 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

vague empirical experimenting would never lead toa
real improvement * of the flute; at the same time he
told him that Nicholson had set him ‘a-thinking, and
that he meditated giving the flute a new form on a more
rational basis. He took leave of Gordon, repeatedly
assuring him that without a change of the present
fingering the flute would never be equalised in tune.
He also promised to apprise Gordon of his own experi-
ments,

Bohm returned to Bavaria through Paris, aa arrived:
at Munich in September 1832,’° covered with glory. In
Munich his doings in Paris and London had been
watched attentively, and thus it came to pass that the
King increased his annual salary by 300 florins, so that
his pay now amounted to 1200 florins, 680 of which
were meant as pensionable salary, and 520 as payment for
his services. This increase in his salary Bohm owed to
his friend, the then director of the Court music, Baron
de Poissl, who was also well known as a musician and
composer of operas.

AN ENGLISH AMATEUR FLUTE-PLAYER.
EXPERIENCES IN ENGLAND.

Bohm’s public appearance in England forms the bright
spot of his activity in this country. Through his flute-
playing and his behaviour as a gentleman, on which
latter the career of a foreigner in London chiefly de-
pends, he got acquainted with a great number of the
nobility and gentry, whose guest—and' sometimes not

18 If we can rely on the evidence we have that the flute Gordon
was endeavouring to get constructed in London was on the open-
keyed system, this account of what passed between Boehm and
Gordon can rest on no better foundation than does Mr. Rockstro’s
vision of Boehm engaged in leading Gordon “ off the scent.”—
Cc. W.

19 1831, not 1832, is, of course, meant.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM, 409

quite voluntarily—he used to be at their country seats.
Among these were chiefly amateurs who played the
flute, and others who had bought Béhm’s patented flute
in London.

One of the richest landowners of the South of
England played a silver flute of Rudall’s make, and
was transported on Béhm’s appearance at the Industrial
Exhibition in London.” Bohm was obliged to go with
him to the country. The artist was surrounded with
princely splendour ; he had a footman to himself. The
adopted son of the Baronet was a real Nimrod, and thus
the most beautiful horses and carriages of all sorts were
at Bohm’s disposal. The only thing Bohm was ex-
pected to do was to play duets with the Baronet in the
evening, teaching him now and then how to set to work
with the new flute. One afternoon the Baronet was
practising a duet which they were to play the same
evening. A certain passage, although the Baronet did
his best to overcome it, proved too hard for him, and
as is the case with passages that one wants to play
particularly well, the more he practised the less he could
play it. Finally the Baronet grew so fiercely angry
that he flung the silver flute behind the door. There
it was—a wreck. At this sight the wrath of the Baronet
was soon toned down. Bohm was just entering the
drawing room: “Bohm, let me have your flute—ask
what you like for it. See what a fool I have been!”
Bohm smiled, telling the footman to sweep together
carefully all the pieces of the flute, and then to put
them into a box and carry them to his room. Then
Bohm asked: “Is there no watchmaker in the neigh-
bourhood?” “Yes, in the little town of Horsham there
is my watchmaker.” “Well,” said Béhm consolingly,

20 The reader will observe that the Doctor has here jumped over
a period of twenty years, from 1831 to 1851. In the interval, not
only Boehm’s first flute, that of 1832, but the cylinder of 1847 had
been invented.—C. W.
410 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

“to-morrow evening we will play the duet.” The Baronet
looked at him doubtingly. The next morning Bohm
drove in a splendid carriage drawn by two horses to the
watchmaker at Horsham. “I have here the fragments
of your Baronet’s flute, will you allow me to put them
together in your workshop?” The watchmaker readily.
consented, and was Béhm’s attentive spectator during
the time he went on filing, soldering, polishing, placing
the key supports in the right line, &c. After six hours’
work the flute was ready, and like new. Bohm thanked
the watchmaker doubly ; for, in working in his shop he
discovered an excellent solder, with which he had not
been previously acquainted, namely, the chloride of zinc,
or as it is technically called, chlorzinc. The Baronet
was enchanted with the new flute, which was again as
beautiful as if it had just left the hands of Rudall. It
responded even more easily than before. The Baronet
tried everything to keep Béhm at his country seat ;
however, Bohm was obliged to go to London to the
jury. The Baronet let him go after a promise to come
back againsoon. Béhm’s path, however, was different—
he never saw the Baronet again, as was the case with
so many of his English friends. During his stay in
England Bohm had paid attention not only to flute-
playing, but to the indescribably grand technical and
commercial life of that insular nation, a life of which he
had scarcely found a trace in other countries. The
gigantic ironworks, the English cast-steel factories inter-
ested him all the more, because in his workshop he
constantly needed English cast-steel for his screws,
corns, and axles.

MECHANISM AND IMPERFECTION OF THE FLUTES
OF THAT TIME.

Bohm had no sooner arrived at Munich,” than he
proceeded with an energy characteristic of him to carry

41 We now return to the year 1831.—C. W
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 4II

into execution his plan, which was the total recon-
struction of the flute and its key system. From the
outset Bohm did not heed the position of the fingers, his
chief aim being to so place the finger-holes that the
whole chromatic scale might be played in the purity of
tone required by theory. For all flutes made previous to
the Bohm flute were founded on purely empirical experi-
ments. The rational scale on the flute was to be arrived
at on the same principle as that by which the organ-
builders were enabled to produce the chromatic scale by
means of pipes. It is, of course, well known, that each
pipe sounds higher the shorter it is made. Thus the
organ builders sharpen their organ-pipes by cutting them
off at their upper rim until they are reduced to their
proper height. If the organ is too sharp, the organ-builder
is forced to glue or solder a piece to the pipe, until the
pipe reaches the requisite length. The violinist likewise
shortens his strings, if he wants to get higher notes, and

the ¢ string, for instance, gives the octave, or ¢ by putting
the finger about the middle of the string, and pressing
on it, thereby shortening the string by one-half. It is
almost the same thing with the pipes of the organ ; the
organ-builder needing eight for a diatonic octave, and
thirteen for a chromatic. Should the flute-maker thus
reduce the length of his flute by degrees, he would, after
thirteen reductions, obtain the octave of the flute-pipe.
In order, however, that he may obtain all the notes, of
one octave for instance, by means of one and the same
flute, without reducing it by successive shortenings, nature
herself led the primitive performers on tubular instru-
ments to the contrivance of cutting or boring a side-hole
into the tube. This has the same effect as if the tube had
been cut off. A further advantage of this side-hole is
this, that one need but put one’s finger on the hole,
thereby closing it, in order to have the fundamental note
of the flute. If we were to cut a side-hole for every note
of the diatonic scale, eight holes would be necessary.
412 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

However, only six fingers were at the disposal of the
player, and thus the seventh note, and, counting the
octave, the eighth too, of the diatonic scale was not pro-
vided #7 for, the thumb being occupied with holding the
flute, and the little finger was useless for the German
flute on account of its shortness. For this reason three
holes for the right hand were bored at the bottom, and
three holes for the left hand at the top, at equal dis-
tances, each of which would be easily reached and
covered by the fingers. If the fundamental note of the
flute was d, the second hole gave é, the third f sharp,
and f natural next alone was wanting. The holes being
placed in that way f could be obtained only in an in-
direct and artificial manner; and this was the case with
most of the notes of the chromatic scale. This pecu-
liarity formed one of the chief defects of the old flute.
We have seen above that the side-hole acts as if the
flute had been cut off; this, however, it does only par-
tially, for the side-hole is too small to cause the en-
trance of a regular negative wave corresponding to the
diameter of the flute. The tube of the flute could not
therefore be considered as being entirely reduced by.

cutting it off, as was the side-pipe which gave /#, the
air column beneath the 7 ¢ hole interfering even when the

é hole was open. If now thé hole lying below f# and
giving ¢ be shut with the finger, the hole for /# being
left open, the co-vibrating air column below the /¢ hole

® The reader, if a flute-player, will not need to be reminded that
the Doctor has for the moment overlooked the circumstance that
the hole at the open end of the flute produces a note, so that we do
not require seven finger holes, as he states, to make the seven notes
of the diatonic scale, but only six. The seventh note, instead of
being unprovided for, is produced by the hole covered by the first
finger of the left hand. So, too, it would not be the second finger
hole that would. produce E and the third F#on a keyless flute
in D, as he says farther on, but the first and second respectively.—
C.W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 413

will depress the tone, and instead of FH, the desired f
will be obtained. It will, however, be a muffled tone of
quite a different character. Those fingerings were called
fork-fingerings, one hole being left open between two
fingers closing two holes ; and by means of these fork-
fingerings one was able to produce the whole diatonic
scale and its octave. The French added a hole for df

between d and @, which, however, had to be closed by a
key, there being no finger to press upon it. Thus even
the chromatic notes could be produced; they were,
however, so different from the other notes of the scale,
and some of them so false, that at best only two scales
could be obtained that sounded quite in tune.

ATTEMPTS AT IMPROVEMENT.

The flautists, therefore, essayed, in keeping with the
improved instrumental music of the time, to make the
notes obtained by fork-fingerings as pure as were the
others. They accordingly bored new holes alongside
the holes of the diatonic scale, closing them, in default
of fingers, with key-valves or keys, which were pressed
.down on the holes by springs. The end of the key had
of course to be brought within reach of one of the six
fingers.

The first key of that kind was applied by the French
to a hole, bored between the first d hole and the ¢ hole
next above, and which gave the semitone d# between
dand e. ‘

This df key was for a long time the only key on the
flute. Its invention has been ascribed to the celebrated
German flautist Quantz.” It was placed within reach of

% It is, of course, needless to repeat that the key which Quantz
introduced was not that here ascribed to him (see supra, Pp. 229).
Quantz endeavoured, but without success, to discover the origin of
414 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

the little finger. At last a step onwards was ventured
on. The flute-makers added another key, the gf key,
to the old df key. The gt key was so placed as to be
within reach of the little finger of the left hand ; finally

came the 4 key, which was governed by the thumb of
the left hand. Béhm commenced his studies on such a
flute,* turned after the system of Grenser by Bohm him-
self. Thus it was that more and more keys were added

to the old flute. The / key was added, but for it there
was no finger left. It was only by letting another finger
slide from its hole on to the key that F was to be ob-
tained.

The old D-flute with its six key-holes has always been
kept as the basis, notes that could not be obtained from
these holes being produced by means of side-holes, which
had to be closed by keys, and thus the old D-flute had
as many as fourteen keys. Finally, the lower part of the
flute, its so-called foot, was lengthened, and thus ¢ was
obtained in the room of @. No attention was paid as to

where to cut off the flute in order that ¢, for instance,
might be obtained, but the ¢ hole was put high enough
to be covered by the finger.

Thus of the C-flute of Bohm, that gives C and is
618°5 millimetres long, 37°61 millimetres had to be cut
off to obtain Cf. The small holes of Béhm’s flute of the
year 1829 necessitated carrying up the hole 50 milli-
metres, the key-hole thus being 11°7 millimetres too
high ; on the new flute of 1832, the finger-hole is very

this key. His researches, however, led him to believe that it made
its first appearance in France within a century of his own time. See
his Essay, ch, i., sections 4, 5, 6; also Rockstro on the Flute,
section 413, p. 221.

** The Doctor has forgotten that he has just told us that it was
on a four, not a three-keyed flute, that Boehm played at first.
However, he soon repairs the omission, and in the next sentence
gives us the missing key.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 415

near the true place of cf. The small finger-hole of the
old flute being too high on account of the fingers, the
tone is not so free as if the flute had been cut off at the
place for the finger-hole, the oscillations of the upper air
column being interfered with by the partial co-vibrations
of the air column below the hole. Hence the charac-
teristic tone of the old flute, its colourless and feeble
lower notes. For that reason the poets of the senti-
mental period always placed the flute in the hands of
their desponding lovers. Only when the air column in
the high notes was divided into four or eight aliquot
parts did the notes become loud enough, provided they
were not produced, ason the old flute, by fork-fingerings.
Hence the old flute was used in the orchestra principally
as an instrument for solos, and the old question “ What
is worse than one flute?” was answered by “two flutes.”
Mozart, too, disliked the flute.

This failing of the flute, which rendered it the favourite
instrument of sentimentality, 4 la Werther or Sigwart,
had to be remedied, and was actually remedied by Bohm
from 1831 to 1832.

BOHM’S NEW FLUTES. THE RING-KEY SYSTEM.

The first nearly remedied instrument was Béhm’s so-
called ring-keyed flute. (See Table I, figure 3).”

This first sound instrument was 606 millimetres long
from the stopper to the end, and 19 millimetres in
diameter. Béhm, who as an artist had learned but too
well how to discriminate the imperfections of the old
flute, came to the conviction that those imperfections
were mainly caused by the false position of the finger-
holes. He found the right positions by means of
rational experiments (Bohm, ‘Ueber den Flotenbau,’
&c., Mainz, 1847, p. 24). He cut off the tube giving

the note ¢ until the tube gave c#, marking this point on

25 Fig, 11 of this work, p. 104.
416 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

another full-length tube of the same dimensions, and so

on to the left hand from ¢ to c. The second tube was
thus covered with points giving the notes of the ¢ scale,
determined by the sections of the first tube. He then
bored at each one of those points a hole as large as
could be covered by the finger. The notes, however,
were, on account of the smallness of the holes, too low
in pitch; Bohm therefore corrected these holes on a
third tube, moving them up towards the embouchure,
until the notes reached the requisite pitch. Thus Bohm
obtained fourteen note-holes on his tube, all of the same
size and in their rational position to one another,
Compare the holes and the hole-position of the best
English eight-keyed flute ; it has holes of three different
sizes, the largest inthe middle! By these fourteen tone-

holes the chromatic scale from ¢ to ¢c could be obtained
at an equally tempered pitch and with a full tone. This
was the first advance in the construction of flutes.

The nine fingers of the two hands were, of course,
insufficient to cover these fourteen key-holes; this
circumstance, however, was no obstacle to our ingenious
Bohm. He severed the key end, the rod of the key,
from the key itself, thus bringing the key end under
the proper finger, and the key itself over its hole, no
matter how far the hole was from the finger. This was
effected by simply applying a thin steel axis (Stahlaxe),
which he could make as long as was necessary, parallel
to the axis of the flute, consequently on the length-side
(Langseite) of the instrument, fixing the key-leaf or
touch at a right angle on one end of the axis, and the
key which was to close the key-hole on the other end.

The spring which was to press the key on the hole,
had formerly been constructed in the crudest way
possible, after the fashion of locksmiths, for instance,
who fasten their springs to door-locks. The spring had,
in addition to its own rebounding movement, to perform
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOFHM. 417

a sliding, and hence a vibratory movement, which was as
irrational as possible. Béhm therefore first applied gold
springs ; and subsequently, instead of gold springs, fine
English sewing-needles, which he heated on a tin plate,
holding it over a spirit lamp until the white needle
appeared blue, thus turning to a most excellent spring.”
He fastened this spring ander the key axis at one end
into a short pillar, the other end bore on a short pivot
(Zaepfchen), the so-called nose, whereby of course the
axle was turned with the key. The spring acted heré
by its elasticity only, and the surface it had to run over
with its end was reduced to a minimum.

Since a finger, on account of the insufficient number
of fingers, had to do the work of a wanting finger, in
other words, since it had to press down a-key above or
below in addition to its proper work, Bohm turned the
key end (Griffblatt), which had come to be placed at the
upper end of the axis over the hole, into a ring encircling
the hole and leaving the opening free, in such a manner,
that the finger while closing the hole pressed down at
the same time the key on its hole at the lower end of
the axis. A narrow groove cut in the wood round the
hole received the ring, and thus did not prevent the
finger from covering at the same time the hole. Thus
Bohm gained a finger, the finger that closed the hole
above closing also by means of the ring the key on the
low part of the flute. In this ingenious way it became
possible to cover all the note holes that could not be
reached by the finger, with the finger working on other

note holes ; and the whole chromatic scale from d to 6
flat, that is, twenty-one notes, could be played without
changing the position of the fingers.

This is the history of the origin of Béhm’s ring-key
system, which together with the rational position of holes
on the flute, arose in 1832.

*% The needle springs were patented by Buffet, see p. 49.—C. W-
2E
418 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

The flute-players took great pleasure in the new flute ;
not so the flute-makers ; for Béhm’s key-mechanism was
the work of a watch-maker, and could not be produced
by a maker of musical instruments, so as to answer the
purpose. Béhm played publicly on his new flute at
Munich as well as elsewhere, and always to great ad-
vantage ; thus he also played in a “Concert spirituel”™
at Munich, November Ist, 1832. The reviewer of the
‘Allg. Mus. Zeitung, who writes without any technical
knowledge in the matter, says, “Herr Bohm gave us
much pleasure with his new flute, made by his own hand,
and improved by new keys and apertures, so as to serve
higher effects” (‘ Allg. Mus. Zeitung,’ 1833, p. 44).

GORDON’S EXPERIMENTS IN FLUTE-MAKING AND
HIs SAD END.

In 1833 Bohm again went to Paris, where he arrived
on the 9th of May, causing as much enthusiasm through
his playing as through his flute. Thence he repaired to
London, playing in concerts and entr’actes, thereby
gaining ever increasing acceptance of his flute. There
his old friend Colonel Gordon soon hunted him up.
Gordon had studied Béhm’s new flute ; the position of
holes in Bohm’s flutes found favour with him; his key-
system, however, he wanted to adapt to the old key-

27 A concert spirituel is a concert given on a holy day on which
the performance of an opera is forbidden.—C. W.

28 Boehm appears to have invented some mysterious method of
travelling, in comparison with which the wonders of Aladdin’s
lamp and Prince Husayn’s carpet sink into insignificance.

He arrived at Paris in May, and went thence to London, and
yet Gordon was able to look him up in London in the January
previous. Either the interview between Boehm and Gordon reported
by the Doctor to have taken place in London at this time, or
Gordon's letter to Boehm, is apocryphal, the two being irreconcile-
able. We are evidently getting into the region of romance. The
Doctor appears to be gifted with an imagination almost as lively as
that of Mr. Rockstro.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEEM. 419

system, although both Drouet and Tulou had pro-
nounced against it, At his very first acquaintance
Bohm had proved to Gordon the impossibility of
covering fourteen holes with seven fingers. A short
time after Bohm’s departure from London for Munich,
Gordon, too, quitted London and went to Paris,continuing
his attempt at improving the flute ; but there he was
just as unfortunate as in London.

On February 15th, 1833, after Bohri's public appear-
ance with his flute in Munich and Paris in 1832,
Gordon at last wrote a letter to Bohm at Munich, the
original of which, in French,” lies before us, and runs
thus :

LAUSANNE, Fed. 15th, 1833.
“My DEAR SIR,

“For the last fortnight I have been back at home at

Lausanne, after a pretty long stay in Paris, whither I
~ went from London soon after seeing you there when you
left for Munich.

“T have lost no time, working hard and perseveringly
at a new flute which I have made myself, as best I could,
and which J have just finished.

“T have in no wise forgotten you, and have been
always expecting you to send me an improved flute
that you proposed to try and make on your return to
Germany. According to your offer in London, I want
to send you my flute, asking you to make me a nice one
after this pattern, considering that I have the complete
fingering for playing it. I will send you at the same
time the tablature of the fingering.

“I did not wish to send you my flute before hearing
from you. Pray, then, write to me at the following
address :—A Monsiur Gordon, a Lausanne en Suisse, and

tell me how you think I should send it so that it may
reach you without being damaged ; and if you can make
® The original will be found at p. 150. The postscript, however,

was not published by Boehm, It here appears for the first time.
2E 2
420 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

a similar one, do go to work with it as soon as possible..
Hoping that my letter will find you at Munich, I send it
to the address you have given me.
“Believe me, &c.,
“ GORDON.

“P.S.—Have you still your good workman about.
whom you talked to me in London?

“T have seen Drouet in Paris. He approves of my
flute, but he recoils from a change of fingering. Tulou
is of the same way of thinking.”

Bohm answered him to the effect that he thought it.
best for Gordon to come to Munich. He placed his.
factory and his best workman (Greve) at Gordon’s dis-
posal, declaring that Gordon could make as many’
experiments as he liked. Gordon took Bohm’s advice,
and arrived, a short time after Bohm’s reply, at Munich,.
and made himself at home in Bohm’s workshop. He
was so convinced of the excellence of his system, that '
he sent on July 15th, 1833, a large number of pro-
spectuses to the instrument maker Mercier, in Paris,.
setting forth his ideas on his new flute, and asking him.
to hand them to the musicians and flute-artists in
Paris named therein. He wrote that he had an ex-.
cellent workman (Bohm’s) who was working at an
improved flute after his pattern, and that he (Gordon)
would shortly start for London. The letter runs thus”
in the original (French).

However, the first flute made after his model did not
answer, and his journey to London was given up. More.
models were made and discarded. One flute was
changed and experimented upon, until it became quite.
useless ; another shared the same fafe. At last a third
one was made which answered his ideas. After having
worked at Munich for a whole year, Gordon went to

* The letter is quoted at p. 147, and-an English translation is
given at p. 132.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 423

Paris, where he published a half sheet, on which his flute
with the key-system was lithographed. This sheet he
sent to Bohm, and the original of it is in my hands. -In
the précis of his key-system on the first page he says :—
“The suppression of the two F keys and the substitution
for them of a key for F# is an idea, the application of
which offers great advantages. The idea of this key for
F ¢ communicated by Mr. T. Bohm of Munich, has been,
with his consent, adopted for the present flute, of which

it completes the means of execution.” This avowal
dates from 1834, after Gordon had already left Béhm’s
workshop.

In this new flute the E hole, for instance, is not, as
in Gordon’s old English flute, placed too low, too far
from the other holes, and, moreover, covered with a key.

