, 1892-08-31
To the Editor Of the 'aSt. Croi2 Arjs.'
Dear Sir,

upon tHe s~uDJecUo OF my correspondence that L
feel it incumbent on one performing the duty
of a defender to trouble you again for space
for some further remarks.
People are far more apt to laugh at, than to
sympathize with others yet, l an disposed to
think that no one who is able to solve this APP
parent riddle, will fail to feel pity for poor
Much Amused in his present very awkward
position.
"Much Amused" seems to have been labour-
ing under the weight Of some heavy mental
trouble at the date Of his letter to the "Anti-
qua Churchman." DESTROYS ofsome little dis
traction for his thoughts. he, like a drowning
man. tried TO catch at anything that came with
in his reach, an thus fell into the snare in
which he now finds himself, and, as his iden-
tity is now so Enthusiastically pointed out. we
pity him the more.
The first thing that appears to have put him
'out OF sorts" was that "Churchman'' STYLED
that a Chant which is considered by Ang-
licans rs one Of the grandest pieces of music
belonging to the Church service. Indeed, it is
not 50 very long ago, that, passing by the
Church one evening when a choir-practice
was going on. / heard the Rector scolding the
singers, rather sharply, for their inability to
sing this very ''Te Deum''; telling hem among
other things, that it was one Of the most mag
~ I'SNC' ~ AIl'AoAN LII CLlC 1AhlNHs
But a little reflection on the part of Much
Amused would have saved him much trouble;
for, instead Of aking the word Chant ID
the Letter, to mean the music in question he
might have read it as applying to the Chant
settings to which th, "To Deum' is ordinari-
Iy sung. There WIS not the slightest neces-
slty for INN to undertake to show one like
"Churchman' his mistake. "Churchman' as
| have already said. meant no criticisms upon
the performance Of the Choir; and no one save
"Much AmuSed') Wh) attentiyelY reads the
letter which has, from fjad and charitable
feelings, been re produced by the Rector Of
St. Johns Church, Gun fail to see that it was
penned with no other intention than to en-
courage.
Had "Churchmqn' written under his rea'
name instead Of his "nom de plume" we are
confident that sMacl Amused who is a known
coward, would bave been the last person to at
tack his letter. Hence, We may see he risk
which one incurs when he NEEDLES with lot
tiers Of this sort he cannot always guess at
the real strength Of his opponent, and should
therefore mind what he is about.
much Amused is again III a great middle
about the harmony of voices. He tells us
that he has uerer heard Of that. Let him for
a few moments reIinquish his holt Of the lead
ing strings Of his Primer No. ," and descend
from the lofty pinnacle Of his technicalities to
the platform Of common sense, and there let
us have a wee bit Of chat together.
Now, Much AMUSED have you mover
heard Of such a hing us harmony among
people who live together without quarrelliug
and fighting? When a man does not beat his
wife. nor the wife curse, bite, fight and
scratch. the husband, throwing the glasses,
plates and dishes at his head to break it, but,
like Isaac and Rebecca, who lived in the good
old days, when etime was young" both
dwell lovingly together, do not people IN
admiration of this lovely spectacle ex-
claim %! what harmony exists between
those people? What do they mean? Do
they not mean to say that they agree with one
another ?
Does not harmony then mean agreement?
Again. when we sit down and listen to the
well-got-up singing of a part song, what is
it that delights us So much? Is it not the
harmony or agreement of the parts And
since the music Of these parts is rendered by
the voices OF the singers. may we not with
propriety say "the harmony Of the voices p
Indeed our word harmony" is derived from
the Latin 'harmonia' Which means ga mutu-
al agreement of different things, note the
word different.
Now Much Amused, . if your conceit will
allow you to do so. come with me to the Organ.
go