masqueraded, and of its self-asserting intolerance, there is no
question that, whatever the results of the efforts of these reformers,
their intention was admirable. They themselves, the composers, were
deeply in earnest; their objects were not what they supposed, but they
were entirely worthy, and though we may wonder at their failure to
appreciate the entrancing beauty of polyphonic music, we must admit
even here that their objections were not without some force. To
realize this we must transfer ourselves in imagination to their
conditions and endeavour to consider the problems from their
standpoint, remembering how they were impelled by the irresistible law
of progress, the assertion of individualism, and by the desire for
dramatic treatment.

The main objection brought by the reformers against polyphony was that
the elaborate imitative treatment of the voices made the words
unintelligible. We may remember that exactly the same objection had
already been raised at the Council of Trent by clericals themselves.
Vocal music alone, the reformers contended, can be recognized as true
music, for music is essentially language and rhythm, and only in the
last place tone.[22] Consequently, _right declamation_ is of its
essence. On this ground they objected to mixing together high notes
and low, fast movement and slow, to dividing a syllable between many
notes, to repetition of words and phrases. Especially significant is
the advice given by Vincentio Galilei to composers to study the
expression of gifted actors.[23]

[Footnote 22: Ambros., iv, p.165.]

[Footnote 23: _Ib._., p. 170.]