The ¢ hole occupies exactly the place it has in Bohm’s
flute. Gordon called his flute “flite diatonique.” One
can see the resemblance in the position of the finger
holes to the flute of Bohm, in whose workshop it origi-
nated. On the other hand, we notice a tangle of keys
and levers, that, although ingenious, rendered the execu-
tion of passages far too awkward. However, Gordon
did not lose heart, and was not dismayed. He went on
working at his flute. In another instrument, made in
Paris, a drawing of which is given by Coche, the tangle
of keys in the higher part is still greater; nay, one
of the levers is connected with a key by a steel wire.
In 1837 Gordon, already mentally affected, wrote to
Bohm’s workman, Grevé, who had made his first flute
at Munich, to ask him to join him in establishing a flute
factory for Paris, London, Vienna, &c., although Gordon
seemed to have lost all confidence in his flute, as a year
before, on meeting Bohm in London in 1836, he asked
Bohm for one of his flutes on the Bohm system. Gordon
had undermined his fortune by his mania, and was
crestfallen in general. Bdéhm, on his return to Munich,
wrote to Gordon at Lausanne, asking whether Gordon
422 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

would like a flute after Béhm’s model ; Gordon’s wife
however, replied to Bohm, that her husband was very
ill, and‘there was no need for sending the flute. Bohm
never heard ‘any more from Gordon. A countryman of
Gordon’s spread the news that Gordon had thrown his
flute into the Lake of Geneva, and died in an asylum.**

SPREAD, RECOGNITION OF, AND ATTACKS ON
BOuM’s FLUTE.

Ever since the last years of the third decade of the
present century I have lived on friendly terms with
Bohm, and, alas! was destined to be his biographer. I
was perfectly familiar with the daily events at Bohm’s
workshop, and a witness of all the operations of Gordon
at Munich.

The first report on Bohm’s new flute was, namely, the
one in the ‘Allg. Mus. Zeitung,’ which we have already
seen. The first elaborate report on Béhm’s new flute
was given by me in the same ‘Allg. Mus. Zeitung,’ in
1834, previous to my trip to England; more than this
had not at that time been published in, Germany on
Bohm’s flute (‘ Allg. Mus. Zeitung,’ 1834, pp. 71-73). By
that time Bohm had played on his new flute at a Court
concert, and two other concerts of the Academy of
Music with extraordinary applause. However, all in-
ventions have to struggle against envy, the manceuvring

8! The report that Gordon died by his own hand appears to have
originated in an expression used inadvertently by Mr. Walter
Broadwood in his preface to Boehm’s Essay on the Construction of
Flutes, where he speaks of having defended Boehm from the
charge of driving Gordon to “ despair, insanity, and suicide.” It is
unhappily, too true that Gordon “disappeared from view” in an
asylum at Lausanne, but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, not
the faintest whisper of a suspicion that he took his own life was
heard betore the book brought out by Mr. Broadwood appeared.
No particulars of Gordon’s death have come down to us. All we
know is that Fétis states that he was still alive in 1839, but that
Boehm, writing in 1847, speaks of him as dead.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 423

of the detractors being always the same: they assert
that they have long had the same idea, or they try to
prove that the invention is not a new one.

On May 25th, 1838, the celebrated flute-player, /ean
Baptiste Coche, in Paris, writes to Bohm: “It is said
amongst artists that the flute bearing your name was
invented and discovered with all its present improve-
ments (perfectionnements actuels) by one Gordon, &c.”
Coche was the first to exchange Béhm’s new flute for
the old, publishing also a brilliant comparison of the old
and new flute, and being instrumental in introducing
Béhm’s flute inthe Paris Conservatory. He has likewise
published a good school for the new Bohm flute
(‘Examen®* critique de la flite ordinaire comparée a
la fltte de Boehm, présenté 4 MM. les Membres de
Institut Académie Royale des Beaux-Arts, Section de
la Musique, par V. Coche, Professeur en Conservatoire,’
1838).

What Feétis writes in his well-known Dictionary on
Bohm’s flute, is nothing but an accumulation of errors
and inaccuracies of all sorts, ludicrous in such a small
article—-a worthy pendant of superficiality to so many
other articles in that Dictionary. Fétis places Bohm’s
invention in the year 1849 (Gordon being then dead for
about twelve years), although Bohm’s French letter,
setting forth clearly his relation to Gordon’s flute, dates
from July 12th, 1838, and although Coche’s excellent
work, ‘Examen critique, &c.,’ appeared in the same year.
Fétis is thus eleven years too late respecting the year
1849. In his work ‘On Flute-making’ (in German),
of the year 1847, and translated into French in 1848,
Béhm had explained his relation to Gordon and his

® This is not the School for the Flute, but the pamphlet in which
Coche compares the old with the new flute. His School for the
Flute bears, as already mentioned, the very different title of a
School for the New Flute invented by Gordon, modified by Boehm,
and perfected by Coche—C. W.
424 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

flute, adducing Gordon’s own correspondence. In that
“famous ” article of his, Fétis says: “ At the same time
(1849) an Englishman named Gordon (Gordon was no
Englishman, and by that time he was already dead)
busied himself with the improvement of the flute, and
solved the: problem!” The rest of the article is un-
intelligible ; I give it, therefore, in the original French.
The solution of the problem was made “ par un systéme
d’anneaux remué par un tige mobile, dont les combina-
tions attaquaient a peu prés le but.”*? These few words
make it evident that the reporter possessed no idea what-
ever of the construction of a flute and of Bohm’s ring-
key system.

Fétis writes of the improvement of the flute by
Gordon in the year 1849 (in which year Gordon had
been dead already twelve years), of whom, as Feétis
alleges, Bohm had in a stealthy way learned the secret ;
whilst a Munich reporter writing on a divertimento of
Bohm’s composition, which thé latter played at a
“concert spirituel,” November Ist, 1832, at Munich, ex-
pressly mentions that BGhm played his composition on
his new flute “which he had re-shaped with his own
hands by the addition of several keys.” (‘Allg. Mus.
Zeitung,’ 1833, p. 44). A year later I wrote a report in
the same musical periodical (36th year, 1834, on Béhm’s
new flute, No. 5, pp. 71-80), and the good Fétis makes
Gordon appear to be busy with the improvement of the
flute in the year 1849, that is at a time when Gordon
had long been dead, while Bohm had already played on
his new flute in Paris in 1832, that is, seventeen years
previously.

38 The words used by Fétis are: “par un systéme d’anneaux

réunis par une tige mobile, dont les combinaisons atteignaient 4 peu
prés le but.”—C. W.

% T have had occasion to call attention to a singular instance of
word-blindness on the part of Mr. Rockstro, whose eyes obstinately
refused to reveal to him the presence of the words 7ablature Gordon
in a certain sentence, We now have to notice a not less remark-
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM, 425

On the Gordon flute there were no rings, and no
combination of ring-keys either. Gordon published a
lithographic drawing of his fdte diatonique in 1834.
Another drawing of the last Gordon flute is to be
found in Coche’s ‘Examen critique’; there the key-
mechanism is still more complicated than in his flute
of 1834, but there are no ring-keys—nay, a few keys
are connected with steel wires, as may be seen in the
drawing.

At the Industrial Exhibition of all Nations in London,
1851, I dwelt elaborately, in my capacity as one of the
jury for musical instruments, on Béhm’s new flute that
had carried off the first great medal. (‘Official Report
on the Industrial Exhibition of all Nations in London

able affection of the visual organs of the worthy Doctor. His retina
became so congested when he read the articles on Boehm and
Gordon in Fétis’s Dictionary as to transmit to his sensorium the
word Gordon instead of Boehm. It is not Gordon whom Fétis
represents as engaged in flute-making in 1849 but Boehm. He
mentions that he saw him at Munich at that-time, and found him
thus occupied, and he states (incorrectly, as the Doctor very properly
says) that it was in that year that he introduced his cylindro-conical
flute. It-is true that Fétis uses the words “at the same time,” but
they refer not to the year 1849, but to the time when Boehm was
endeavouring to improve the old flute.

That Fétis wrote too much, and so sacrificed his reputation for
accuracy, is universally admitted. Of this there are proofs enough
in these two articles. His description of Gordon’s mechanism
quotéd by the Doctor (a system of rings united by a movable rod)
applies not to Gordon’s but to Boehm’s flute. It was Boehm,
not Gordon, who made. use of rings and movable rods. Gordon
endeavoured to solve the problem, as Fétis-himself says in anotker
place (art. Gordon), by means of crescents, whose movements were
transmitted not by rods but by wires and cranks. There were no
rings on Gordon’s flute as figured by Coche, and the one movable
rod visible in the drawing of it (p. 107) is in the mechanism for
F sharp which was taken from Boehm.

In neither of the two articles does Fétis accuse Boehm of acting
in a stealthy manner as Dr. Schafhdutl states. He represents
Boehm as becoming connected with Gordon, recognising the value
of his invention, and proceeding to perfect it.—C. W.
426 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

in 1851, by the Report Committee of the Governments
of the German Zollverein,’ i. p. 882). At the General
German Industrial Exhibition at Munich in 1854, I
likewise analysed Béhm’s invention which was again
crowned unanimously with the great memorial medal.
(‘Report of the Jury of the General German Industrial
Exhibition at Munich,’ 1854, p. 144.)

At the Industrial Exhibition in Paris, in 1855, Bohm
again got the first great gold medal, together with the
declaration of Prince Napoleon : “ Ce nom est une autorité
et une puissance” (this name is an authority and a power),
(See ‘Visites de S.A. le Prince Napoléon aux Produits
collectifs des Nations qui ont pris part 4 |’Exposition de
1855’). Inthe‘ Allg. Mus. Zeitung’ of 1879 I have written
the history of Bohm’s flute up to the most recent time:
‘Allg. Mus. Zeitung,’ 1879, p. 643.

After Bohm’s death the old fable was revived even in
England, so that a flute-artist applied to Munich for
more definite information as to Bohm’s title to the flute
bearing his name. I have written up the whole history
of Bohm’s invention, giving the evidence for Bohm’s
right to his flute. My statement has been published in
the ‘Musical World’ of February 18th, and reprinted in
the ‘Musical Opinion,’ March 1882, pp. 226-227.

BOHM’s TRIP TO ENGLAND. SCHAFHAUTL’S “IM-
PROVEMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PIANOFORTE.

In 1833 Bohm went with his new flute from Paris to
London, causing general sensation by the volume of its
tone, as we shall see later on. He made himself ac-
auainted with the manufacturing of musical instruments
on the grandest scale, the grandeur of which filled him
with astonishment and admiration, and made so deep
an impression on his mechanical genius, that we shall
see him henceforth devoting himself for some time to
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 427

industrial occupations lying far away from music and
musical life.

Already after his first return from London he had
much impressed me with England’s grand activity in
politics, industry, and art—a country where all new
departures in applied science met with a ready recogni-
tion, where liberty, wealth, and splendour had elevated
London to a centre for everything that was beautiful
and grand, especially in the department of music. Bohm
described this country in glowing colours, and awakened
in me a longing to see this, the promised land of
mechanical art.

Fora long time I had occupied myself with the idea
of giving such a form to our grand pianos as would unite
the whole compass of their notes in one harmonious and
uniform whole. I have not. yet seen a grand piano
where all the notes have been in full harmony with one
another. Something was wanting, either in the upper,
in the middle, or in the low section. Bohm deemed my
idea very interesting, and took it up with his usual
ardour. The idea had to be realised. He sketched out
rapidly the requisite plans, and secured for their realisa-
tion a commercial firm which commenced at once to
execute our ideas with the help of three workmen. Two
of the latter, however, wilfully changed the model given
them in its most essential principle, and went to London,
backed by the not over scrupulous head of the firm, taking
with them the model, for which they secured a patent.

The piano-maker who had been Bohm’s partner was
involved in a gigantic law-suit.* I also** went to

85 There were two patents involved in this litigation, the one
taken out by Frederick Ludwig Hahn Danchell, and stated to be
partly a communication from Frederick George Grenier, the other
by Boehm’s friend, whom the Doctor here calls his partner, Robert
Wolf. Both patents were ultimately sealed.

From Wolf's specification we get an idea of the Doctor’s improve-
ment. It is described as “consisting in the new construction, on
the principle of acoustics, of a sounding body applicable to every
428 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

London in 1834; the law-suit was won. The fruit, how-
ever, of the successful law-suit was, as is always the case,
the same in London as everywhere else. The law-suit
had eaten up the means for the realisation of the project.
The construction of a piano according to my idea would
have made the instrument more expensive, and therefore
the further execution of the plan was discarded. How-
ever, a gigantic law-suit carried out by two foreigners in
London is a strange and fascinating episode in one’s life,

In 1833 Bohm went, as already observed, with his flute
to England, and there he caused as much sensation
amongst musicians as amongst amateurs, especially
amongst amateurs of the upper and highest classes of
English society. His playing was admired everywhere,
the majority of amateurs on the flute amongst the
nobility and gentry took lessons of him, and Bohm the
gentleman was very soon introduced as a friend into
the families of his noble pupils.

THE ENGLISH IRON FOUNDRIES AND SMELTING
FURNACES.

His flute and his gentlemanly behaviour opened for
him the way to the largest of the metallurgical works,
which was as a rule absolutely closed to outsiders. I

description of pianoforte.” The invention is stated to consist
“in substituting a hollow receptacle or shell of a curvilinear shape
in lieu of the usual sounding board of pianofortes. The precise
shape of the sounding body is not material, provided the sides be
curvilinear, or limited by curved lines.” There was, of course, to be
a hole in the sounding body ; indeed, three holes are recommended.

It appears that there have been attempts both before and since
this time to substitute a hollow for a solid sounding board, but
they have never proved successful.—C. W.

%° It would seem, then, that the pianoforte which Fétis states
gave occasion to Boehm’s visit to London in 1834 (see supra,
p- 277) was not his own overstrung instrument, but that invented
by his friend Dr. Schafhautl.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 429

made frequent use of this favourable relation of Béhm’s ‘
being equally interested in the vast and celebrated cast
steel foundries of Sheffield. For what may be found
in our technical books on English foundries gives but a
very poor idea of the grandeur of those industrial centres,
besides being frequently erroneous.

We were equally interested in the fact, that the iron
so plentifully produced in England was not adapted for
the manufacture of the finest English cast steel, for which
only the purest Swedish merchant-iron (Stabeisen) from
the magnetic iron-ore at Dannemora, or, for iron of
second rate quality, from the Russian ironworks of Prince
Demidoff, could be used. The production of pig iron
and bar iron was likewise as interesting as it was novel,
and also the gigantic operations.

Schiller in his poem ‘Der Gang nach dem Eisen-
hammer’ tells us of the works of the Count, where in a
high “furnace-fire melted the lump of iron ore:” our
furnaces then were 2 metres, in the best 6 metres high.
The high furnaces of England are 15 to 18 metres high,
real towers built on slopes, the upper part of which one
reaches by means of bridges, and where there are no
mountains, people are forced to get up the coal or ore
by means of an incline oracrane. The most remarkable
thing was the English method of producing in a short
time such quantities of wrought iron and pig iron as.
had hitherto been considered impossible. It is this
marvellous process that has changed not only our whole
technical existence, but also led to quite novel phases of
our social and political life. Without that English
process the manufacture of our rails, and consequently
our system of railways connecting nations with nations
of whom they knew nothing before or only by hearsay
and fable—our powerful vessels of 400 horse-power.
which plough all parts of the ocean—the very thought
of such things would have been folly, but for an invention
made by Cort, a simple iron-worker in Gloucestershire.
430 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Wood had become very scarce in England, and large
forests like those of the Continent had long disappeared.
Coal was used as fuel, England possessing an abundance
of coal ; coals, however, on account of the sulphur con-
tained in them, could not be used in the production of
wrought iron, and consequently the best quality wrought
iron had to be procured from the Continent, and its
price was soon doubled. Cort conceived the idea of
exposing the pig iron to the flames only of the burn-
ing coal, thinking, as he rightly did, that the pig iron
must not come into contact with the coal on account
of the latter’s sulphur. The experiment succeeded
completely.

The pig iron was melted to a paste on a flat hearth
by means of the flames of pit-coal, and then stirred
incessantly until the liquid iron turned into a tough
wrought iron. The stirring and turning in a mass of
that kind, or in clay, was called originally puddling in
English, and therefore this new method of producing
wrought iron in the furnace is called puddling, and the
furnace with its flat hearth a puddle-furnace. Cort
took a patent for his invention, but like most inventors,
he reaped no benefit from it and got ruined, and not
before the process of puddling had been made free and
generally accessible, was it brought to its present state
of perfection. The new process, in addition to its being
advantageous to England, had this advantage for the
whole world, that a much larger quantity of ready
wrought iron could be produced than was possible by
the process in use on the Continent, and it was this
peculiarity of the puddling process that gave a new turn
to our social and technical life. While our puddling
hearth on the Continent couid produce 50 to 60, or at
most 70 to 80 cwt. of wrought iron, a simple puddling
furnace yields at least 300 cwt.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 431

BOHM ESTABLISHES ENGLISH SMELTING FURNACES
IN GERMANY; BECOMES A PUDDLE-MASTER.

Bohm immediately saw the importance of this kind
of bar iron production for his country, Bavaria. I
initiated Bohm into the theory of this process and the
marvellous system of iron-works generally, and Bohm
the flutist soon became as. well acquainted with the
puddling furnace as with his flute.

England was henceforth more than independent of
the supply of iron from foreign countries, but for the
production of the so-called English cast steel, the best
in the world, it could not be used. In smelting the
English ironstone, the so-called clay-ironstone, other
substances besides iron, such as flint and clay, were re-
duced to silicium and aluminium, uniting with the iron ;
the pit-coal flame in the puddle furnace always yielding
a small portion of sulphur that united with the iron. I
made several chemical analyses and soon succeeded in
removing the superfluous parts from the iron during the
puddling process; the means of doing that were,
however, too expensive, and not available in large
quantities. Finally, means that could easily be made
available were found out, which answered the purpose
almost as well as the expensive ones. The foundry
owner under whose auspices our experiments were
made, took a patent for the new process, and Bohm
hastened back to Munich to introduce the English
puddling process in Bavaria, where the old method was
still in use. The introduction proved a perfect success,
and the puddling process was introduced in all iron-
works in Bavaria. This secured for Bohm, on January
2nd, 1839, the Cross of the Knights of the Order of
Merit of St. Michael.

Bohm then visited the iron-works on the Rhine and
its neighbourhood, where he introduced the new patent
in the vast iron-works of M. de Kramer, and also in
432 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

those of Stumm. Meanwhile the new process was
published by the Journal of the Patent Office. In Ger-
many, therefore, a patent could no longer .be obtained;
nevertheless, Bohm visited the owners of Austrian and
Bohemian iron-works, superintending during the day
the puddling process as puddling-master, and appear-
ing in the evening as a flute-artist. The miners would
congregate in front of his house, listening with delight
to his playing. Once, at a Bohemian iron-foundry, he
thought he heard a noise outside the door. He opened
it and found the whole staircase crammed with miners,
After the first surprise one of. the miners who stood
nearest to him, addressed him in the following simple
way : “You do allow us to listen to your playing, don’t
you? We shall all keep quiet.” Bohm bade them
enter, and delighted them every evening with his art.

He now travelled in a double capacity, as a flutist
and as a mining engineer—according to circumstances
—and his flute introduced him to many a house in
Germany, wherein the foot of a simple miner would
have never chanced to tread.

SOJOURN IN Paris, 1834. THE ACOUSTICIAN
SAVART.

Béhm returned for a short time to Munich to see to his
foundries, and soon left for Paris at the end of June
1834, while Gordon was still working at his flute. In
Paris he again played on his ring-keyed flute. The
celebrated flutist Vincent Dorus, who was in the
orchestra of the Grand Opera, gave up his old flute as
soon as he heard Bohm’s instrument, which he forth-
with began to study. The young artist was then
twenty-two years old, and he soon got versed in the
fingering of the new flute.

We have seen already that Bohm’s new flute had
made a great sensation in Paris, in spite of the fact that
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 433

the old flutists, like those in Germany, would not
accept it. However, Farreau, Camus, and Laurent, the
celebrated instrument-makers at the Palais Royal in
Paris, knew already in 1833 Bohm’s flute, as well as
Gordon’s model, and there was no doubt as to which
of the two flutes was the superior. That Béhm’s flute
was not known more rapidly beyond Paris was Bohm’s
own fault, he devoting, as he did, several years to the
manufacture of iron and steel. But after Bohm’s re-
appearance as an artist, at the beginning of May 1837,
his flute made its way very quickly through Paris and
France.

Before everything Bohm was anxious to hear the
opinion of real experts, of learned acousticians, and
therefore applied to Savart, then the most celebrated
acoustician. At first Savart took little notice, of Bohm’s
statement that on his flute one could play with purity
in all scales, declaring that it is “an impossibility to
produce a perfectly pure scale on a flute.” Bohm, how-
ever, convinced Savart by facts of the contrary. Savart
was exceedingly surprised and spoke in a very flattering
way to Bélim, and it was through him that Bohm read
a sketch of his invention, illustrating it by his playing,
to the Académie des Sciences, May 4th, 1837. The
flute was then minutely examined by a committee con-
sisting of celebrated academicians and professors of the
Conservatory, de Prony, Duiong, Savart, Paer, and
Auber, and after gaining a brilliant report, produced a
general interest.

COCHE IN PARIS MAKES CHANGES IN BOHM’S
FLUTE.

Amongst the first persons who devoted an enthusi-

astic study to Bohm’s flute was the excellent flutist

Victor Jean Baptiste Coche, of whom I have spoken

above, a pupil of Tulou’s of the Paris Conservatory, who
2F
434 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

in 1831 had received the first prize when a young man
of twenty-one, and was forthwith appointed teacher by
the side of Tulou. Exactly a year afterwards Bohm
appeared in Paris with his new flute, and most of the
young flutists were quite enthusiastic about the new
instrument.

On November 7th Coche wrote to Bohm: “I cannot
express to you all the admiration I feel every day in
studying your magnificent and rich instrument which
will certainly make a very remarkable revolution in
wind instruments. Hence I cultivate it with much
ardour. May I one day be worthy to share by my
execution the suffrages that rightly belong to this
beautiful invention.”

Coche developed in a separate essay the advantages
of Bohm’s instrument (see above), and wrote in 1839
an elaborate school for the Bohm flute.

It is to be regretted that there arose some differences
and misapprehension between the modest Béhm and his
former admirer Coche. Coche introduced in 1838 a
so-called improvement in Bohm’s flute. It consisted in
that the g# key, which according to Bohm’s principles
was left open, was changed into a closed key, this closed
key being handier for the artists who were used to the
flute than Boéhm’s open g# key. This key was announced
to the whole world as being an improvement; Bohm
replied in vain, that the improvement was quite un-
systematic, since all the notes of the chromatic scale
could be played with purity on his flute with his key.
This did not avail him in Paris. His flute with the
improvements of Coche and Daru (Dorus) began to
become the fashion there, and up to the present time
all Bohm flutes are being made in Paris with a closed
&t key.

Bohm says with regard to that: “All discussions:
concerning my flute refer, properly speaking, to the key-
mechanism, which, as a rule, everybody judges according
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 435

to his individual opinion, every player considering that
the best arrangement which corresponds best to his
fingers. J have always laid stress on my key-system
only in so far as I thought to have reached: my goal in
the simplest way by being consistent; the one principal
point was the improvement of the flute in all its acoustic
relations, the greater or lesser perfection of all musical
instruments resting chiefly on that, while the mechanism
is of subordinate importance. It is also much easier to
construct keys than to improve notes.”

Our Bohm was, as we saw, virtuoso and mining
engineer alternatively. Thus, after playing in Paris he
appeared in London at ‘the fifteenth evening concert
of the new Music Fund for the Relief of Decayed
Musicians, their Widows and Orphans, on Friday the
17th of June, 1836, playing on his new flute.

All that London and the whole world could muster
in great singers of both sexes could be heard at that
concert. Madame Grisi, Mdlle. Assandri, Signor Rubini,
Signor Lablache, and Signor Tamburini represented
vocal music. As instrumental virtuosi there were:
M. Ole Bull, M. Lindley, and Dragonetti, the former one
of the most powerful violoncellists, the latter the Paganini
of the double-bass. M. Casimir Backer played a
fantasia on the harp. After Ole Bull the bill announced
M. Theobald Bohm, who was to play a fantasia on his
newly invented flute, adding, this “being his first per-
formance in London this season.” *

37 New MusIcaL FUND,
This Evening, Friday, Fune.17, 1836.
PROGRAMME OF THE CONCERT.

PART I. 4
Grand Sinfonia, | No. 7 ee Haydn
Duetto, Signor TVANOFF and SIGNOR TAMBURINI, ‘“ Ove M
* yai” (Guillaume Tell). aie = “4 é Rossini
Aria, Mlle. ASSANDRI, ‘‘ Se Romeo” “ad Capuletti : ‘eras

Montechi} + » a + - 4 Se a eo :
2F
436 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

The instrument-makers of London now took an ever-
increasing interest in Bohm’s flute. In conjunction with
several manufacturers, Bohm constructed several musical
instruments.

By the end of July Béhm repaired to his own country

 

Sonata, Violoncello and Contra Basso, Mr. LINDLEY and

Signor DRAGONETTI. - . + «© + 5 + «oe Corelli
Duetto, Mrs. H. R. BisHop and Miss Masson, ‘‘ Deh!

conte’ (Norma) . . . « + + + « + « Bellini
Polacca, e Quartetto, Madame G. Grist, Signor RUBINI,

Signor TAMBURINI, and Signor LaBLacHE, ‘Son at

virgin vezzosa” (I Puritani). Bellini

Duetto, Signor RuBint and Signor LaBLacHE, ‘‘Se
inclinassi” (L’ Italiana in Algieri) . 2 oe 0 +) Rossini
Mr. OLE B, BULL

Will perform, on the Violin, an Adagio Sentimentale and
Rondo Pastorale. . . - « e © + + « + Ole B. Bull

PART II.

Un Morceau de Poésie Musicale Romantique, intitulé,

‘¢Marche au suplice et délivrance d’un innocent,”

pour la Harpe, M. Casimir BACKER, from Paris . C. Batcher
Air, Mrs. W. Knyvert, ‘‘Let the bright Seraphim,”

Trumpet Obligato, Mr. HARPER (Samson) . . . Handel
Irish Melody, Mr. Hopss, ‘* There is not in this wide

world a valley so sweet.”
‘Fantasia in A b, Mr. THEOBALD BOEHM, on his newly

constructed Flute (being his first performance in

London this season) . Sr Mew id, ay hae Se ae AOE
Air, Mr. BELLAMY, ‘Honor and Arms” (Samson) . . Aandel
Ballad, Miss WaGsTAFF, ‘‘Go, forget me” . . . P. Mortimer, Esq.
Recit. and Air, Mr. Leoni Lez, ‘‘ The fulness of thy

presence” (The Omnipresence of the Deity) . . . Z. Barnett
Capriccio-Fantastico for the Violin, Mr. OLE B. BULL
(without accompaniments) . . . + . . . Ole B. Bull

-

The Subscribers and the Public are respectfully acquainted that
Madame CARADORI ALLAN is not sufficiently recovered to fulfil her kind
promise of singing in this Concert.

 

 

The Instrumental Band

Will consist of many of the most celebrated Performers from the
Orchestras of the Philharmonic Society, the Italian Opera House, some’ of
the Pupils of the Royal Academy of Music (by permission of the Noble-
men and Gentlemen forming the Committee of that Institution) and the
Members of the New Musical Fund. i

All the Performers have most kindly promised their gratuitous aid
upon this charitable occasion. .

Books of the Performance, with a List of the Subscribers, can be had
Price one shilling only) at the Opera House.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF. BOEHM. 437

in order to visit the Austrian foundries. On his arrival
at the frontier of Austria he was taken. ill with a violent
attack of cholera ; his iron constitution, however, saved
him in this case too. In his illness he suffered very
much from thirst. At last his physician permitted him
to drink water, but he soon got fearful cramps, and
the physician was at a loss what to do. Béhm quickly
recovered, but the thirst again set in. He asked his
nurse for water. The woman refused it at first, knowing,
as she did, what terrible consequences it would have ;
finally, she yielded. Béhm, however, cautiously kept
the water in his mouth, not swallowing it before it had
become warm, and repeating this proceeding as long as
he felt thirsty, he soon recovered. From that time
onwards he became a most ardent adherent of water as
his only and favourite beverage to his end.

His flute factory had meanwhile been conducted by
his excellent workman Grevé, Bohm thus being enabled
to devote his time to foundries. In 1838 he travelled
through Austria, or rather Bohemia, visiting its
foundries.

Meanwhile Coche had extensively introduced Béhm’s
flute in Paris; at the same time, however, there arose,
as we have seen, a rumour amongst musicians, that
Bohm’s new flute was, properly speaking, the invention
of the above-named Colonel Gordon. Coche wrote on
that to Bohm, dated May 25th, 1835. Bohm replied on
June 2nd of the same year. Coche published Bohm’s
letter, and also that of Madame Gordon ; Gordon him-
self was ill and demented, as we have seen above.
Coche had laid Béhm’s flute, of course in his own
improved form, before the Paris Académie Royale des
Beaux-Arts. The committee consisted of Cherubini,
Paer, Auber, Halévy, Carafa, and Berton as reporter,
all world-famed names. The academicians adopted the
report of Berton, as was testified by Quatremére Quincy,
the secretary of the Académie. Berton sent Coche his
438 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

minutes fully acknowledging the value and ingenuity of
Bohm’s invention.

The reason why Paris flutists came to consider Gordon
as the inventor of Béhm’s flute may be found in the
circumstance that Gordon, a former pupil of Drouet, had
communicated both to Drouet and Tulou, the celebrated
flutist, his ideas about an improved flute; the system
seemed to them acceptable enough, but they energeti-
cally objected to an innovation in the old fingering. It
is hardly to be expected that two such celebrated virtuosi
would ever make themselves familiar with the essence
of Gordon’s and Bohm’s system.

Bohm has left us the history of his invention in
a separate drochure, entitled ‘On Flute Construction’
(Mayence, 1847), where he says very convincingly, “I
think the most conclusive evidence of the authenticity of
my invention I can furnish is by showing the motives
that have prompted me to invent the new construction,
and by the explanation of the acoustical and mechanical
principles I have made use of. For he alone is able to
make a thoroughly rational work, who from the very
outset can give a clear account of the Why and the How
in the execution of every single part.” Bohm translated
this pamphlet into French, dedicating it to ‘his friend
Dorus, the celebrated flutist, who, as we have already
heard, had discarded his flute as soon as he heard Bohm
on the new flute. Dorus likewise contributed very much
to the spread of Béhm’s flute in France; Bohm grate-
fully recognised that in his dedication : “ Your exquisite
talent has rendered popular my flute of 1832 in France.”

BOHM’s IMPROVEMENT OF THE TRANSMISSION
APPARATUS.

Bohm was still busily engaged in fitting up the
Bavarian iron foundries, for which the King, as we have
already seen, made him, on June 2nd, 1839, a Knight of
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 439

the Order of Merit of St. Michael, of the first class. In
spite of that we find him at short intervals in Paris and
London, closely studying technical works of the age.
Thus the so-called transmission apparatus—that is,
the mechanical means employed for transmitting the
motive power to various parts of a manufactory—had
rendered necessary all’sorts of complicated contrivances,
such as shafts and wheels, which wasted by friction,
torsion, and their very weight, more or less of the force.
With his marvellous gift for combination Béhm in-
vented, incidentally as it were, during his stay in London,
a new and very simple kind of transmission, without
shafts and straps, of which he made a small model, which
was so ingenious that he was prevailed upon to put it
before the Society of Arts in.London. The Society was
so much pleased with the new mechanical idea, that they
voted Béhm the big silver medal, which he received
from the President, the Duke of Sussex, at the public
meeting of the Society at Exeter Hall, June 8th, 1835.

BOum’s Last IMPROVEMENT IN THE FLUTE.
THE CYLINDER FLUTE, 1847.

We have now reached the last and most brilliant
remodelling of the flute, the cylindrical flute of metal
and wood.

It dates from 1846-47. While Bohm was still busy
in Bavaria with the introduction of a new invention by
Faber du Four, consisting in a method of utilising the
combustible gases escaping uselessly from the upper
aperture of the furnace, he availed himself of every spare
minute for the purpose of striking out a last improve-
ment of his ring-key flute, making numerous experiments
in his workshop. At last, in 1847, he gave his flute the
final touch.

By constant exposure to the glowing heat of the
puddling furnaces his eyes were much weakened, and
440 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

had become very sensitive; no treatment proved of any
use, and finally he was obliged to ask the King to
pension him as a member of the Royal Court Band. At
the end of September 1848 his request was complied
with, his pension being fixed at 1080 florins.

Bohm could henceforth devote all his powerful energies
to the spread of his new invention, no other work or
obligation keeping him away from it.

We have already seen that Cloche (Coche), the cele-
brated flute-player in Paris, had explained to his coun-
trymen the nature of Bohm’s flute, thereby doing very
much, both theoretically and practically, for the spread
of the same. The flute was manufactured and turned
out in great perfection by the Paris manufacturers,
Godefroy ainé et Lot.

CARTE THE FLUTE-PLAYER’S WRITINGS FOR BOHM
IN LONDON.

Boéhm’s flute was made in England, and most perfectly
too, by the celebrated and oldest London flute manufac-
turers, Messrs. Rudall and Rose; and the celebrated flute-
player R. Carte quickly éxchanged the old flute for the
ring-keyed flute of Bohm, giving, however, lessons on
both. He wrote a complete School for Béhm’s Flute,
both with the closed and with the open gf key. That
School reached several editions. ‘Its title is: “R. Carte.
A Complete Course of Instruction for the Boehm Flute
(both the open and the g-keyed flute) for Beginners, as
well as for those acquainted with the old Flute. 1845.”
He also wrote another interesting work: “The Boehm
Flute explained. Analysis extracted from the Complete
Course of Instruction for the Boehm Flute, by R. Carte.
London, 1846.”

This analysis is very clear. It may not only serve
as an introduction to an understanding of Bohm’s
flute, but it also furnishes a complete instruction for the
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM, A4t

production of notes in the first, second, and third octaves,
In a separate section the so-called French improvements
are discussed, namely, the closed &% key, in relation to
the originally open key of the Béhm flute; and it is
declared that the application of the open gf key on the
Béhm flute, instead of the closed key of the old flute,
forms one of its chief excellences compared with the old
flute. Carte proves that by musical examples on a page
and a half. This alone was a demonstratio ad oculos
. against the French prejudice, and a practical evidence
of the perfection of Bohm’s system that can be found
in no other work. Carte also expressly declared that
beginners get much more rapidly familiar with the
\ fingering of Bohm’s new flute than with that of the old
flute. (Of Carte’s writings and zeal for Bohm I shall
treat in a subsequent section.)

In Paris, the excellent flute manufacturer, M. Clair
Godefroy, bought of Bohm the right of making his new
flute for 6000 francs. The instrument maker Lot did
the same. He got a privilege on Béhm’s flute, both
old and new style. They spread their excellent instru-
ments throughout France. Thus it came to pass that
Bohm’s flute was spread over England, France, and the
whole world by Rudall and Rose, and Godefroy and Lot.

On its first wanderings many a curious bit of adventure
happened to Bohm’s ring-keyed flute. Flutists were, as
a tule, at first startled at the sight of the new flute, and
soon got into a dilemma on account of the marvellously
beautiful tone of the new instrument on the one hand,
and its new fingering on the other. In 1850 such a new
flute had reached Naples, there causing general sensa-
tion among flute-players. Scaramelli, professor of the
flute in the Conservatory, felt particularly attracted to
the new instrument. Dr. Isenschmied, at present in
Munich, who was at that time physician to the King of
Naples, and also one of Scaramelli’s pupils, relates as
follows :—Scaramelli had to overcome a fierce struggle
442 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

between the old-fashioned flute and that of Bohm. The:
tone of the new flute greatly attracted him, but the new
fingering was like a cold damper on his enthusiasm. He
nevertheless unceasingly resorted to the new flute, trying
it again and again, and finding at last that it worked
more and more satisfactorily. He found that the diffi-
culty of handling it, which seemed terrible at the outset,
could be mastered in short time, and finally he was-bold
enough to. wager with the flute-players of Naples that
within four months his execution would be just as great
on the new flute as it was on the old one. The wager
was taken, and four weeks afterwards Scaramelli played
on the new flute, amidst colossal applause, a flute con-
certo with orchestra, during an entr’acte at the S. Carlo
Theatre. He also defended Béhm’s flute against the
attacks of a Florentine musician, proving that the latter
had never grasped the principle that formed the basis of
that instrument.

B6uHmM’s ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF HIS NEW
CYLINDRICAL FLUTE.

This ring-key flute, however, did not quite satisfy
Bohm as regarded the tone and intonation of the high
and low notes. This, the last drawback, could not be
removed without a total change in the bore of the tube.

The endeavour to remove this drawback led Bohm to
the invention of his last flute—the cylindrical one, with
large sound-holes closed by covered keys, and with a
conoidal head-piece.

“T always failed to understand,” says Bohm, “why
the flute alone, amongst all tubular instruments with
sound-holes and a conical bore, should be blown at its
thick end, it being much more natural that the air-column
sections, that become shorter by increasing tone-height,
should also become thinner in proportion. I therefore
tried to reverse the proportions, and soon found that my
view was correct. It was not till 1847 that I succeeded
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 443

in manufacturing flutes according to a scientific system,
for which I received the highest prize at the Exhibiticn
in London in 1851, and in Paris in 1855.”

“T had,” he continues, “made a great number of conical
and cylindrical tubes, of the most varied dimensions, and
from all kinds of wood and metal, in 1846, in order that
I might investigate their adaptibility for pitch, timbre,
and tone-production. These experiments led to the
following results :—

“1, That the volume and purity of the sound of those
fundamental notes was in proportion to the volume of
the vibrating air-column.

“2, That a more or less important narrowing of the
upper part of the flute tube, as well as the reduction or
increase in length of that narrowed portion, have a great
influence on the production of notes and the pitch of the
octave.

“3, That this narrowing has to be made in a certain
geometrical progression, which yields a curve very near
in form to a parabola.

“4, That the formation of vibratory nodes and sound-
waves is produced easiest and most perfectly in a cylin-
drical flute-tube, the sectional width of which is equal
to the s4th part of the length of the tube, and the nar-
towing of which, commencing at the upper quarter, is
equal to zyth of the section where the cork closes it.”

This is the origin of the present cylindrical flute. Fur-
ther experiments taught Bohm that as regards the pro-
portion of the width of cylindrical tubes to their length,
the most beautiful tone is produced with a length of
606 millimetres and a diameter of 20 millimetres.

“The high tones, however, were not easily produced,
and I was forced,” he adds, “to make the tube 606 milli-
metres long by 19 millimetres in diameter.”

Bohm made numerous experiments concerning the

best size of the embouchure.
An embouchure of 12 millimetres in length and 10
444 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

millimetres in width will best respond to the wants of
most flute-players. After these experiments Bohm made
a thin and long tube of brass, which yielded the funda-
mental note ¢c on being merely breathed into, and the note
could be increased to a very considerable force without
losing its pitch. The wheezing sound of the air-current,
which is so painful in ordinary flutes, was not audible.

Thus having determined the best dimensions of the
tube, Bohm proceeded to the difficult investigation of
the proper places of the finger-holes.

Béhm’s second endeavour was to enlarge the note-
holes to such an extent, that the flute might be consi-
dered as cut off over the middle of the note-hole. A note-
hole that is not equal in size to the diameter of the flute
has the effect that the air-column below the note-holes
is retarding and slackening the tone, which therefore
appears to be lower, despite the note-holes, than in flutes
that are cut off over the middle of the note-hole. Hence
if we cut off the flute below the note-hole, the note
becomes higher than the note of the entire flute with the
large note-hole in the middle. If, however, we cut off
the flute over the note-hole of the diameter (or cut it off
from the diameter over the note-hole) the note becomes
lower than the flute with the larger note-hole in the
middle ; if wecut off the flute through the middle of the
sound- hole, the note becomes somewhat higher than that
of the entire flute with the big side-hole in the middle.

This retarding effect of the air-column below the
sound-hole can be rendered imperceptible, according to
Bohm’s experiments, by making the diameter of the
sound-hole at least three-quarters of the diameter of
the flute. Sound-holes of that size cannot, however, be
made in wooden flutes, the thickness of the wood in-
fluencing the depth of the tone.

The practical size of the sound-hole, and the possi-
bility of closing and covering it, proved to be 13°5
millimetres in the silver flute, and 13 millimetres in the
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 445

wooden one, on account of the thickness of the wood ;
the silver flute in g, the so-called alto flute, was 21 milli-
metres in diameter. These large sound-holes can no
longer be covered by the fingers. Bohm therefore. made
over every sound-hole a key closing the hole, and the
fingers of the player thus bore not on the sound-
hole itself but on the key closing the hole. This
rational and ingenious key mechanism renders the
playing much more agreeable and more sure than on
the old flute, on which the finger had to close tightly
the sound-hole; now it bears only on the key. Yet
this improvement, apparently so easy, proved to be
very difficult to bring about. Experiments were carried
on for months to find a material fit for the pad of the
key, in order that the lightest touch on the key should
close the sound-hole air-tight. The material now used
is of very good wool cloth, in a double layer of films
taken from the amnion of certain mammalia.”

38 The most desirable size for the finger-holes is still a guestio
vexata amongst English flute-players. When the cylindrical flute
was first introduced in this country, the holes were so small that
they were closed with the fingers, the instrument being constructed
with rings like the cone flute. Before the end of 1847 Boehm had
increased the size of the holes so much, that it became necessary
to substitute valves for the rings, the holes being too large for the
unaided finger to cover. In 1862, when the patent for the cylinder
had expired, Mr. Clinton began to make cylindrical flutes. He
had previously declared that if the cylinder was right, Nature
herself must be wrong ; but he now came to the opinion that the
cylinder could be brought into harmony with Nature by causing
the holes to diminish in size from below upwards. Accordingly,
he brought forward a flute with the holes graduated from the
lowest, C ff, which was nearly as large as the bore, to that for
C }?, which was about half the size. Mr. Clinton, however,
was not successful as a manufacturer of cylindrical flutes. In the
year 1864 Messrs. Rudall & Co. began to make Mr. Rockstro’s
model, on which the holes were very much larger than those
previously in use, but instead of being graduated, as on Mr. Clinton's
flute, were of uniform diameter. Exception, however, was taken
by some players to these holes. It was urged against them,
amongst other objections, that they necessitated a larger expendi-
446 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

The new key mechanism is a marvellous master-
piece of mechanics. The ten sound-holes, with ten keys,

ture of breath, and that the intonation had a tendency to become
“wild,” or unmanageable, so that greater strength of lip was
required to control it. In deference to such allegations, holes of
a size intermediate between these large holes and the comparatively
small-sized holes previously in use were introduced. They were
called the medium holes. For many years Messrs. Rudall’s flutes
were made either with the large or medium holes, the small-sized
holes having fallen into disuse. Of late, however, some of the
leading English players, professional as well as amateur, considering
even the medium holes to be too large, are playing on instruments
with. holes but little larger than those which had dropped out
of use, so that at the present time (1896) Messrs. Rudall & Co. are
manufacturing flutes with holes of three different sizes : the large
holes with a diameter of 15°3 millimetres, the medium holes of 14° 3.
and the small holes of 13'5.. Each size has its admirers, but
which of the three is destined to become the favourite, time alone
can show. The determining influence will probably be the fashion
set by the leading players of the day.

An excellent flute can be made with holes of so small a diameter
as 12 millimetres. The harmonics and certain fingerings of high
notes are not so free, it is true, as on flutes with holes of larger.
size, but, on the other hand, in its tone there is an unmistakable
approach to the mellow, tender, plaintive, sympathetic quality for
which the old flute was so remarkable, a quality the advocates of
that instrument maintain was destroyed by Boehm. Tastes differ.
For one, the more flute-like effect of the small-holed flute, its.
greater certainty in striking distant intervals from above down-
wards, and the thrilling power of the high notes will seem to
have a priceless charm ; another will set a higher value on the
pure, pale, chaste ¢zbre of the large holes; whilst an unprejudiced
player will not withhold his admiration from flutes made with
holes of either size.

Boehm made experiments with holes of different sizes, but never,
even at the end of his life, satisfied himself as to the exact diameter
which combined the greatest number of advantages. In his
pamphlet of 1847-he expresses the opinion that the holes should be
as large as possible ; but in 1866, in reply to a correspondent who
had asked why the holes should not be as large as the bore, he
wrote that to attempt to make the holes as large as the bore would
be to betray “a want of taste and feeling for real musical tone.”
He objected to holes of an extreme size, on account of the large
space taken up by the chamber in the tube caused by the hole, or
.SCHAFHAUTL’'S LIFE OF BOEHM. 447

would require ten fingers ; the flute-player, however, can
dispose only of eight fingers for the ten keys. In
the natural position of the eight fingers on the flute-
tubes, the sounds g and 6 remain free. These two free
keys are connected by means of a highly ingenious
mechanism with the other keys, in such a manner as
to be brought into motion by some other key of the
flute. The g key was so coupled with the «, f, and ft
keys that it could be pressed down by any one of
these keys. The Bh was connected directly with the
free B key and Ff key.

This marvellous coupling Bohm had effected by
changing the horizontal axis of his ring-keyed flute into
a real joint (charniére); he pushed another tube or
several small tubes over the axis, soldering to them the
key-lever, so that on the same axis several keys closed
or opened according to the wants of the player. The
coupling on the g-key is effected by a stirrup (clutch) con-

sisting of two parts. The coupling of the ¢ f, /# and a
keys is effected by little movable screws with the point
of the screw bearing on the knob (nose) of the underlying
axis ; nay, it is quite a task to comprehend the inter-
lacing of the keys on the flute itself.”

the “hollow room” as he termed it. “It is a defect in the bore,”
he remarked, “ which is repeated twelve times, as there are twelve
holes.” Referring to holes of 17 millimetres in diameter, two
millimetres: only. less than the bore, he said that the tone was
certainly louder, but that its quality was impaired. He mentioned
that he had constructed for himself a flute with holes 15 milli-
metres in diameter, one millimetre larger, than the holes he usually
made. He describes the tone as louder, but not so sonorous.—
Cc. W.

% The Doctor is as firmly convinced that Boehm was incapable
of taking ideas from others as is Mr. Rockstro that he was incapable
of constructing the flute called after him without having Gordon’s
instrument before his eyes. He has already (p. 417) attributed one
- of Buffet’s inventions, the needle springs, to his friend, and he here
¢redits him with two others, the clutches and the sleeves.
448 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

The second improvement, that of the cover-keyed
flute, dates, as we have seen, from 1851. Béhm sent the
first silver flute of that kind, together with an alto flute
of silver and an oboe, to the first great Industrial Exhibi-
tion in London.

SPREAD, RECOGNITION AND USE OF THE SAME.

The ring-key flute had already been received, in
England, for instance, with great enthusiasm. The
English newspapers, such as the ‘Musical World, the
‘Morning Post,’ the ‘Connoisseur,’ the ‘ Manchester Guar-
dian,’ expressed great admiration for Bohm’s flute ; and
the enthusiasm for the last cylindrical flute was still
greater. Giulio Briccialdi, probably the greatest flute-
player of his time, soon discarded his old flute, and after
four weeks’ practice on Bohm’s flute, was received with
enormous applause by an audience. He added an im-
provement to Béhm’s flute, namely a closed *® a key,
although Bohm had made a dp lever, in addition to the
¢ key, which satisfied all that the player could desire.

Messrs. Rudall & Rose in their list of prices charge
26/. 8s. for a Bohm silver flute ; for the dy key of Bricci-
aldi they charge an additional 1. 15.

Already in the year 1850, August 2oth, an order for a
silver cylindrical flute had come from Cannanore, East
India; the receipt for it went by Madras, and arrived in
Augsburg on October 26th, 1851, the flute itself having
been on the route for one year and four days. It was
ordered by Frohnert, orchestral conductor, who wrote
Bohm, that having made the acquaintance of an officer
of the East India Company, Prescott, who had frequently.
played duets with Bohm while in London, he saw one
of Béhm’s ring-key flutes, made by Rudall and Rose.
Amongst many letters from all countries of Europe,

* The Briccialdi key is not a closed key, but a lever for closing’
the BP key with the left thumb,—C. W. :
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 449

there is one from Shanghai (China) O.S.O., dated
December 22nd, 1866; it lies before me. It contains an
order from Remusat, the celebrated flute-player to the
Queen of England; he had seen one of Béhm’s cylin-
drical alto flutes at Broadwood’s in London, and desired to
have one made of German silver. He was determined
to give up his old flute, on which he had been playing
for thirty years, for Bohm’s flute. Hermann Miller, in
Leipsic, wrote a poem of three stanzas on Theobald Bohm’s
exquisite silver flute, May 30th, 1850. W. Scherrer,
the celebrated flute-player in Konigsberg, wrote Bohm,
October 12th, 1849, an enthusiastic letter, in which he
says, “Bravo, bravissimo! my dear Bohm, and let me
assure you that this exquisite flute surpasses all the
-. expectations I ever entertained concerning the improve-
ment of this incomparable instrument. Long ago I tried
to arrange the classical sonatas of Beethoven for the
flute; many amongst them, however, presented enormous
difficulties, but now the last of the difficulties has
vanished, and a perfect world of Beethoven music is my
own, from the time I possess the flute, the purity and
uniformity of tone of which are so great that not a shadow
of a note need be sacrificed. In order to enjoy all the
excellence of your unsurpassable master-invention, in an
adagio with piano accompaniment, pray play with a
clever pianist Beethoven’s sonata op. 96 and its two
adagios, I also’ recommend you the sonatas op. 23, 24,
30 (No. I, 2, 3) on account of their exquisite adagios.
I could also procure you my arrangement of three of
Bach’s sonatas, composed for piano and violin. Not only
the dolces and andantes of these sonatas sound beautiful
on your new flute, but also the allegros and prestos, all
very learnedly built up in fugue form which could not
have been executed on the old flute, somewhat better
on your improved flute of 1832, on your latest metal
flute, however, everything can be brought out with
brilliancy,” &c.

”

G
450 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Letters to the same effect are before me, from
England, America, East India, Russia, Odessa, Mann-
heim, Wiesbaden, Zurich.

Even in St. Petersburg, Antoine Sauvlet, first flute of
the Imperial theatres, dedicated to Bohm, “the celebrated
inventor of the new system of flutes,” a “ Souvenir du
Volga,” a “ fantaisie caractéristique ” (morceau de salon)
for the flute with piano accompaniment.

The composer of that piece understood very well how
to turn to account the peculiarity of Bohm’s flute. His
fantasia commences in F minor, a key in which no‘one
had previously dared to play on the flute. _It is a simple
melody, advancing from meno mosso to animato; and
moving through a major in the middle register of the
flute, in a cantilene full of melancholy, it descends to d
in a more cheerful mood, modulating afterwards through
C major and F major. The musical idea is carried, on
by brisk triplets, and in diminuendos and rallentandos
through D minor, B major, E minor, C { major, F $ major,
G ¢ major, returning through E minor to the first move-
ment in F minor, changing after the seventh bar into F,
through D minor and A major. The subject changes
into a rollicking adlegro, the piano responding in chat-
tering triplets until the flute, in tempo primo, coquetting
with the piano, reaches the original F minor. After a
temporary descent of the melody into F major, in the
old three-beat rhythm of the introduction, a jubilant
allegro vivo \eads the song on to its conclusion.

The power of the Bohm flute was most conclusively
proved in the few bars of that musical composition,

BOHM’S REFUTATION OF THE ERROR INTRODUCED
BY CHLADNI, THAT THE MATERIAL OF THE
INSTRUMENT IS WITHOUT ANY INFLUENCE ON
THE TONE.

Bohm, as we have seen, made during that period a
very interesting step towards the refutation of an error
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 451

-rife amongst acousticians, an error that had been brought
into the world by -Chladni, and being credulously
accepted, was spreading everywhere, and finally figured
as a scientific dogma in the text-books. Chladni
asserted that the material of which an instrument was
‘made had no, or very little influence on its tene-colour.
Nowadays it is taught, as an advanced result of acousti-
cal investigations, that the material of a wind instrument
has no influence on the tone. “A flute made of glass,
&c., sounds like one made of wood.” Even if this state-
-ment is only a theoretical development, we are bound to
.say that the person who actually compared a glass flute
with a wooden one must have lacked the least aptitude
for music, Already in his ‘On the Construction of Flutes’
(1847), p. 16, Béhm had said, “Flutes were also made
of ivory, Laurent in Paris made flutes of crystal glass, in
Nuremberg a flute was made of papier-maché, in Berlin
one for Frederick the Great, of porcelain, and Dingler
at Munich made flutes even of wax.” The poorest tone
was of course that of flutes of the last kind.

_ Bohm had used drawn brass tubes, these being readily
-procurable and easily manageable. The exceedingly easy
production of tone in these brass tubes surprised him,
and thus, after having made the ring-keys, he constructed
‘first a tube of brass, then of silver, German silver, &c.
Regarding this he says in his last work, ‘ The Flute, its
Construction and Handling,’ p. 9: “On the colour of the
.tone the greater or lesser hardness and brittleness of
the material exerts the greatest influence. There are
numerous experiences with regard to that, for there are
flutes of ivory, crystal glass, china, india-rubber, papier-
maché, nay even of wax. All these experiments caused
the manufacturers to go back to the use of very hard
-wood, until I succeeded in making flutes of silver, and
German silver, which have competed with the wooden
flute these twenty years (this he said in 1871), without
anybody being able to decide which of the two is the

2G2
452 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

better. The silver flutes are, on account of their great
aptitude for modulation and their bright and sonorous
tones, especially fitted for large halls. Since, however,
the tone-production is, in a measure, too easy, thus
leading the player too frequently to over blow, thus pro-
ducing hard and screaming notes, the advantages of the
silver flute can be availed of only by him who has studied
it most carefully. For this reason wooden flutes are
being made according to my system, these answering
the purposes of most flute-players somewhat better, and
they also are preferred in Germany on account of their
full and agreeable sound. In England, however, the
silver flute is carrying the day almost exclusively.”
Thus Rudall and Rose write, September 2nd, “There
is not the slightest doubt about your metal flute being
greatly superior to every other. Indeed, it is believed
that there is no other wind instrument that combines
sO many advantages.” And the flute-virtuoso George
Rudall writes at the same time, “I have played at
numerous reunions, and your metal flute has caused
universal admiration and enthusiasm. All exclaimed,
‘Tt surpasses our ideas how the flute could be brought to
such perfection.” There are dozens of letters from all
countries expressing admiration for the metal flute.
Then came the great Industrial Exhibition of All
Nations in London ; it was the first and the grandest in
its way in London, and also with regard to the partici-
pation of all nations of the globe. Ofthe musical instru-
ments exhibited the flutes alone interest us. Among
the most interesting instruments of the exhibition we
class a new silver flute by Bohm, with covered keys;
furthermore a piccolo and an oboe on the same system.
Rudall and Rose, the oldest and most celebrated flute
manufacturers of England, also exhibited flutes on
Bohm’s system, and received the prize medal for these
flutes. There was also the improved patent flute of the
celebrated flute-player Carte, then the patent flute of the

fom n
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 453

celebrated flute-player Clinton.

He, too, availed himself

of the BGhm arrangement of the finger-holes ; however,

he attempted to retain the old
fingering by means of a pecu-
liar mechanism.

There were of course flutes
from various countries. From
France there was Godefroy
with the Bohm flute; Berton
from Paris had also brought
a flute on ‘Boéhm’s system.
There was also Tulou with
his so-called improved Bohm
flute? From North America

“| Tulow’s improved flute was a
flute on the old system, with closed
keys and very small holes, as shown
in the engraving, which is ‘taken
from his Mechod., In addition to
the two shake keys at the top, there
was a second. middle C key with a
hole of its own, and a key for F¢¥, to
sharpen this note when it was shaken
with G. The fingering is given in
his Method ‘second edition, p. 61).

Tulou was violently opposed to
the Boehm system on the twofold
ground that the simplicity of the old
fingering was abolished, whilst the
enlargement of the holes destroyed
the charm of the instrument by con-
verting its liquid sweetness into a dry
and reedy tone like that of the haut-
boy. When I showed him the Sic-
cama flute on which I played, as a
young man, during my residence in
Paris, he at once objected to the
large size of the holes, and exclaimed;
repeating the words with vehemence,
“Je n’aime pas le systtme!” So
conservative was he that he preferred

 

 

Cadence de nEG9

 

Clef dur#.... pF

Clefs d’ur }...

  
 

Clef de s1b ..|

AG)

Clef de sox $..

 

 

 

@
Clef d ae
ef dé ra Z 3
Clefs de ra}..13H qe
@
Clef de nex b.
Clef Wor #....

Clef @ur & ....

 

 

 

 

Fig. 46.—Tulou’s Improved Flute.
454 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

there was Pfaff of Philadelphia. There were flutes front
the Zollverein, from Essen, Neukirchen, Klingenthal,’
Mainz, and from Switzerland and Denmark.

The jury of the Exhibition were:—Sir H. Dr.
Bishop, professor of music in the University of Oxford,
president; Sterndale Bennet, professor of the Royal
Atademy of Music in London; Hector Berlioz,’ from
France; Dr. Robert Black, from the United States of
America; Ritter Sigismund Neukomm, from Germany ;
Cyprian Potter, President of the Royal Academy of
Music; then myself, Béhm’s biographer,’ and also as:
juror of the Vereinsland; then Sir George Smart, or-
ganist and composer for the Chapel Royal ; Sigismund
Thalberg; Dr. Henry Wilde, Professor of the Royal
Academy of Music.

Bohm’s flute caused the greatest sensation, exciting
the greatest interest amongst all musicians, and receiving:
finally, after the most careful examination of every single
detail, unanimously, the first prize, the great prize medal.
(See ‘ Official Report on the Industrial Exhibition of All
Nations in London in 1851, by the Report-committee
of the Governments of the German Zollverein,’ vol. i..
p. 882, and pp. 934-935).

Bohm’s flute was manufactured in most countries, but:
chiefly in North America ; however, the flutes made in.
Béhm and Mendler’s factory in Munich have never.
been equalled. The best Bohm flutes in London were
made by Rudall and Rose, in Paris by Godefroy and’
Lot, whence they spread all over the world.

A grand imitation of the London Industrial Exhibition.
was arranged in Paris in 1855. In addition to his silver
flute Béam sent to that exhibition a wooden flute and

 

flutes without the long keys in the foot, indeed his favourite
instrument was the four-keyed flute. He once took me to the
Conservatoire, where we found his pupils playing trios on flutes
with only one kev in the foot.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM, 455

models, calculations, and designs, and a method of
determining the measures and proportions of flutes of all
pitches, in a mechanical or graphical way. In Paris, and
therefore in France, Bohm’s flute had become musically
common property. The jury accorded him unanimously
the first prize, namely the gold medal of honour, and the
president of the Paris Exhibition committee, Prince
Napoleon Bonaparte, expressed his particular admiration
of Béhm’s invention. A reporter says, “His Royal
Highness terminated his eighteenth visit at the twenty-
seventh class, Instruments of Music, and declared, ‘If
France, occupying as she incontestably does the first rank
in the manufacture of musical instruments, were to dread
a competitor, it would be Bavaria with its wood wind
instruments. In that class foreign countries had one
name only to oppose to France, but that name is an

. authority and a power ; we refer to M. Bohm, of Munich.
As an artiste, as an inventor, and as a manufacturer,
M. Bohm has carried every branch of his art to the high-
est perfection. He has given his name to a new system
applied to the flute. He has sent two models to the
Exhibition, one of metal, the other of wood, which have
secured for him the great medal of honour.’” (See ‘ Visite
de S.A.I. le Prince Napoléon aux produits collectifs
des nations qui ont pris part a Exposition de 1855.’)
The prince then declared, with fullest admiration, “ His
name is an authority and a power.”

The report of the president of the French jury,
director Joseph Helmesberger of the Vienna Conser-
vatory of Music, is to the same effect, Helmesberger
expressing himself also as a German, “The author of
these lines cannot refrain from saying, in concluding his
report on the XXVIIth Class, that German ingenuity,
as displayed at the Paris Exhibition, is to be congratu-
lated chiefly for the manufacture of wood wind instru-
ments, We most heartily recognise here a German as
the reformer of the flute, our celebrated master Bohm
456 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

of Munich, who has been unanimously accorded the
great medal of honour. The excellent, nay inestimable
system of the ingenious artiste, which will no doubt be
applied to other wind instruments besides the flute,
‘must be regarded as a real advance in the construction
of musical instruments, and will no doubt meet with
general acceptance. May the esteemed master find full
recompense for the slowness with which his invention
has been spreading, in the well-merited recognition
accorded him in the Exhibitions of London, Munich, and
now also in Paris, as well as in the conviction that he
has acquired a lasting and excellent name in the history
of the development of musical instruments !”

All this remained on paper, and not one musician out
of a thousand read it. That which produced so great an
effect on the musicians of France and North America,
nay even on the Paris Academy, had no existence for
musical Germany. Even at the Industrial Exhibition
at Vienna in 1873, the conviction was general that the
future belonged to Béhm’s flute. “The present has
long been Béhm’s, all over France, England, Belgium,
and to a great extent Germany, Italy, and America,
With us people cling faithfully to Ziegler’s flute; it is
to his and to his father’s credit that in Vienna the old
Vienna flute is still reigning supreme.” *? (See ‘ Inter-
nationale Ausstellungs-Zeitung. Beilage der Wiener
Neuen Presse. Wien, Donnerstag den 21. August
1873, No. 3231, Feuilleton.’) However, a great number
of Bohm flutes from Béhm’s factory have been sent to
Vienna and all parts of Austria, especially for the use
of amateurs.

* The partiality for Ziegler’s flutes is not confined to Vienna.
Whilst preparing this work for the press (May 1892) I heard a
young lady, a professional flautist brought up in England, play
Briccialdi’s capriccio on a flute by Ziegler (the father) at a private
concert in London. She informed me that she had one of Rudall’s

latest cylinders, but that she greatly preferred the Ziegler on account
of the superiority of its tone.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 457

From this time forward there was no factory of
musical instruments in France, in which Bohm’s flute
had not its allotted place among the instruments manu-
factured. Besides the old celebrated factory price of
Godefroy and Lot, we find in Paris, for instance,
Desnoyers, Thulart, & Co.,, offering Bohm flutes at 140
francs, German silver go francs, “petite flfiite de Boehm
grendille go francs, German silver 60 francs,” Bohm clari-
nets, “new system,” 245 francs, and up to the present
time at 140, 135, and 130 francs. Even in Cuture and
Jury-la-Bataille, both being villages in the Department
d’Eure, north-west of Paris, the instrument-makers Thi-
bouville and Hérouard have on their price list a Bohm
flute with eleven keys, and Messrs. Noblet and Thi-
bouville in Jury-la-Bataille on the Eure have clarinets on
the Bohm system, ranging from 160 to 200 francs, and
Bohm flutes at 150, and of German silver at 95 marks.

The most celebrated and excellent factory for Béhm’s
flutes in England was that of the old firm of Rudall
and Rose in London. The factory acquired a patent,
and sold Béhm flutes, in cases with all requisite appurte-
nances, of cocus wood with silver keys at 18/ 18s.;
cylindrical flutes of silver at 26/4 55.; of German silver
silver-plated at 18/4 18s. For a closed gf key, or fora
Bricerol 4 minor (Briccialdi 4) key, an additional
IZ 1s. was charged.

The most extensive manufacture of Bohm flutes, how-
ever, is to be found in North America. Thousands of
musicians (amongst them the very best) play on the newly
improved Béhm flute. Through them the flute has be-
come a highly esteemed instrument ; in England, France,
and Belgium, the Bohm flute is being used exclusively.

BouMm’s IMPROVEMENTS IN THE OBOE. His ALTO
FLUTE.

Bohm finally applied his system to all wood wind-
instruments with finger-holes. Thus he made an oboe
458 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

for Lavigne, the first oboist of the Italian Opera in
London; a bassoon for the first bassonist of the Italian
Opera in Paris, both according to his system. These
instruments, too, were also received with great approval,
despite their high. price and new fingering. The cele:
brated manufacturers Triebert & Co. made oboes on
Béhm’s system. According to a price list dated March
7th, 1857, such an ‘oboe, descending to “a,” with silver
keys, in a case, costs 600 francs.

One of Bélim’s new creations is his alto flute (in the
London Exhibition it was still called “flite d’amour ”),
He had added the so-called B-foot to his flute; lower
down he would not go, the lower tone losing all
richness.

In time he overcame this obstacle also. As early as
1847 he made tubes which produced the low / with the
same ease and richness as the higher tones; the finger-
ing, however, the key-holes being wider apart on the
longer G flute, became more difficult, and the fingers
were soon tired out by the great tension. Bohm there-
fore stopped at the low g. Such a flute is, despite its
length, still easily manageable. The G flute has a length
of 820 millimetres, and its bore is 26 mm. wide, while
the C flute, Paris pitch, is 620 mm. long, and the bore
Ig mm. wide. The lower finger-holes are 21 mm. in
diameter. Bohm called his flute rightly an alto. flute,
The fingering is the same as that on Bohm’s ¢ flute.
The seven notes next to the fundamental note G are
easily produced, just as on the Bohm flute in c, without
offering any difficulty to the player. Moreover thesé
low sounds are of marvellous beauty, and can be swelled
to a surprising volume, thus rendering the alto fit to
be used in the largest halls as well as in drawing-
rooms.

From that time onward Bohm gave up travelling and
occupied himself chiefly with giving instruction. In his
leisure moments he composed for his instrument, and
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 459

his compositions were received with great favour all over
the world, especially in North America.

The improvement of the flute, however, he never lost
sight of. By substituting a headpiece of cocus-wood in
lieu of the old metal one, the old man of seventy-eight:
considered the task of his life completed. Through this
headpiece the metal flute obtained even in the highest.
notes the characteristic mellowness of the flute tone, with-
out losing the ease of the tone production and the brilliant.
vigour of the metal flute.

CARTE IN LONDON. BOHM’s OPINION OF THE
IMPROVEMENTS MADE ON HIS FLUTE.

As already mentioned, the new flute was improved
here and there; the essential nature of Bohm’s inven-
tion, however, namely, the dimensions ofthe tube, the
position of the key-holes at their acoustical places, were
never altered in the least. It was invariably a secondary
portion of Bohm’s flute, such as the position of a key,
occasionally the addition of a new key, or the addition
of a closed one instead of an open one, that were made,
partly as a hobby, or for some special fingering, often
from an itching for adding something novel as an im-
provement to the celebrated instrument. This was done
by the great flute-players Coche and Dorus ; also by
Giulio Briccialdi, who was undoubtedly the greatest of
all flute virtuosi.
© The whole innovation turned, properly speaking, on
the improvement of the so-called g{ key. Bohm kept
all keys open, and consequently all the fingers were’

performing the same movement, viz. that of pressing
down the keys. Béhm’s flute is always manufactured
with this so-called improvement in France. It was
R. Carte, England’s greatest flute-player, who had a
patent for an improved flute himself, who adopted
Bohm’s flute with ardour, and also assimilated Bohm’s
460. HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

system more thoroughly than any one of his colleagues
He wrote a work which reached several editions, en-
titled, ‘A complete Course of Instructions for the Bohm
Flute’ (both the open and the closed G-keyed flute),
designed as well for beginners, as for those acquainted
with the old flute; and preceded by an analysis of the
Bohm flute and the old eight-keyed flute. With a
comparison between them to enable the flute-players to
judge of their relative merits. By R. Carte. London,
Addison and Hodson, 210, Regent Street, and 47, King
William Street. Price 10 shillings 6 pence. 1846” (Of
the first edition of 1845 I have spoken above.)

This analysis went into the details of the Bohm flute
and the old eight-keyed flute, comparing them with one
another so as to enable the flute-player to judge of
their relative merits. It is probably the best work ever
written on the Bohm flute; the analysis of the Bohm
flute is also unique. In that analysis he defends Bohm’s
key mechanism as the only uniform key- and fingering-
system. He says very pertinently, ‘“‘ With the closed g#
key the fingers have to perform a double movement.
How irrational is a system arising from the uncouth
fingering of the old flute, where some fingers must be
lifted over, others again pressed down on the keys. In
the second octave this fingering becomes still more com-
plicated, and can be only excused in him who can in no
wise wean himself from the old habit.”

Bohm says, “If it were possible to make a key for
this g#, without throwing confusion into the whole
system of fingering, I should not say a word against it;
this, however, not being feasible, and since the beginner
can without the slightest difficulty accustom himself to
the open et key, and since thé player of the old flute
can easily get familiar with my system, I will never
approve of the closed gf key. I would advise every-
body to study my system without any alterations, and I
am convinced that players will be glad to have adopted
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 461

my advice. French flute-players who used the closed
&t key will never reach the perfection of German players
that have followed my system any length of time, for
instance, Stettmair at Hechingen.”

Compare the design of the key system of Béhm’s
flute with that of the two old flutes on the same table.
The impression is at the first blush a favourable one.
In his key system there is a harmony that strikes every-
body at the first glance, furnishing the proof of that
key system’s having arisen not from mere accident or
individual want, but from one single rational principle.
But let us hear B6hm himself :-—

“TI have altered nothing in my key-system, for it has
been proved, first, that the most eminent artists were able
to execute to perfection all musical combinations, without
regard to the key in which they were written, on my
instruments as I had made them ; and secondly, because,
despite all efforts on the part of others, nothing superior
to my own invention has as yet been produced. For,
even granting that some of the difficulties of my flute
have been removed by the so-called ‘improvements’ in
my key-system, the advantages obtained thereby are
only apparent, consisting as they do in a shifting of the
difficulty from one finger to another,*? or from one place
to another, real facilities having been obtained only at
the expense of the equality and purity of tone.

“I do not deny that a greater facility in the handling
of the instrument, and more than anything else, a less
complicated key-mechanism are highly desirable ; but
as long as only wzue fingers will be at the disposal of the

48 This statement is not strictly correct. The improvements
referred to do more than shift difficulties from one place to
another. They enable a player to evade, avoid, or circumvent
difficulties by giving him a choice of fingerings, thus adding to
the resources of the instrument. It is perfectly true, however, that
. these advantages are purchased at the expense of increased com-
plexity of mechanism.—C. W.
462 HISTORY OF: THE BOEHM FLUTE.

player for the opening and closing of the ¢hirteen sound-
holes, all of which are unavoidably necessary for the
production of a pure and equal chromatic scale, difficul-
ties will be inevitable. or, either one finger will have
to serve for several holes at various places, whereby the
playing is rendered more difficult ; or the keys of several
holes must be, for greater facility’s sake, reduced to one
by means of combinations, whereby the mechanism gets
more complicated.

“Clever workmen, however, will make even a very
complicated key-mechanism in a solid and satisfactory
manner, and technical difficulties for the player can be
overcome by diligent practice, considering that all other
orchestral wind instruments are technically much more
difficult than the flute. Tone and purity of scale are the
most important features of a musical instrument, since
without them the player will never reach perfection of
execution.

“My flutes possess a compass.of three octaves or
thirty-six tones, by means of which one can execute with
purity and certainty all chromatic scales, all interval-
combinations, trills, &c., from c} to ct.”

STRUCTURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BOHM FLUTE.
RELATION OF THE THEORY OF ACOUSTICS TO
ITS PRACTICE AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE BOHM
FLUTE.

The Bohm flute is in reality a perfect and consummate
musical instrument, and it is all the more noteworthy in
the history of musical instruments, because we can trace
its rational completion, based on acoustical rules, to all
its details, from beginning to end.

This flute has arisen out of the constant study of the
theory of sound. The theory of musical instruments with
finger-holes is classed amongst the most difficult of
acoustical problems. The scale of the flute is produced
SCHAFHAUTL’S. LIFE OF BOEHM. 463

wader such peculiar circumstances and in the teeth of so
many disturbing elements, that hardly any other instru-
ment can be compared to it. The flute has a great
resemblance to an organ-pipe; however, an organ-pipe
gives only one note, whereas the flute has to give the
whole scale. The laws according to which the scale is
produced on a monochord, are generally, but wrongly
applied to instruments with side-holes.

If we divide the sounding string of a monochord, by
means of a bridge, into two equal parts, without altering
the tension of the string, each half gives the octave of the
note of. the entire string. With organ-pipes this is the
case under peculiar circumstances only. . By cutting off
one-half of an organ-pipe, one would think that we should
get the octave of the entire pipe. The two halves, how-
ever, are not equal; the upper part is'a tube open at
both ends, or a prism of the same nature; the lower part
being closed at the lower end, with the exception of the
opening at the side. It is therefore not to be expected
that the lower part will give the octave of the entire
pipe; and practice corroborates the assumption that the
lower half of the pipe will give a lower tone than the
upper half.

However, the flute is not an organ-pipe. Calculation
and theory have here to deal with a dozen influences and
modifications, of which there is no trace in the analysis
of the organ-pipe. We blow the flute, which is closed
by a cork, sideways, through the embouchure, which is
at a distance of 17 millimetres from the cork. There
are, moreover, side-holes, or the so-called finger-holes.

If a finger-hole could be made equal to the diameter
of the flute, the note of the instrument would respond to
that of a flute that is cut off a little below the middle of
the hole ; however, the finger-holes cannot be made so

‘large as that, therefore the vibrations of the entire air-
columns are disturbed by intruding negative air-columns,
the effect of which depends on the size, the number, and
464 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

the distances of the holes from the lower cylindrical part
of the flute.

The function of these side-holes as affecting the
number of vibrations, forms a very complicated me-
chanical problem. There are differential equations
that cannot be integrated, and integration between
limited integrals leads to results that come very near to
reality, but have not reached it as yet; for all hinges on
a few vibrations which the ear can well judge of. I
frequently brought Bohm the results of long calcula-
tions ; but whenever he constructed a flute according to
my formule, there always were a few vibrations in excess
or defect. Empirical formule alone can help here. Fot,
as we have already remarked, the flute is no organ-pipe.
The organ-pipe, when it stands with its mouthpiece on
the pipe-board, is always being blown into through the
same mouthpiece. In the flute there are many other
concurrent influences to be considered. The charac-
teristic tone-production is made by the lips. The flute
when in contact with the lips, sounds a little deeper than
the free flute blown into through a mouthpiece, the lips
overlapping the embouchure. The position of the lips
is always varying, and it is this constant variation that
produces the peculiar character of the tone. If the
player turns the flute a little inwards, then the upper
[lower ?] lip covers more of the embouchure, and thus
the tone becomes deeper; if he turns the flute out-
wards, the tone will be somewhat higher, or will bound
up to the octave. It is precisely in the flute that the
play of the lips makes the soul of the,tone; and this
influence of the lips baffles all calculation.

Theory alone, therefore, could not have produced the new
fiute.

It was, moreover, necessary that a musical mechanic,
as gifted, persevering, and ingenious as Bohm, should
set the practical limits to which theory can approach
without ever reaching.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 465

The third reason why Bohm’s flute became such a
thoroughly musical instrument that it found favour with
the whole musical world, was the fact that Bohm himself
was a virtuoso, nay, one of the most excellent virtuosi
who have composed for or played on the flute. In his
capacity as a virtuoso he was able to see by what con-
trivances the exigencies of art could be met. Such a
man alone was able to combine the results of theory
and practice in such a manner as to answer the highest
purposes of Art. And, finally, had Bohm not been the

excellent virtuoso he was, he could not have proved the

_ Superiority of his flute as conclusively as he did, and
could not have prevailed upon flute virtuosi to lay aside
their old flute and to recommence their studies in order
that they might master thé new instrument. If Bohm
had not been able to convince the musical world per-
sonally of the excellence of his flute, his invention would
never have been approved of, for the ordinary artists of
the old flute—for. instance, in Germany—not only ignored
the new flute, but actually opposed its introduction.
Béhm’s flute has now been played in all civilised coun-
tries for thirty years; in Germany, however, a Bohm
flute can be found only in the hands of a few amateurs
and in the Court orchestra at Munich.
' While theory may penetrate, by measurement and
calculation, into the inner essence of the phenomena of
motion, evolving for instance, the laws of sound-vibra-
tions, it will be only by one who is at once an ingenious
mechanic and a virtuoso that the results of theory will
be effectually turned to account in the construction of a
real practical instrument, to the completion of which,
without these qualities of the virtuoso, centuries might
have been required.

The same holds good regarding the Violin.

All our acoustical experiments, all our theories are
good for the lecture-room, for people who are no
musicians. The artist, the virtuoso alone can pronounce

2H
466 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

on the value of a musical instrument. One might object,
that the violin has arisen without the aid of theory. It
is true that the violin did not originate in the theories of
the learned, but was made by the experience of simple
and ingenious virtuosi, gifted with mechanical talents,
who, although their names did not. shine in periodicals,
worked unremittingly with head and hand until their
instrument answered all the wants of the artist. The
celebrated makers of violins, up to Steiner, were all
violin virtuosi; Steiner, after having spent the week in
carving out his violins, played on his instrument, every
Sunday, in the Orchestral Society at Innsbruck. The
violin would have most assuredly been spoilt had Science
taken up its manufacture, and here we are reminded of
Schiller’s PAzlosophers, of whom he says :—

“ From the union of Genius with Heart
Spring inventions ne’er dreamt of by Locke or Descartes.”

The old violin-maker, who was at the same time a
violin virtuoso, prompted by a correct insight, of which
our modern acousticians do not possess an idea, changed
centuries ago the flat sounding-board of all keyed and
stringed instruments, played by the fingers or by a plec-
trum, such as the theorbo, lute, mandoline, zither, into
the arched back and belly of the violin; whereas one of
the greatest acousticians of modern times has actually
denied the efficacy of this arching, whilst it is the sole
cause of the peculiar character of the violin. Our violins
were not made in the laboratories of our theoretical
physicists; nay, centuries were necessary before these
theoretical savants could understand the efficacy of the
violin construction.

WARD IN LONDON AS BOHM’S OPPONENT.

There was, speaking generally, only one opponent of
Bohm’s flute who appeared in public, and even he did so
from ignorance of the effects of that instrument. This
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM, 467

was, as already said, Cornelius Ward, instrument maker
in London, who offered the public a flute of his own
invention, (See ‘The Flute Explained, being an Exami-
nation of the Principles of its Structure and Action. By
Cornelius Ward. London, published by the Author,
1844.) Ward was pretty familiar with the history of
the flute and with the acoustical principles underlying
its structure; he had gathered his information from
Carte’s pamphlet and procedure. He knew the faults
of the old flute, and it was he, as we have seen, who in
1831 carried out the ideas of Gordon regarding the
improvement of the flute. He holds that Bohm placed
the holes pretty fairly ; he falls foul, however, of Bohm’s
fingering, and his very censure is a most cogent
proof that he did not understand that fingering, and
that he was no virtuoso. He calls Béhm’s fingering
untheoretical in the highest degree, and awkward; he
says that it is hard to learn, and just as hard to put into
practice. The tone of Bohm’s flute, he adds, is unequal
in force, varying in character, and bad in quality.“

“4 The following is the passage in Ward’s pamphlet to which the
Doctor is referring :—“‘The Boehm flute is free from the first
named objection to the old flute (its excessive deviation from the
true position of the apertures). It is perforated with tolerable
accuracy, but here its meritsend. It caxnot be used in accordance
with its apparent design.

“Tt requires numerous closed holes, cross-fingerings, alternating
action, cramped and unnatural application of the manual powers,
and frequent employment of harmonics, &c. &c., with the necessary
results of unequal power, varying character, and general inferiority
in quality of tone. Its fingering, also, is in the highest degree
immethodical, awkward, difficult both to learn and to apply, and
deficient in many of the important requisites for skilful and refined
performance.” Ward then proceeds, as might be expected, to
contrast the Boehm fingering with that of his own flute, the
fingering of which, he informs his readers, “is systematic, regular,

easy, and easily acquired. .... There are no cross-fingerings,
no alternating action, no contravention of the mechanics or
anatomy of the human hand.... . Any possible objections to

the universal introduction of this instrument, can only be of very
2 Hk 2
468 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

One is astonished to hear such reproaches in the year.
1844; for, of all that, the very reverse is true. Thus,
Berton, a French composer, who was a member of the
committee of French musicians who examined the Bohm
flute, to Coche, the flute-player:—“ You have deserved,
well of your colleagues by devoting yourself to the study
and construction of the new instrument. Now it will be
possible to employ the flute fearlessly in every scale
without distinction, because it is egual in tone, perféct in.
intonation in all keys, and so improved in mechanism as
to be free from all noise except such as may be heard
in any other wind instrument, and capable of executing’
the compositions of your illustrious master Tulou, and
all the trills of every register of your instrument. These
advantages were more than sufficient to induce the
Académie to sanction the report, of which you may feel :
proud.” (See ‘Examen critique de la flate ordinaire com-
parée a la flite de Boehm,’ par F. Coche, Paris, 1838,
PP. 19, 20.)

The meeting of the Académie took place on Saturday, |
March 24th, 1838, and six years after that Ward writes,
that the tone of Béhm’s flute is unequal in force, variable

 

temporary prevalence..... Our language may be considered
strong and confident. But our strength lies in facts; our confi-
dence in our conviction of the truth; and our justification in the
concurrent testimony of a// who have become acquainted with the
instrument.” After a panegyric in this style extending over a
couple of closely printed pages, in bringing his pamphlet to aclose,
he writes ; “ Do not let us be deemed speaking in the language of
hyperbole. We can point to several flutists who, with four weeks’
practice on our instrument, have acquired a skill and proficiency,
previously denied to the untiring industry of forty years. It has
been our wish,” he continues, “throughout this work to speak the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” .

We are told by Mr. Rockstro that Ward was Boehm’s superior in
every way, excepting in the matter of musical attainments; but
this statement clearly requires to be qualified. There was an
instrument, as a performer on which Boehm was immeasurably
Ward’s inferior—his own trumpet.—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. ‘469

in character, and poor in quality! Ward was no artist, but
a manufacturer, and such misunderstandings are intel-
ligible only from the standpoint of a jealous tradesman.

Ward talks of the difficulty of Bohm’s fingering, and
Carte, the celebrated flute-player, had written six years
previously that beginners. accustom themselves. much
more quickly to the fingering of Béhm’s flute than to
that of the old instrument.

At the Industrial Exhibition in London Ward ex-
hibited his flute, which was partly constructed after
Bohm’s system; but it passed quite unnoticed, while
the jury unanimously accorded Bohm the first great
prize medal,

BoumM’s PUPILS, HAINDL, FURSTENAU, AND
KRUGER.

Bohm had instructed many a pupil both on his old
and his new flute. The greatest of them, a man who
would have become a Paganini of the flute, was Hans
ffaind/, who stayed a short time in Vienna. He was
the son of a tower-guard of Amberg, in the Bavarian
Palatinate, and he returned from Vienna to Amberg to
fetch his fiancée. Taking a boat-ride on the Vils he
came too near the target of a shooting-gallery, and was
killed by a bullet, and died in the arms of his fiancée.
The target had only one small opening high up, and it
is inconceivable how the bullet could hit the unfortunate
young artist who was boating on the river.

Haindl had quickly procured a silver cylindrical flute
in Vienna, and he wrote to Bohm, May 2oth, 1848,
“Hearty thanks for the exquisite flute. I like it im-
mensely, and shall do it honour by my playing.”

Haindl’s wonderful effects were the cause of Fiirst-
enau’s sending his highly gifted son Moritz to Bohm,
July 1845, in order that the latter might study the new
flute. Fiirstenau (Anton Bernhard) was the celebrated
flute-player of the Court band of Saxony,
479 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

As early as November roth, 1845, Fiirstenau played in
public Béhm’s Eh major Fantasia on Swiss themes at a
concert of the Royal Bavarian musicians Faubel, Menter,
and Mittermaier, scoring an extraordinary success. He
returned to Dresden, where, in a celebrated concert of
his, he created quite a sensation. In an account in the
‘Dresdener: Tageblatt,’ we read, after the report of the
concert, “ The artist played on the so-called Bohm
flute.” The reporter gives a detailed description of that
flute and its advantages over the flutes formerly in use,
and concludes, “Herr Moritz Fiirstenau, who proved an
excellent artist some years ago, sacrificed the old finger-
ing and devoted himself to the study of the new flute
under the superintendence of the inventor, and he has
shown in this concert that his praiseworthy resolution
has led him to brilliant results. His tone in the lower
register is exceedingly beautiful and sonorous, and in
the high notes also it exhibits a remarkable richness.”

In a report of the ‘Wiener Musikalische Zeitung,’
December 1846, we read, “The concert given by Herr
L. M. Fiirstenau, jun, on October 28th, was highly
welcome to the musical world.” Regarding the flute used
at that concert, we read: “The worthy artist, a clever
pupil of his celebrated father, has not shrunk from the
gigantic task of recommencing the study of flute-playing
ab ovo, on the newly invented flute, after having acquired
a remarkable proficiency on the old flute. The inven-
tion has not yet met with due recognition in Germany.
Fiirstenau’s industry and self-abnegation have been
crowned with the most brilliant success, &c. The young
virtuoso shows a consummate and finished technique,
great bravura and force, and an agreeable tenderness
in his style.”

Although he was received with much applause abroad,
his own country cared very little for him. The old
members and the directors of the then Saxon Court
band were so much opposed to the new flute, that
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 471

Moritz Fiirstenau, who had been appointed February tst,
1842, was obliged to return to the old flute in 1852, for
fear of losing his appointment, and that at a time when
all England, France, and America were revelling in the
new flute!

Kriiger, the Royal Wiirttemberg Court musician, also
sent his son Charles, in the autumn of 1846, to his friend
Bohm in Munich, where Charles finished his studies
during 1847-48. Young Kriiger is at present one of
the most excellent flute-virtuosi and chamber-virtuosi
at the Royal Court. of Wiirttemberg.

These are some only of Bohm’s best known pupils in
Germany. His pupils count by the hundred ; the best
among them live in America, many of them are in
England, who, whether amateurs or professionals, have
become Béhm’s intimate friends. Up to the last days
of his life new pupils applied to him for instruction.

Amongst the amateurs there is a very original German
physician, who passed the best years of his life in South
America. He also has had the heroic resolution of
giving up the old fingering, and acquiring that of Béhm’s
flute ; he now plays Bohm’s ¢ and g flutes with almost
unsurpassable excellence.

THE LAST YEARS OF BOHm’s LIFE. HIS
PRINCIPLES OF FLUTE-PLAYING.

Bohm spent his last years, having given up.his travels
on account of ill-health, in instructing gifted pupils, in
carrying on a large correspondence regarding his flute,
with people as far off as Australia, and in composing for
both his instruments, the ¢c and the g flute, or in arranging
works he had originally written for the ¢ flute, for his
alto or g flute.

The little recreation he indulged in was a trip in
autumn to the Tegernsee, the residence of Prince Charles,
the second son of King Max I. King Max I., who was
472 HISTORY OF THE BOFHM FLUTE.

also fond of staying at the chateau at Tegernsee, had
always looked upon Bohm, as,we have seen, as one of
his favourite musicians, and his son Prince Charles
extended to him the same favour. The richest of all
the Bavarian princes had long before chosen Bohm’s son
Charles as his cashier, and was pleased to see the father
at his chateau at Tegernsee.'

It is hardly describable what a deep impression Prince
Charles’s death made on Bohm, who was at that time
eighty-one years old, and to whom the Prince had
bequeathed a beautiful souvenir. Despite all that,
Béhm’s physical and mental powers remained unbroken
up to a.very great age; finally there came signs of
decay. He lost his two front teeth, which of course
interfered very much with his flute-playing. However,
clever mechanic as he was, he made two teeth of his
own invention, and inserting them into his mouth by
means of a very ingenious mechanism, he could play as
well as he did thirty years before.*®

His wife died six years previously; his children were
all amply provided for. He left Munich but rarely.

As we know, all his care in instructing his pupils was
directed to render their reading perfect, he being himself
unparalleled in the charm of his style. Hence, as was

*° Although he retained his execution, he lost with his teeth his
good embouchure, Writing to Mr. Mills in January 1874 or 187 5
(the Jast figure is indistinct) he says, “As to your question about
false teeth, I had lost two of my front teeth years ago, and since
two years I’ had lost two more, but I can play still well enough,,
though I have no more that excellent embouchure I had in former
times. The main thing is that the false teeth fit well, and do not
give pain or molestation. In two months I begin my eighty-second
year, and I play still on my flutes, only my eyes get very bad, as
you can see by my miserable writing.” :

In a letter in German to. Mr. Walter Broadwood, dated Septem-
ber Ist, 1868, he says, “I have made my own teeth, which I only
use when I am blowing, at other times I carry them in my pocket.
Playing with false teeth answers well enough, but my excellent:
tone-production of former years is gone for ever.”—C. W.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 473

said above, the astonishment of Lady Gresham, who once
exclaimed, “It is marvellous! When Béhm plays the
same piece, it sounds quite different from what it does
in the hands of ordinary flute-players !”

In his work ‘ The Flute and Flute-playing, acoustically,
technically, and artistically considered’ (Munich, 1871),
he says, page 20, under the heading “On Style,” “He
who, like myself, has been fortunate enough to have
heard all the great singers of the last fifty years, will
never forget the names of Brizzi, Sessi, Catalani, Velutti,
LLablache, Tamburini, Rubini, Malibran, Pasta, &c.,
remembering with delight their wonderful performances.
They all got their instruction in the Italian school of
singing, which. to the present day is the foundation of a
good voice-formation,“* leading, as it does, to a correct
reading and interpretation, of which the instrumentalist
is just as much in need as is the singer, In order, for
instance, to render an Adagio with all the necessary
coloratura, the player must not only be a perfect master
of his instrument, but also must acquire the power of
changing his notes into"words, as it were, by which he
is able to express his sentiments. He must learn to
sing on his instrument. One of the most effectual but
also most difficult vocal ornaments is the shake, which
is seldom to be heard well executed nowadays.”

Béhm added to his work several songs, explaining
at the same time how they are to be sung, and played
on-the flute ; e.g. the air from the ‘ Zauberflite, “Dies
Bildniss ist bezaubernd ‘schén”; an air from one of
Joseph Méhul’s operas, ‘Nur meine Kinder lass gliick-
lich stets sein’; Schubert’s songs, ‘Der Lindenbaum,’
_ *Trockene Blumen,’ ‘Staendchen’ (‘Leise flehen meine.
Lieder’), ‘Das Fischermadchen. Finally he gives the
Rondo Larghetto of the last aria of Donna Anna from

6 Boehm expressed the opinion in conversation with me that the
introduction of the Wagner style of opera would lead to the
destruction of this school—C. W.
474 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Mozart’s ‘Don Giovanni’ (No. 26). He says, “These
few bars (53) contain as the most perfect example every-
thing that has been said about rendering a musical
composition, the cantabile and larghetto winding up with
simple ornaments of runs and mordentes, and the allegro
containing all kinds of shakes, and roudades, and hence
all colorature.”

ARRANGEMENTS AND LAST COMPOSITIONS.

This was the reason why, in his last days, he chose
chiefly original songs and arias from the great masters,
adapting them to the flute, and arranging them with an
accompaniment for the piano or orchestra.

This led Bohm to resolve on recasting eighteen of his
older works for the alto flute into nine new works,
Four duetts for two c¢ flutes, and three trios for two ¢
flutes and the alto flute corresponded.

In his eighty-sixth year, in 1880, he made us a present
of an Andante from Beethoven’s Serenade, op. 25. The
simple theme of sixteen bars appears in two variations ;
the first reminds one of brilliant triplets, the second gives
us a charming cantadile, followed by a fiery coda allegretto
in six bars. It furnishes the virtuoso with sufficient
material to display his whole power, and his acquaint-
ance with the art of phrasing.

Furthermore there is the wonderful Andante for flute
in ¢ major, by Mozart, accompanied by two violins, viola,
counterbass, two oboes, and two horns. Bohm arranged
the accompaniment for piano, adapting the form to the
modern taste. Jahn does not think much of that compo-
sition, but he who has heard it played on a Bohm flute,
and by Bohm himself, will be of quite a different opinion.
The Andante is marked Mozart op. 86; but this number
is to be found neither in Mozart's own list of his works
nor in Kéchel’s. Musicians and music publishers do not,
of course, care very much for such pedantic chronological
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 475

dates, thus rendering the task of the historian of music a
real torment. In Kdéchel’s list we find the number 15,
The autograph has no date ; it dates, however, probably
from the year 1778, and was, according to Kéchel, com-
_ posed either at Munich or in Paris.

A second arrangement of a work for clarinet, for the
flute, was published by Schott, under the title, ‘ Adagio
from the quartett *" for clarinet by W. A. Mozart.’ This
quartett, in Kéchel’s list, bears the number 583. The
Adagio, originally called “Larghetto,” was transposed
by Bohm from @ to g, thus gaining exceedingly in love-
liness,

His swan song bears the characteristic name ‘ Elegie’ ;
it is written in Ab major, and represents sweet melan-
choly, rising in the fortieth bar to touching complaint,
but subsiding by degrees into peaceful resignation. It
is the old man who, already ailing, said in his eighty-
ninth year, “I should like to reach the nineticth year ;
but God's will be done!”

The ‘Elegie’ is composed for full orchestra, the
latter rendering the whole composition most magnifi-
cent, and giving character to what is only indicated in
the flute part. It was published, as Bohm’s 47th and
last work, by Schott of Mayence, last year.

Bohm dedicated it to his old friend Dr. Friedrich
Isenschmied, formerly physician to the King of Naples,
who had exchanged the old flute for Béhm’s instrument,
and attained to great proficiency on it. It was very
pleasant for Béhm, who led a lonesome life,” to spend

' The Doctor has written quartett instead of quintett. It is the
celebrated quintett in A, op. 108, of which he is speaking.—C. W.

48 No doubt Boehm, after the loss of his wife and the death of
most of his friends and contemporaries, sometimes felt lonely and
weary, prohibited, as he was, from reading, writing, and flute-play-
ing. His declining days, however, were solaced by the tender care
of his daughter, who remained unmarried, devoting herself to her
father, whilst almost every evening was cheered by the society of
his friend Dr. Schafhautl. Moreover, scarcely a day passed without
476 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

some time in the home of this Swiss gentleman; it
brought to his remembrance his journeys in Switzerland
when a young artist.

Always active, and ready to be of use, old Béhm one
day stepped on a chair in order to regulate a pendulum
clock. The chair broke, and Béhm fell on the floor;
he immediately rose, and seemed to be unhurt. But’
from that time he complained of dizziness, which gave
him much anxiety when in the street. This was attri-
buted to nervous irritability of the stomach. But sud-
denly he was taken with chills, and his powers sank
so rapidly, that he prepared for the last journey. In
addition to this he suffered very much from sick head-
aches, which finally deprived him of consciousness. He
was given up by everybody, but recovered nevertheless,
much -to the astonishment of his physicians. He then
continued his usual walks for hours every day, went to
his café in the afternoon, or to the Museum, where his
friends acquainted him with all that was going on,
reading being forbidden on account of his weakened
eyes. Bohm, being an excellent chess-player, was
always requested to play a game, and, despite his old
age, he willingly did so, only asking for a little patience
on account of his feeble sight; he generally beat his
antagonist all the same.

BOHM’s DEATH, FAMILY, AND PHYSICAL
CONSTITUTION.

His hearing, formerly so acute, became weaker and
weaker, and so also did his eyesight, which had been
much debilitated through his working in the glare of

 

a visit from some of the members of his numerous family, and on
Sundays they assembled round him at a “family coffee.” How
much pleasure he derived from these gatherings and how fully he
appreciated such tokens of affection I learnt from his own lips.—
Cc. W. pe
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 477

puddling-furnaces, so that finally reading, writing, or
drawing was quite out of the question. Moreover, the
lips lost their elasticity ; he could no longer produce the
lower notes, and had to take leave of his oldest friend,
the flute. He nevertheless continued teaching his last
pupil to the very end. This pupil did not want tech-
nique ; he was, however, lacking in a fine style, and Bohm
endeavoured to teach him that art. Where his flute
would not do, he helped himself with singing. Once a
tude young fellow angered him exceedingly, and his
: broken strength could no longer offer any resistance.

“T should like to live a few years longer, but the Lord’s
will be done!” He died on Friday evening, November
25th, 1881.

Bohm left eight children, of whom seven were sons;
all but one are in prominent positions, most of them
inherited their father’s keen mind and mechanical talent,
but not one of them his musical genius. There are
moreover thirty-six grandchildren, and two great-grand-
children.” ;

# On October 2oth, 1820, Boehm married Anna Rohrleitner, of
Munich. She was a simple woman, but she proved a faithful, .
loving, and exemplary spouse, and an excellent housewife. During
her husband’s long periods of absence she managed, with very
restricted financial means, to keep her household, consisting of
eight children, apprentices, workpeople, &c., in order, and.a most
perfect order it was. It was to her that her children owed their
careful education, and their father, who lived and died in the house
in which he was born, the advantage he enjoyed of always finding
on his return from abroad a comfortably arranged and orderly
home, and all the tranquillity he required for his studies and
inventions. On October 3oth, 1870, they celebrated their golden
wedding, surrounded by seven sons, one daughter, seven daughters-
in-law, and thirty grandchildren. They were not parted for more
than four years afterwards.

The eldest of Boehm’s eight children is his daughter Mary. Of
his seven sons, the first, Ludwig, held the important appointment
of manager of the Maffei Locomotive Factory at Munich. He
retired in 1886, when he had been connected with the firm for
forty years. The second, Carl, was secretary and cashier to the
478 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

We have thus before us a beautiful image of human
life passed harmoniously in activity and love of art. Art
took Bohm from one of the noblest handicrafts, and
carried him with brilliant success through the world.
The atmosphere of the so-called virtuoso-life produced’,
but a superficial effect on young Bohm’s fine character.
He always returned to his family from the brilliant
world, and Art ennobled his rich domestic life. He was
an elegant man of the world, but also sincere, kind, self-
sactificing, and to all warning against trusting others, he
always replied, “I prefer being cheated to despairing of
mankind.”

His funeral was most remarkable. All classes of
society followed him to the grave; mingled with pro-
fessional musicians there were amateurs, government
officials, artisans, and even billiard-players, Bohm. being
a well-known billiard and chess-player. He played his
game of chess every day, although, in consequence of his
weak sight, he could scarcely see the chessmen.

Bohm was slim, and in his youth rather threatened
with consumption. When at the commencement of his
studies he used to play at the receptions given by the
“ Frohsinn” society, every one exclaimed, “What a pity
that young man with short breath plays the flute!” It
was, however, precisely the flute that saved him. Flute-
playing expanded his chest and destroyed his tendency
to phthisis. He became a most rapid walker,® and

late Prince Charles of Bavaria. Theobald, the third, who died in
1889, carried on the family business of goldsmith and jeweller.
Wilhelm, the fourth, was manager of the gasworks at Stuttgart ;
he died in 1893. Max, the fifth, is a clerk ina municipal office at
Munich. August, the sixth, is cashier in the Munich post office ;
whilst the seventh, Otto, who died in 1893, was manager of the
Bavarian State Railways.

»° During a visit to England, Boehm once took lodgings in the
suburbs of London. One evening, as he was striding homewards
with his usual quick step, he became aware that he was being
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 479

could not be tired out by excursions lasting a whole day ;
he was also ideal at running and leaping. This is a pal-
pable proof of the correctness of the advice given by our
great surgeon Nussbaum, who advises, in his classical
essay “Hoch und Wohlgeboren,” that people afflicted
with a tendency to phthisis should work it off by con-
stant exercise, thus expanding the chest by playing on
the flute, for instance. Bohm is evidence that this per-
' nicious tendency can be cured without having recourse
to drugs.

BOuHM’s MEMORY IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA.
SYMPATHY LACKING IN GERMANY.

The death of this remarkable man has, of course, not
made any stir whatever in Germany. In North America
the report of Bohm’s death was indeed sad tidings.
Most of the American newspapers written in English
published very sympathetic obituaries, and the ‘New
York Herald,’ the most important paper of America, if
not of the whole world, gave one of the lengthiest

followed by aman. He quickened his pace, so did his unwelcome
companion. After atime, in order to get rid of him, Boehm turned
into a road running at right angles to the direction in which he
was going, but only to find that his footsteps were still dogged. It
was already dusk, night was falling, whilst the way was becoming
more and more lonely. It seemed to Boehm that his best plan
would be to bring matters to an immediate issue, so turning
- suddenly round, he accosted the mysterious stranger. This led to
an explanation. It turned out that Boehm’s pursuer was a gentle-
man who took an interest in walking. Struck with the rapidity
with which Boehm was getting over the ground, he was following
him in order to ascertain how long he would keep it up.

Boehm never gave up his habit of walking. His last walk was
one of two hours’ duration. On his return home, it being observed
that he was not well, he was induced to retire to bed. He had
not long been recumbent when he became unconscious. However,
consciousness afterwards returned, and his life was prolonged for

a day or two.
480 HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

biographies of Béhm. Even at Louisville, in Kentucky,
there was, in the supplement to the German paper
‘Omnibus, der Unterhaltung, Belehrung, und dem Humor
gewidmet,’ a ‘ Nachruf aus America,’ a poem to the “ cele-
brated flute-player,” written by a lady, Betty Wittgen-
stein, dated December 25th, 1881. The lady had pro-
bably often written poems in honour of Bohm, for the
poem commences :—

“ Once I sang thee on thy cradle-feast
A poem of mine... .”

In a letter from Eugen Weiner, the most celebrated
flute-player of North America, member of the New York
Musical Club, to Bohm’s daughter, it is stated, “In the
last few days over a hundred persons, and amongst them
the most renowned musicians and flute-players of New
York, have called on me, in order to make inquiries
about the death of Herr Bohm.” Together with the
name of Prentiss, the banker, he writes of dozens of
names of musicians and professors who desired him to
convey their profound condolence’with the family of
Bohm.” He also says that there is scarcely anything
about Béhm in the press of Germany, and concludes,
“How very annoying for us Germans in a foreign
country !” .

However, Bohm was always recognised and admired
by artists and amateurs, who had become quite familiar
with his flute.

One of the reasons why Bohm was less known in
Germany may be the fact that he made his tours as a
travelling artist only in his youth, that was at the time
that long preceded the period of the present writers and
authors on music. In later years Bohm appeared
publicly in England only, and even in that country.
rather from motives of friendship in closed circles of the
aristocracy, who admit only the most distinguished
artists, or at charity concerts.
SCHAFHAUTL’S LIFE OF BOEHM. 481

The Bohm flute has made its way all over the world.
Since the year 1847 Béhm’s flute-factory at Munich has
furnished flutes for Germany, Austria, Holland, England,
Sweden, Norway, Moldavia, Wallachia, Rumania, Switzer-
land, Italy, Greece, Russia, East Siberia, Blagowestschensk
(on the Amur), Smyrna, Georgia, Madras, Ceylon, China,
Japan, Luxemburg, Belgium, France, Spain, North Ame-
rica, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, &c. To obtain
this result there was required the labour, the study,
the perseverance, and the genius of one man during
half a century.

If there is for man a higher destiny than (as Lessing
holds) to spend his existence in blowing into the mouth-
piece of a flute, our Bohm, although he vivified the
dead flute all his days with his breath, has done more
than even Lessing has set down as the goal of a man’s
life. He was a thinker, a clever, ingenious, indefatigable
worker, a good man and a good citizen, moreover a
virtuoso and a creative artist, who has delighted and will
delight thousands with his compositions. At the con-
clusion of his long life he could with complacency look
back on the troubles and the fruits of an activity of sixty
years; and I can now lay down my pen with a certain
satisfaction, having given a faithful image of the life and
mind of a very remarkable man, whose name will always
be appreciated in the world of music.
482

BOEHM’S COMPOSITIONS.

—1

I.—PRINTED COMPOSITIONS.

 

 

Date. Opus. Publisher.
1822 1 | Concerto for- Flute with Or- | Aibl.
chestra and Piano., G maj.
2 | La Sentinelle . (Théme fav.) 5
varié, ; :
3| Andante and _ Polonaise, | Diabelli & Co.
A maj.
4| Nel Cor Pit. Gmaj. .. .. | Aibl.
5 | Pot pourri (Melodies Suisses), | Aibl & Peters.
G maj.
6. Diveriesetnent (Air de Carafa) | Falter & Son.:
also with Orch. G maj. |
7 | Concertante for Two Flutes | Aibl.
(Orch.), D maj.
8 | Polonaise de Carafa, D maj. Falter & Son.
g | Variations (Théme de Frey- | Aibl.
schiitz), D maj.
to | Divertissement (Théme de =
Rovelli), C maj.
11 | Divertissement (Deux Thémes 5s
- fav. Suisses), C maj.
12 | Rondo brillant with Orch., | Falter & Son.
C maj. :
13 | Divertissement (Almenlied), 35
C maj.
14 | Boehm and Ogden,* Fantaisie 35
conc., D'maj. ~~ :
15 | Cannot be found.
16 | Grand Polonaise, D maj. h 5
17 | Variations on the March in
Rossini’s Moise, D maj.
17a| 32 Etudes dans toutes les 3
gammes. :
18 | Waltz and Pot pourri. The | Aibl
Waltz on a Melody by
Schubert, D maj.
19
1838 20 | Variations (Swiss Boy), C maj. | Schott.

 

 

 

 

* Ogden,was an English gentleman, the first who made himself
familiar with the Boehm fhute, and appeared as its patron.
,

 

 

wo: BOREM’S COMPOSITIONS. 483
Date. Opus. Publisher.
1838 | 21 | Fantaisie (Sehgguchts-walzer) | Schott.
‘ADming ~~ ‘
18490 22 | Vars. brill; Du, Da E maj. .. aise
1845 | 23 | Fantaisie sur deg Themes | ~ .
Suisses, F min. is ;
1845 24 | Fantaisie sur des Airg Ecos., ssi
ex F maj.
April 1852 | 25 | Fantaisie sur des Airs Ecos., in?
Cmaj. _
. July 1852. | 26 | 24 Caprices-Etudes .. es
- Oct. 1852 | 262) Andante by Mozart, C maj. sae
1833 Souvenirs des Alpes : 5
27’| No. 1.'Andante Cantabile, As
: - Eb maj.
28 No.2. Rondo Allegretto, 9
' _ F maj.
29 No. 3. Andantino Romance,. ‘9
_ D maj.
30 No. 4. Rondo’ Allegretto, i
D maj. a
31 No. 5. Andante Pastorale,: 5
_-G maj. aoe
32 No. 6. Rondo’ _—_Landler, i
i _E maj.
. 1858 © | 33 | Andante Cantabile, B maj. ..
June 1858 | 34 | Ala Tarantella, E min... 4}
Jan. 1859 | 35 | Larghetto, AD maj. ... .. 5
March 1859 | 36 | Rondo’a la Mazurka, C maj. © 3
1863 37 | 24 Etudes, 2 Suites avec Piano ‘i
ou Flute Solo, BP niin. .
1860-61“ | 38
39
4o |-
40
42
43
Ae cog . ‘
45 | Fantaisie on a Motive by | Aibl.
_- Hummel, Flute with Piano.
46 | Andante. from Beethoven’s
Serenade, arranged. - - for
Flute, with Pianoforte Ac-
_ companiment, G maj.
47 | Elégie pour la Fitite avec | Schott.
Accompagnement de Piano
ou d’Orchestre.
Andante con Variazioni, G | Aibl.
maj.
Hymne. r

 

 

 

 

2

I 2
484

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

JI.— COMPOSITIONS OF CELEBRATED MASTERS,

Arranged for the Flute and Pianoforte, or, here and there, Har-
monium. ‘These Works being Arrangements only, Boehm did
not give them an Opus number.

 

Date.

No.

Publisher.

 

1868

1872-76

1874-79

 

 

N

Nn DO we & WwW

Io

II

12

 

Cujus Animam, Rossini, Flute

and. Piano.

Adagio, Beethoven, C maj. ..

Adagio, Mozart. From the
Pianoforte Sonata, Op. 16,
B maj.

Rondo - Andante,
A min.

Mozart,

Standchen, Song, Schubert, |

D min.

The Fishermaiden, Schubert, |

D maj. .

Tre giorni. Air by Pergolesi,
C min.

Cantabile, by Vogler, for
Pianoforte or Harmonium
and Flute, D maj.

Aria Cantabile, by J. S. Bach,
for Pianoforte or Har-
monium and Flute, D maj.

Serenade, Beethoven, Op. 8,
for Flute and Pianolerie
F maj.

Romance, Beethoven, Op. 50,
F maj.

Variations, Haydn, “God
Preserve the Emperor,” for
Pianoforte or Harmonium
and Flute.

Fantasia on a Motive in a
Sonata by F. H. Himmel
Air from Gluck’s Orpheus,
“ Che faro,” for Pianoforte

and Flute.

Schuberth of
Leipsic.
Aibl.

”

a
”
”

9

Schuberth of
Leipsic.

 

 
BOEHM’S COMPOSITIONS. 485

III.—UNPRINTED COMPOSITIONS by BOEHM,

For the Alto Flute, or as Duetts and Trios for Two Flutes in C and

14.
15.
16.

17.
18,

19.
20,

2I.

22.

Alto Flute.

for Alto Flute and Pianoforte.

. Beethoven, Sonata, Op. 17. The original for Horn and Piano-

forte. F maj.

. Beethoven, Serenade, Op. 24. The original for Flute (?), Viola,

and Cello.

. Beethoven, Adagio from a Pianoforte Concerto, Ap maj.
» Mozart, Sonata, Originally for Pianoforte and Violin. G maj,

Mozart, Adagio. From the Clarinet Quintett. D maj.

. Mozart, Adagio. From a Pianoforte Sonata. B maj.
. Mozart, Rondo Andante, Op. 71. Originally for Pianoforte

alone.

. Haydn, Variations on “ God Preserve the Emperor.” Originally

for String Quintett.

. Schubert, Song (Das Sténdchen), D min.

. Schubert, Song (Das Fischermadchen). A maj.

. Schubert, Song (Am Meer). C maj.

. Himmel, Rondo. From a Sonata originally for Flute and

Pianoforte. G maj.

. Vogler, Adagio. From an Organ Prelude. D min.

Duetts for C Flute and Alto Flute with Pianoforte
Accompaniment.

Rossini, Duo (Soirées Musicales). A maj.
Rossini, Duo (Soirées Musicales). D maj.
Weber, Romance. F maj.

Weber, Andantino. C maj.

Weber, Allegretto. C maj.

Trios for tuo C Flutes and Alto Flute,

Cantabile, Vogler (Organ Prelude). D maj.
Beethoven Trio. Originally for two Oboes and Cor Anglais..
F maj.
For Soprano Voice and Alto Flute.
Graduale, by Schiedermaier, with Latin words for Church use
and German words with Pianoforte Accompaniment. C maj.

Graduale, by Walter, for Alto Flute (Solo) with Vocal Quartett
and two Violins, Tenor, Cello, and Double-bass. E maj.
INDEX.

eee

A.

Abuse of language, an, 244
Académie des Beaux-Arts, report
of the, 64, 117, 138, 321, 324, 437
— des Sciences, the Boehm flute
_ brought before the, 51, 433
Adam, Ad., 5
Aibl, 384
Air de Cour for four flutes, 216
Airy, Sir George, 294-296
Albert Hall, experiment in the, 14
Allen, Mdme. Caradori, 436°
Alto flute, Boehm’s, 3, 166, 311, 458
-—— —— compositions for, 485
American reviewer, an, on Mr.
Rockstro, 304
Ananias, an, 287
Angel of Truth, the, 242
Angels playing a flute quartett,
214
Antimonotonous, letter from, 345
Apollo not identified . with Mr.
Rockstro, 288
— takes an unfair advantage of
" Marsyas, 204
Apparition, appearance ‘of an, 226
Arts, the Society of, give Boehm a
medal, 178, 439
Asclepiades, his cure for deafness,

397
. Assandri, Mdlle., 435
Attack, Coche’s, on Boehm, 124, 141
Attempts to improve the Boehm
fingering, 12
Auber, 5, 51, 61, 324, 433, 437
Auletes, letter from, 340

 

Authority burkes truth, 256
Axle, Boehm’s, for ring-key, 88, 9
240

 

adopted by Clinton an
_ Pratten, 91
Ayton, Miss Fanny, 400

B.

Backer, Casimir, 436

Balaam, 200, 239

—— a ride on his ass, 242
Balfour, Mr. Henry, 261
Baronet, Boehm’s visit to a, 409
Barret, M., 401

Bass flute, Beuker’s, 74, 213
—— MacGregor’s, 75

in Diderot and D’Alem
bert’s Encyclopeedia, 75
English, 207
Bassoon, a Boehm, 7, 226
Baumann, M., 4o1

 

 

 

_ Beethoven, his op. 25 arranged b:

Boehm, 474

—— his sonatas arranged bi
Scherrer, 449

Beauty and the Beast, 191

Bellamy, Mr., 400, 436

Bennet, Sterndale, 454

Bennett, Mr., 400

Berlioz, a flute-player, 181

—— a juror at the Exhibition o
1851, 5, 166, 454

—— on the expression of the flute
258

 

his opinion of the serpent
222
488

Berlioz fails to climb the pinnacle
of absurdity, 181

—— learns his bones for a new
flute, 181

Berr, 44, 123

Berton, 117, 437

—— his letter to Coche, 118

—extract from his letter to
Coche, 468

Beuker, bass flute by, 74, 213

Bié, M., 44

Billiard player, Boehm a, 478

Bishop, Sir H., a juror at the Exhi-
bition of 1851, 454.

—— ~—— his report, 154-156

—— Lady, 436

Bisset, Miss E., 405

Bléve, a ring-key on his clarionet,
44, 268

Blind beggar, the, his complaining
flute, 258

Boehm, Charles, 472, 477

-—— Joseph, 152

—— Karl Frederick, 375

—— Mary, 475, 477

—— Ludwig, 348, 357, 477

—— Theobald, jun., 478

—— Wilhelm, 478

—— Max, 478

—— August, 478

—— Otto, 478

~— Theobald, portrait of, 373

— — his birth, 375

—— —— date of his birth, 3

—— —— his jumping and walking,
375; 391, 478

—— —— becomes Kapeller’s pupil,
376

—— —— his first appointment in
an orchestra, 378

——— his first Swiss tour,

380

—— —— his duet with the musical-

box maker’s wife, 382

 

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Boehm, Theobald, his connection
with Molique, 385

—— —— visits England ninetimes,
13, 274

—- —— his visit to London in
1831, 8, 20, 190, 398 ; in 1833, 46,
274, 418, 426; in 1834 and 1835,
46, 278; in 1836, 130, 421, 4353
in 1837, 48, 278

— ——his acquaintance with
Nicholson, 10, 20, 405

—— —— abandons the old finger-
ing, 20

— — his visit to a baronet,
408

—— —— styled a tone artist, 386

—— —— his playing described, 4,

386

—— —— his singing on the flute;
389

—— —— his phrasing, 350, 383

—— —— his salary, 383, 385, 392,
408 :

—— —— is pensioned, 440

—— —— invents Kapeller’s flute,
377

—— —— attempts to improve the
old flute, 20

— — establishes a flute fac-
tory, 19, 392

—— —— his first model, 85, 206

—— — his flute of 1832, 104, 415,
418, 240; of 1847, 8, 177, 294,
439, 442

 

makes a suggestion for a
flute to be held straight, 177

—— —— his flute in G, see Alto
flute

—— —— his first ring-key, 24, 88,
239

——— his ring-key of
104, 240, 416

invents

making stéel, 178

1832,

a method of

 
INDEX.

Boehm, Theobald, invents the over-
strung pianoforte, 179

—— —— invents a machine for
‘driving the pins in musical boxes,
aft ce

—— —— invents a method of com-
municating rotatory motion, 178,
439

—— —— reads a paper before the

. Académie des Sciences, 50

—— —— introduces an improve-
ment in iron puddling in Ger-
many, 43!

—— —— receives. the Order of St
Michael, 431, 438

—— —— his prize medals, 13, 178,
181, 426, 439

—-_—— his rapidity of concep-
tion, 194 y

—— —— gives an inaccurate date,
70, 130

— —— his letter to Coche, 129,
145

—— —— speaks of Gordon to the
author, 287

—— —— calls Mr. Rockstro’s per-
fection humbug, 183

—— —— as painted by Mr. Rock-
stro, 183

———— “must” have copied

* Gordon’s flute, 180, 253

~~ —— takes “ much ” from Gor-
don, 241
—— — could not have invented

his flute, 180, 253
—— —— is libelled, 195
—- —— indictment of his libel-
lers, 200
—— —— called an impostor, 171
—— —— as a pirate, 182
——-—— why reviled, 185, 241,
314
—— —— meets the Devil, 290
—— —— sells his soul, 289

 

489

Boehm, Theobald, suffers from
cholera, 437

—— —— injures his sight, 439

—— —— is hurt by a fall, 476

—— —— loses his front teeth, 472

—— —— his golden wedding, 477

—— —— his last composition, 475

—— —— his death, 476

— — his funeral, 478

— —— his constitution, 478

— —— his wife, 472, 477

—~ — his family, 477

his character, 478, 481

—— —— plays chess and billiards,
476, 478

—— —— his arrangements, 474

—— —— list of his compositions,
482

—— fingering, the, attributed to
Gordon, 72, 152, 232

—— — —— to Satan, 289

—— -—— compared with Gordon’s,
233 ;

—— —— attempts to improve, 12

—— flute, the, 104

—— —— invention of, 19

—— —— its date disputed by Mr.
Rockstro, 253

said to be only playable
in the key of C, 321, 337

—— — called Gordon’s, 244

 

 

——— an objection raiséd
against, by Pask, 336
— given up by De Folly, 321

 

—— —— laid aside by Frisch, 335

—— —— attacked by Jim Crow,
34t

——~ —— seduces Mr.
190

—— -—— invented by the Devil, 289

—— —— heard at a concert sfi-
vituel in 1832, 45, 253, 418

Boehm’s pamphlet, extracts from,
149

Rockstro,
490

Boehm’s letter to Coche, 129, 145

—— workman, see Grevé

—— improvements, applicable to
the hautboy, 6

Boekhart, J.,208

Boieldieu, 5

Bond, an unholy,
289

Bore of the flute, how far scentiie,
294

—— Boehm’s cylinder, 8, 439

—— the old cylinder, 218

—— the conical, introduced, 225

Bore ’em flute, the, 325

Botocudos, the, nose-flute players,
257

Braham, 399

Briccialdi, 12, 459

—— his B flat key, 106, 448, 457

Brizzi, 473

Broadwood, Mr. Walter. Stewart,

180, 373, 422

—— —— edits Boehm’spamphlet, 8,
171

—— —— negatives the assertion
that Boehm was an ignorant im-
postor, 171

— — is ignored by Mr. Rock-
stro, 173, 256

—— —— is not an expunger, 243

—— —— his letter to the London

Figaro, 155

— —— his letter to the Musical
World, 159

Broadwood’s, 449

Brod, M., 123

Bruce, Miss, 399

Buffet, Aug., jeune, 44, 268, 282

—— —— his closed B flat key, 12

—— —— —— applies to the flute
clutches, sleeves, and needle-
springs, 49, 240

—— ——— —— applies ring-keys to
the clarionet and oboe, 50

execution of,

 

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Buffet, Aug., his connection avitl
Gordon, 174 |
aad work on Gordon’

——e

flute, 11

 

joins Coche in a flute
factory, 31, 55
Bull, Ole, 436

 

 

| Burney, Dr., 219

—— defends the serpent, 223
— on curing deafness by noise

397
Button, Gordon’s, 175, 211

Cc.

Camus, 133, 321, 330

-— brings a Boehm flute to Paris
49

—— his opinion of the Dorus key
58

 

vanquished by Coche, 63, 111

Capeller, see Kapeller

Carafa, 5, 61, 66, 324, 437

Card attacked by Ward,.189, 339
330

—— his flute a part of Gerock anc
Wolf’s, 200, 330

Carte, Richard, 5, 14, 175, 196, 197
337, 452, 469

Carte,. Richard, his opinion 0
Boehm’s work, 170

—— -— improves the Boehr
fingering, 12

—— his G sharp key, 57

——- —— his School for the Boehn
Flute, 440, 459

—— —— advocates the open G
441, 459

—— —— development of his flut
of 1867, 246

—— —— his patent flute, 452

his Boehm clarionet, 7

-——— and Clinton adopt the Boehn
flute, 48

 
INDEX...

Caste in connection with the nose-
flute, 260

Catalani, 473 :

—— Boehm plays at her concert,

390
Cavaillé-Coll, 279
— his paper on  Boehm’s

Schema, 306
_ Centenaty, Boehm’s, celebration of,
357
Character, Boehm’s, 478, 481
Charles Xth, King, 33
—— Prince, death of, 472
—— the celebrated, 65, 121, 3c2
Cherubini, 5, 61, 324, 437
Chess-player, Boehm a, 476, 478
Chladni on the material of wind
instruments, 363, 451
Choral Fund Concert in 1831, 399
— —— — 1835, 330
_—  — 1836, 435
“ Chouquet, M. Gustave, 40, 44, 213
Clairvéyance, extraordinary, 197
Clementi & Co., flute-makers for
Nicholson, 332
Clinton, J., 48, 241
—_ opposes the cylinder, 8
~—— denies the possibility of per-
#ection, 18
—— adopts Gordon’s axle, 91
— his flute at the exhibition of

- 1851, 453,

Clinton, J., his Equisonant flute,-

91, 302
—— ascribes the open - keyed
system to Gordon, 37

—— —— —— equalisation of the
holes to Gordon, 203, 276
— opposes the open-keyed

system, 233

— his evidence on Boehm’s visits
to London, 277

—— was he an accomplice in a
fraudulent attempt? 98

 

491

Clinton dvfends Boehr, 93
— claims "perfection, 3o2
— attacked for adopting ‘the
Boehm flute, 314, 318
—— Ward’s attack on, 329° i
-—— abused by Jim Crow, 341
——his letters to the Musical
World, 316, 322
—— his Essay on the Boehm Flute,
. 315, 318
—— his School for ditto, 92,98 °
Close, Mr., experiments of, 265
Clutches patented by Buffet, 49
Coche' on the imperfections of the
old flute, 5
— ascribes the origin of ring-
keys to Gordon, 40
—— his opinion of the Boehm
flute, 52
—— his pamphlet, 62
—— his misleading engraving, 32,
71, 273
—— modifications suggested by,
55, 62
—— his attack on Boehm, 124;
423
—— writes to Gordon, 67, 125
——— to Boehm, 52, 69, 125, 423
— his:misleading title-page, “72,
232
—— takes the crown of folly from
an amateur, 181
—-~ his errors exposed by Mr.
Rockstro, 201, 203, 234 >
— was he acquainted with
Gordon’s announcement? 284
—— claims perfection, 301 i
—— his School for the Flute, 71
——makes changes in Boehm’s
flute, 433 i
—— his portrait painted by him-
self, 109 ;
Codrington, Dr., 257 )
Collard, Mr., 256
492

Collins, James, 248

Column of air, the, 126, 202, 297

Compositions, List of Boehm’s, 482

Compunction, Mr. Rocksto’s, 184

Concert spirituel, Boehm flute
played at a, in 1832, 253, 418

Concerto, Boehm’s, in G, 384.

Conjuror, a wonderful, 271

Controversy, the Boehm-Gordon,
9, 36

Consumption, Boehm threatened
with, 478

Cook, Captain, set right, 266

Cork, position of the, 16, 295

Correr, Count Giovanni, 218

Cort, his invention of puddling iron,
430

Costa, Sir Michael, 5, 402

Counterpoint, a Professor of, letter
from, 345

Cramer, F., 404, 405

—— Miss, 400, 405

Crank and wire system, Gordon’s,
38, 127, 280, 425

priated by Ward, 187
Crescent, Gordon’s, 38, 126
—— Pottgiesser’s, 83, 267

crescentic E flat key, Ward’s, 188 |

crime, Boehm confesses his, 183

Crow, Jim, letter from, 341

Srump on Stock Exchange Specu-
tation, 303.

Culmination of the wretched metal
flute, 192

Curioni, Signor, 401

Zylinder bore, Boehm’s, 8, 294,
439 ;

—— —— is superseding the cone,
177

—— —— its effect compared with
the cone, 8, 14

cylindrical flute, keyless, 218

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM

 

FLUTE.

D.
D shake key, Boehm’s, 27, 32, 12€
271, 377 +

Danchell, F, L. H., 427

Davies, Mr., 403

Dead lion kicking, 199

Deafness, middle ear, 397

De Begnis, Signor, 401, 402, 403
404

De Folly, 332, 342

—— — gives up the Boehn
flute, 321

Della Torre, Signor, 401

De Vroye, M., 299, 307

Desnoyers, Thulart, & Co., 457

Devil, the, meets Boehm, 290

Diana, 304

Diderot and D’Alembert’s Encyclo:
pedia, bass flute described in,
75

Dipple, 342

Disgust, Mr. Rockstro’s, 193 -

Division of the column of air, 126,
202, 297

Dog, Gordon’s, 102

Dorus, 51, 73, 165, 319, 321, 323,
324, 330, 432, 434, 459

—— key, the, 56, 58

Downes, 342

Dragonetti, 436

Drawing of Gordon’s flute accord-

. ‘ing to Coche, I1, 107, 273, 148

 

— — an extraor-
dinary production, 285

Dream, Mr. Rockstro’s, 255

Drouet, 20, 30, 36, 129, 332, 338,
389, 420, 438

Dulken, Mdme., 4o1, 402

Dulon, 201

Dulong, 51, 61, 165, 433

Dunn, the Misses, 403

Du Puy, Mdlle., 401, 403
INDEX.

E.

Earl’s Court, Italian Exhibition at,
177

Eight-keyed flute, figure of an, 204

_—-—— — diagram of the holes

“of an, 205

. Elegie, Boehm’s, 475

Ellis describes the nose-flute, 263

Embouchure, Boehm’s movable
gold, 19, 377.

—— the heart of the flute, 296

—science fails to explain its
action, 296

—— Boehm’s ideas on, 443, 297

—— Mr. Rockstro’s perfect, 297

—— letter from, 339

Endymion, 304

Engel on whistling, 260

England, introduction in, of the
Boehm flute, 46

‘Equalisation of the holes, 5, 203

Equisonant flute, the, 91, 303

Essay on the Construction of Flutes,

8,171 '

Evidence suppressed, 275

Examen critique, Coche’s, 62, 71,
423, 425

—~ — extract from, 124, 284

Excavation to receive the lower lip,
126, 201 :

—-— used by Ribock, 201

Exhibition of 1851, flutes exhibited

at the, 452
——~ —— jury at the, 454
—— —— report of Sir H. Bishop,
"194, 156
—— of 1855, 454
—— —— report, of Helmesberger,
455
—— —— —— Fétis, 154
— 1862, report of Pole, 154

 

493

ro

Faber du Four, 439

Falsehood imputed, 97, 182, 253,
255, 274

Falstaff, Sir J., outdone, 177

Family coffee, Boehm’s, 476

Faraday, 292

Faustus, Dr., 289

Fétis, 30, 133, 277

his description of _Boehm’s
playing, 4

—— credits Boehm with invent-
ing a pianoforte, 13, 179

—— accepts Coche’s statements,
40

—— Schafhautl’s strictures on, 423

Figaro, obituary article on Boehm
in the London, 152

Filling the flute, 122

Finger-holes, reformation of the,
5, 203

:~—— their position, how determined,
16, 297

—— —— defies calculation, 464

—— Boehm’s, placed closer together

by Siccama,-211
by Mr. Rockstro, 192
—— most desirable size of the,

 

445
Fingering, the Boehm, 290
—— —— attributed to Gordon,
23, 71, 232
—— —— —— to Satan, 289.
—— ——— attempts to improve, 12
compared with Gordon’s,

 

233
—— of the nose-flute, 264
Finn, Mr. John, 3
Flute, the, an humble instrument,
257 :
— its peculiar expression, 25
-—— not an organ pipe, 463
—— the old, defects of the, 5
494

Flute, the old, Tulou’s plea for, 28

—— alto, 3, 311, 448, 457

—— bass, see Bass flute

—— Gerock and Wolf’s, 85

— Gordon’s, 88, 106

—— the Boehm, 104

principles of, 5

—— —— date of its invention, 45,
250

—— —— its introduction in Eng-
land, 47

 

— —— —— — in France, 49

—— early one-keyed, 225

—— nose, 257

—— blind beggar’s . yellow, the,
258 ‘

—— Quantz’s, 229

—— Siccama’s diatonic, 208

—— —— one-keyed, 210

—— the Bore ’em, 325

— Tulou’s, 453

—— Ziegler’s, 456

Flute-player from The
Master, 227

Folz, Signor, 48.

Yorster, Reinhold, 261

France, introduction of the Boehm
flute in, 49

frey, M., 133

Frisch, 332, 338

—— outplays the Boehm players,
321

— lays aside the Boehm flute, 335

“rohnert, 448

“uneral, Boehm’s, 478

Tiirstenau, A. B., 469

— Moritz, 469

— —— obliged to return to the
old flute, 471

Music

G.

x sharp key, Carte’s, 56
—— Dorus’s, 58

 

 

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

G sharp key, Nolan’s, 80

——-—— should it be open c
closed? Opinion of Boehm, 43.
460

— — — —— Camus, 58

— — —— — Carte, 56, 46

Galileo, 256

Gall, the Abbey of St., 215

Gebaur, 123

Gerock, 180

— and Wolf, 277, 319, 329, 332
351

—— —— their opinion of Boehm
178

—— —— their paniphlet, 196, 32

——— —— extract from, 85
198

—— —— —— date of, 199

-—— —— their flute, 85, 195, 206

—— —— attacked by Mr. Rock.
stro, 198

——— —— construct Boehm’s piano-
forte, 180

Giant, the, and the pigmy, 281

Giant Killer, Jack the, 255

Glen, Messrs. J. and R., 226

Glide, Nicholson’s, 321, 466

Gluck, his air for the flute in Orfeo,
258

Goddess, a, Saciaueeae of Mr.
Rockstro, 304

Godefroy, 52, 113, 114, 441, 454

Gordon, Captain, 330, 437°

-—— —— makes experiments in
1826, Io na

—— frequents Buffet’s work-
shop, 175

——— —— anticipates Boehm in
making an open-keyed flute,
126

—— —— invents his flute in 1830,
127

— —— his visit to London in
1831, 26, 194
INDEX.

Gordon, Captain, employs Rudall
and Rose and Ward, 26

—— —— his call on Boehm, 10,
27, 130, 418

—— —— writes to Boehm, 29, 70,
95, 419

—— —— his visit to Munich, 10,
26, 127, 130, 249, 281

—— —— the light of his intelli-
gence shines on Boehm, 180,
253

— -— takes two keys from
Boehm, 27, 126, 271

—— —— rejects his system, why?
254

— — writes to Mercier, 30,
132, 281

—— —— goes from Munich to
London, 13, 30, 128

— — his ring-key, 10, 22, 24

— —— — —— anadoption, 42

-—- —— — — what it “ must
have been,” 268

— — his crank and wire
system, 38, 127, 280

-—— —— his crescents, whence
derived, 267

—— —— his announcement, 30,
99, 164, 281, 420

—— —— did he leave Munich with
two flutes? 287

— —— his Eureka, 25

—— —— his diatonic flute, 88

—-——his flute according to
Coche, 106

—— —— his signature, 103

—— his King  Charles’s
spaniel, 101

—— —— cracks his flute, 13, 128

—— —— was his flute useless ? 280

__——~ his fingering and Boehm’s
compared, 233
.__. —_— his insanity, 13, 31, 128,

153, 421

 

495

Gordon, Captain, throws his flute
into Lake Leman, 131, 165, 422 -

——+— charged with falsehood
by Mr. Rockstro, 255, 271

—— —— becomes a Mephistophe-
les, 289

-—— —-- his death, 422

—— —— his character, 32, 185

—— Madame, her letter to Coche,
II, 69, 127, 283

— -— her touching account
of her husband, 34, 128

Gordonites, the, 235

—— creed of, 36

Graz, Joseph, teaches Boehm com-
position, 384 ,

Grenier, Frederick George, 427

Grenser, 376

Gresham, Lady, on Boehm’s inter-
pretation, 389, 473

Grevé, Boehm’s workman, 10, 27,
30, 48, 128, 421, 437

Al,

Haindl, 469
Halévy, 61, 66, 124, 324, 437
Handel and the serpent, 222
Hangman, the, cannot burn Mr.
Radcliffs flute, 256
Harmonicon, The, 20, 250, 274
Harper, Mr., 436
Haslinger introduces Boehm to
Paganini, 393
Head-joint, the, its influence on the
3rd octave, 16
Boehm’s parabola, 8, 443
—— of wood with metal flute, 459
Helmesberger’s report on Boehm’s
flute, 455: .
Helmholtz, 296
Henry le Jeune, 218
Hercules, the logical, and his club
“ Must-be,” 269

 
196

derschel, Sir J., 294

dipkins, Mr. A. J., 158

— his account of Boehm’s piano-
forte, 179

Aobbs, Mr., 436

Jodgkinson, Mr., 342, 347

—— letter from, 332

doles, see Finger-holes

Joly Ghost, the, scared away by
whistling, 259

Jorsham, 409

Jounsfield, Mr., 352

owling Stick, Old, 228, 341, 343

—— —— —— letters from, 327,
338

dughes, Miss, 399

Aumanity of Mr. Rockstro, 204

Jumbug, Boehm’s, 183

Hummel’s concert in 1831, 20, 249

i.

[conoclast, a singular, 203

lenoratio élenchi, an, 270

Indictment of Boehm’s libellers,
200

Injustice, Boehm’s, 186

Intonation of the flute, 15

Invention of Carte’s ’67 flute, 245

Inventions, their origin difficult to
discover, 245

—— Boehm’s remarks on, 248

Iron foundries, the English, 428

Isenschmied, Dr., 441, 475

Italian school of singing, 391, 473

Ivory on one-keyed flutes, 225

Fs
Jacobite, Gordon a, 102
James on Nicholson’s tone, 333
Jeannet and Cotelle, 30"
Judge, the, and the prosecutor, 241
Jumping, Boehm’s, 375, 391

 

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Jupiter, 245:
Justice to Gordon, 185

K.

Kapeller teaches Boehm, 376

— his flute the invention of
Boehm, 377

—— his shake key, 271, 377

Kelsall, Dr., perpetrates the crown-
ing folly, 181

— letter from, 339

Keys, closed, their tale, 213

—— open, origin of, 231

——— ring, see Ring-keys

King Charles’s spaniel, Gordon’s,
102

Klosé’s clarinet, 7, 50

Knyvett, Miss, 436

Kriiger, Charles, 371

L.

Labarre, Mons., 402
Lablache, 402, 436, 473
Lalande, Mdme., 401
Lambert’s Voyage of the Wanderer
266
Laomedon, 205
Laurent, 131, 133
Lausanne, 29, 67, 102
Lavigne, his Boehm oboe, 7; 457
Lee, Leoni, 436
Lefévte, 44
Lemoine, M., 133
Letters: ftom
Coche to Boehm, in Englist
112, 115; in French, 13:
136
(presumably) Camus to Boehn
in English, 114, 135
Gordon to Boehm, in Frencl
95; in English, 419
—— to Mercier, 132, 147 °
INDEX.

Letters: from
Madame Gordon to Coche,
127, 143
Boehm to Coche, 129, 145
Mr. W. S. Broadwood to the
London Figaro, 155
—— — to the Musical
World, 159
Letters to the Musical World, 314 :
from
J. Clinton, 316
T. Prowse, 319
J. Clinton, 322
Flauto, 325
Old Howling Stick, 326
Omega, 327
T. Prowse, 328
C. Ward, 329
W. C. Hodgkinson, 332
John Pask, 334
Old Howling Stick, 338
Embouchure, 339
H. Kelsall, M.D., 339
Auletes, 340
Jim Crow, 341
E. N. F., 343
Obadiah, 344
Antimonotonous, 345
A Professor of Counterpoint,
345
Lessing, 481
Libellers of Boehm, the, 195
-— trial of the, 200
Lindley, 404, 436
Lindpaintner, 378 .
Litigation, Schafhautl’s pianoforte
in, 46, 427
Logic, dangers of, 242
Lord, an English, takes a fancy to
Boehm, 384
Lot, 440, 441, 454, 457
Louvre, capture of the, 33

 

497

M,

Mahillon, M. Victor, 213, 293, 307

—— ignored by Mr. Rockstro,
256

—— on Boehm’s Schema, 299

—— his article on Transverse Flute
in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
230, 263

Malibran, 473 :

Manby, 355

Marmont, 33

Marquesas, nose-flute in the, 263

Marshall, Edward, and the metal
flute, 293

Marsyas, 288

—— unfairly treated by Apollo, 204

Masson, Miss, 402, 404, 405, 436

Material of flutes as affecting the
tone, 293, 363, 450

Mauleverers, the, 235

Maximilian Joseph, King of Ba-
varia, 375, 471

—— —— his partiality to Boehm,
380, 385

Mayseder, 386

—— his jealousy of Paganini, 392

Medals, Boehm’s, 13, 178, 425

—— -=— tell against the jurors,
181

Melanesia, nose-flute in, 257

Melville’s account of the nose-flute,
263

Mendler, 454

Mercier, M., 30, 281, 282

—— —— Gordon’s letter to, 132

Mersenne, 218

—— his account of the Sourdeline,
219

—— his suggestions for bass flutes,
221

—— his proposal to apply closed
keys to the flute, 223

—— his flute organ, 223

2 K
498 HISTORY OF

Metal flutes, 192

Miller, his patent fifes, 276

—— Herman, writes verses on the
Boehm flute, 449

Mills, Mr. W. P., 4, 373, 472

Minasi, 342

Minerva, 245

Mitterer, Professor, 375

Model, Boehm’s first, 85, 196

—— Mr. Collard’s, 256

—— Mr. Radcliff’s, 256

—— the Rockstro, 182, 193

Models, Boehm makes three, 24, |

290

Modifications, Coche’s, 55

Molique, Bernhard, 258

— —— gives concerts
Boehm, 385

Monochord, the, not applicable to
the flute, 186, 202, 243, 463

Moralt’s concert, 20

Mori, Mr., 402

Moscheles, 399

— his concert, 20, 404

Mozart, 415

~—— his andante for flute, 474

— his larghetto from the clario-
net quintett, 475

‘Much” taken by Boehm from
Gordon, 241

Muller, Ivan, 126, 142

Murder by flute-players, 219

Music Master, The, fiute-player
from, 227

Musical boxes, 380

Uusical World, letters to the, 159,
314

Myth, the Boehm-Gordon incident
becomes a, 288

with

N.

Napoleon, 375, 380
~—— Prince, 426, 455

 

THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Needle springs, see Springs

Newcastle Street, Strand, Gordon’,
address there, 30, 132, 147

Nicholson, Charles, 231, 327, 328
334s 347

-—— —— Boeéhm’s description of
10

—— —— his tone, 161, 333, 403

his shake in the Ov. tc
William Tell, 5

—— — his large holes, 20, 161
405

— — his glide, 321, 336

—— —— objects to “roaring,” 257

Boehm’s ihtroduction to

 

405
—— flute, the, 334, 341
Nicholson’s father enlarges the
holes, 20
Nicholsonian effect, the, 9
Noblet and Thibouville, 457
Nolan, Dr., his ring-key, 79, 236
—— —— why it failed, 239
—— —— extract from the specifi-
cation of his patent, 31
—— — a distinguished: divine,
236
Nose-flute, the, where played, 257
——— —— its origin discussed, 257
—— —— its tone, 258, 262
—— —— its tuning-slide, 262
—— —— its acoustic puzzle, 264
figure of girl playing, 267
Nussbaum’s advice to the con-
sumptive, 479

 

 

oO.

Obadiah, letter from, 344

Oboe, the Boehm, 7, 448, 457

Octopus, a gigantic, 182

Old England Club, the, 361

Old Gentleman, Boehm swindlec
by the, 289
INDEX,

Old Howling Stick, see Howling
Stick
Omega, letter from, 327
- Open-keyed system, the, 5
—— —— by whom originated, 231
—— ——~ Clinton’s opinion of, 233
Organ pipe, an, differs from a flute,
463
Organ pipes, experiments with, 363
Overstrung pianoforte, the, invented
by Boehm, 47, 179

P:

Paer, 51, 61, 113, 124, 301, 324, 433

Paccini, 133, 147

Paganini, 392

—— Boehm introduced to, 393

Pall,a, thrown over Mr. Radcliff, 256

Pamphlet, Coche’s, 62

— extract from Boehm’s, 20, 149

—— —— from Coche’s, 124, 143

Parry, Mr., jun., 399, 405

Pask, J +» 339

—— — letter from, 334

Passports, Boehm’s, 278

» Pasta, 402, 473

Patent Office, early ring-key found
at the, 45, 235

Pellisov, 251, 351

Perforated key, Nolan’s, 79

Perfection, impossibility of attain-
ing, 16

— remarks on, by Clinton, 18

—the ghost of, frightens the
flute-makers, 226

—— cannot be silenced, 230

—— a will-o’-the-wisp, 301

—— Coche’s, 301

—— Siccama’s, 17, 302

— Clinton’s, 303

—— Mr. Rockstro’s, 193, 303

—— —— called humbug by
Boehm, 183

 

499

Pfaff, 454

Philharmonic concert, Boehm plays
at a, 20

Phillips, Mr., 400

Pianoforte, Boehm’s improvements
in the, 179, 277

—— Schafhiutl’s, 427

Pillaut, M., 213

Pillory, Mr. Radcliff cannot be put
into the, 256

Pitt-Rivers Collection, nose-flutes
in the, 257

Pirate, Boehm as a, 182

Pleyel, M., 133, 147

Poachers in Mr. Rockstro’s pre-
serves, 176

Péhlman, Herr, 179

‘Poissl, Baron von, 393, 408

Polynesian Researches, Ellis’s, de-
scription of nose-flute from, 263
Portrait of Coche, retouched and
varnished, 109

—— (miniature) of an ignorant
impostor, 209

—— of Boehm, by Mr. Rockstro,
183

Pottgiesser, Dr., 188

—— —— equalises the holes, 203

— — his key, 83, 268

Potter, Cypriani, 454

—— Mr. Henry, 91

Pratten adopts Siccama’s flute, 210

—— his perfected flute, 91, 211

Prescott, 448

Prize medals, Boehm’s, 181, 454

Programme of choral fund con-
cert, 399

——~- —— concert for an author, 404

—— —— Madame Dulken’s con-
cert, 402

—— —— a morning concert, 403

—— —  Moscheles’ concert, 404

—— —— new musical fund con-

cert, 435
oO HISTORY OF THE

rony, 165, 433
'rowse, T., his letters to the

Musical World, 319, 328
‘uddling iron, Schafhdutl’s appa-
ratus for, 354

‘uddle-master, Boehm becomes a,
431

-uzzi, Signor, 402, 404, 405

—— Mdme., 404, 405

Q.
Juantz’s key for the flute, 229, 413-
Juartett, flute, music of a, from
Mersenne, 216
Quincy, Quatremére de, 124, 141,
437

R.

Radcliff, Mr., adopts the closed G,
12, 56, 59, 119

— —- his experiment in the
Albert Hall, 14

——— —— ignored by Mr. Rockstro,
256

Rafi, 218

Ravilius, Jean Baptiste, 221

Rayleigh, Lord, 294, 296, 362

Record Office, the, 238

Reich, Dr. Emil, 373, 374

Remusat, 449

Report of the French Academy of
Fine Arts, 63, 120

Revelation, Gordon’s, 24

—— Mr. Rockstro’s, 99

Ribas, 332

Ribock attempts a reformation of
the holes, 203

—— his excavation for the lower
lip, 126, 201

Richardson, 87, 210, 334, 338, 342

Ring-key, Gordon’s, 10, 24

 

—— —— —— a borrowed idea, 42

BOEHM FLUTE.

Ring-key, Gordon’s, discarded for
Boehm’s, 25

— —— — what it “must have
been,” 268

—— —— Nolan’s, 79, 237

—— —— Pottgiesser’s, 83

—— —— of Boehm’s first model,
239

Ring-keys, search for early, 44, 235

— —— origin of, 39, 235

—— —— Schafhiutl’s account of,
415

Rockstro, Mr. R. S., 176, 197, 204,
209, 241, 266, 268, 281, 283, 288,
304, 3775 408, 424, 447

——-—— his evidence on the
charges brought against Boehm,
20], 203, 231

—— —— his opinion of the origin
of the ring-key, 237

a sample of his method

of writing history, 98

his modus operandi, 256

—— —— on the connection be:
tween science and flute-making
294, 297, 298

—— —— ignores Mr. Broadwooc
and the Author, 173

—— —— — M. Victor Mahillon
Mr. Radcliff, and Mr. Collard
256

—— —— his disinterested witness
185

—— —— his attack on Gerock an
Wolf's flute, 197

—— —— his dream, 255, 408

——— —— his seduction, 191

—— — his disgust, 193

-—— —— his compunction, 184

— —— his idol, 110, 203

—— —— has recourse to logi
242

————imputes falsehood, 9
182, 253, 255, 274

 

 
INDEX.

Rockstro, Mr. R. S., suppresses
evidence, 275

—~-— his story falls to the
ground, 274
—— —— his flattering compliment

' to the Author, 198

—— —— his skill as a conjuror, 271

—— —— his F sharp lever, 173,
174, 176, 212

—— —— his crescentic E flat key,
188, 192

Rohrleitner, Frau Anna, Boehm’s
wife, 477

Rotatory motion, Boehm’s method
of communicating, 178, 438

Rovelli, 385, 386

Royal (Creed), 342

Rubini, 402, 404, 405, 436

Rudall, George, 405

— — his opinion of Boehm’s |

metal flute, 192, 452
— Carte, & Co., 12
—— —— — their Boehm clario-
_ net, 7
—— —— —— the ee of their
finger-holes, 297
Rudall and Rose, 315, 318, ak oe.
440, 448, 452, 457
—— ——- attacked by Ward, 180,
331
S.

Sackbut, the, 222

St. Michael, the Order of, conferred
on Boehm, 431, 439

Salary, Boehm’s, 383, 385, 392, 408,
440

Santini, 401, 402, 403, 404

Satan, his connection with whist-
ling, 260

—the Boehm fingering attributed
to, 289

Sauvlet’s Souvenir du Volga, 450

Savart, 18, 50, 61, 64, 162, 165, 432

 

501

Saynor, 342

Scaramelli, his wager, 441

Schafhautl, Dr., 36, 250, 251, 287

--— makes Boehm’s acquaintance,
350, 396

—— his ideas on the construction
of the pianoforte, 396, 427

—— his invention in litigation, 46,
428 :

—— hisvisit to England, 46,352, 428

—— his patents, 353, 354, 356

—— his returns to Munich, 357

—— his many appointments, 359

—— his death, 361

—— his honours, 360

—— his inaccuracy, 362

—— his lively imagination, 418

—— singular affection of his visual

organs, 425

—— his paper in defence of Boehm,
159

—— his Life of Boehm, 374

Schema, Boehm’s, 16 ~

—— not used by flute-makers, 297

—— Cavaillé-Coll’s paper on, 306

~—— conflicting opinions respecting,
298

Scherrer, W., his enthusiastic letter
to Boehm, 449

Schiller’s Philosophers, 466

Schlesinger, 133, 147

Schulze, organ-builder, 369

Science and the art of flute-making,
292, 462

——-and the material of the flute,
293, 363

and the bore, 294

—— and the position of the stop-
per, 295

and the embouchure, 296

—-— and the position of the finger-
holes, 297

——and the construction of the
violin, 465

 

 
502

Science, the flute-maker’s, yet un-
born, 301

—— Rockstro, genuine, 191

Secret letter, Coche’s, to Boehm,
52, 112

Seduction, a case of, 190

Serpent, the, 222

Sessi, 473

Siccama claims perfect intonation,
17, 302

—— takes a key from Boehm’s
first model, 91, 208

—— attacked by Mr. Rockstro,
209, 302, 305

—— his diatonic flute, 208

—— his one-keyed flute, 21¢

—— brings the holes nearer to-
gether, 211

—— commits the unpardonable sin,
211

Sight, Boehm’s, injured, 439

Silver versus wood, 192, 293, 451

Sinclair, Mr., 400

Singing, Boehm’s, on the flute, 389,
473

Sleeves, the, patented by Buffet, 49

—— —— attributed to Boehm, 447

Smart, Sir George, 405, 454

Smelting furnaces, 429

Smith, Mr. Hermann, 296

Smithfield, the fires of, cannot be
relighted for the author and
others, 256

Snoeck, M. Césare, 208, 225

Society of Arts, the, give Boehm a
medal, 178, 439

Solitary error, Coche’s, 377, 110

-Sémmering employs Boehm to
articulate skeletons, 376

Sons pleins, 9

Sourdeline, the, 219

Spencer, Mr. George, 245

Springs, needle, patented by Buffet,

49

 

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Springs, needle, attributed to
Boehm, 447

Spohr, 386

Steed, Mr. Rockstro’s logical, 242

Steel, Boehm invents a method of
making, 178

Stettmair, 461

Steiner, 466

Stockhausen, Mr., 403

—— Mdme., 399, 403

Stopper, position of the, 16, 295

Style;~Boehm’s, 386

Sussex, the Duke of, 439

Swiss Boy, Boehm’s, 319, 330, 332

—— Guards, the, seized with panic,

33
Switzerland, Boehm’s visits to, 380,
391, 476

Ls

Tablature, Gordon’s, 101, 273, 281
Tamburini, Sig., 435, 473
Teeth, the lower front, 202
— false, 472
Temptation and fall of Boehm, 289
of Mr. Rocksizo, 191
Terrail, Mr., 400
Terschak’s prayer, 228
Thalberg, 454
Theodor, Karl, 374 Wits
Thibouville and Hérouard, 457
Thrashing the flute, 9
Tolbecque, A., 401, 403
Tone of cylinder flute, 8
— of nose-flute, 262
—— Nicholson’s, 9, 20, 333, 406
— “horny,” 259
—— how far influenced by the

material of the flute, 293, 363, 450
—— artist, Boehm a, 388
Tonga Islands, 260, 266
Tonkunstler, Der Bayrische, 403
Tootapah’s nose-flute concert, 262

 
INDEX.

Torri, Signor, 403
Transmission apparatus, Boehm’s,
178, 438
Transverse flute, article on, by
Mahillon, in the Eucyclopedia
Britannica, 230, 263
Tree of Knowledge, raid on the, 267
’ Treichlinger, Herr, 251
Triebert and Co., 458
Triggs, Mr. J. P., 159, 297
Tromlitz, 203, 231, 235
‘Trumpet of wood, 293
~— lead, 372
—— paste-board, 372
Trumpeter, a superior, 468
Tull, 342
Tulou, 96, 119, 129, 321, 332, 438,
— extract from the introduction
to his method, 40
—— objects to a change of finger-
ing, 97
—— —— to the Siccama flute, 453
~— pleads for the old flute, 28
-—— engraving of his improved
flute, 453
Tuning-slide for nose-flute, 262
Turpin, Dr., 218
Tylor, Dr., on the origin of the
 nose-flute, 261
Tyndall, Dr., 292

U.
Ulysses, 255

V.

Vaughan, Mr., 400

Velutti, 473

Venice, Boehm plays at, 393

Vercellini, Signor, 403

Vienna, Boehm visits, 385, 392

Violin, the, not the production of
science, 465

Vision, Mr. Rockstro’s, 408

 

593

Visits, Boehm’s, to England, see
Boehm ,

Vivo, the, 263.

Vogler, the Abbé, 370

Vulcan, 245

W,

Wager, Scaramelli’s, 442

offered on Ward’s flute, 340

Wagstaff, Miss, 436

Walckiers on the characteristics of
the flute, 258

Wanderer, Voyage of the, 266

Ward, Cornelius, 339

—— —— on the faults of the old
flute, 21, 205

makes a flute for Gordon,

 

26, 194
—— —— his account of an early
remodelled flute, 43
—— —— his opinion of Gordon, 34
—— adopts Gordon’s crank
and wire mechanism, 38, 195

 

 

—— — — Boehm’s ring-key,
187 ;
—— —— appropriates inventions,

past, present, and future, 188

—— deserted by Mr. Rockstro,
199

— as a disinterested witness,
185, 315

—— as Boehm’s superior, 189, 468

—— Mr. Rockstro’s discovery of
his secret, 200

—— his crescentic E flat key, 188

— his letter to the Musical
World, 329

—— his flute dies a natural death,
190

a his attack on Boehm, 186, 466

—— —— — on Rudall and Rose,
Card and Clinton, 189, 315

—— Schafhautl’s opinion of, 469
504

Waterfall, an upward, 333

Weber, Gottfried, his C key, 84

Weber's account of Kapeller’s flute,
377

Weiner, Eugen, 480

Wells, Mr. B., 245

Whistling a wicked practice, 259

William, Mr., 400

Williams’s Fujz and the Fijians,
figure from, 267

Willis, Dr., his case of deafness
relieved by drumming, 398

Winter, Peter, assisted by Boehm
to illustrate his Life of Christ,

383

 

HISTORY OF THE BOEHM FLUTE.

Wittgenstein, Betty, 480
Wolf, cry of, raised by Coche, 32.
Wolf, Robert, 329, 330, 196 '
—— —— his patent sounding-body
for the pianoforte, 46, 427
Wolves, Boehm pursued by, 195
Wood versus silver, see Silver
Word-blindness, an instance of, 424
Workman, Boehm’s, see Grevé
Wretched flutes, Boehm’s, 192
Wylde, Dr., 454

Zs
Ziegler’s flutes, 456

 

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET
AND CHARING CROSS.
iN

SUPE se oasosety
Di pliee: bere xe ey

ioe

bel oe rs
wy NEN

Bei,

rs Di % gas ie pat CPake

f
i.

: Rees
ee Ee AER TNS HEN aga SY
ie (eats a OR mie

Eilon ec tia es Eyes Sentai!
relat ey ey hae ae neh
Ph gles - fs 4 yee i

ne ies a rl Pi
episach vent

ys
Cn

tinh me