Too rarely are the crystal springs of Henry Purcell's music tapped. There is a great feast of choral, instrumental, and harpsichord music which is never served to moderns except in isolated events such as the Lowell House production of the opera-play, "King Arthur." And this is in spite of his unquestioned genius: of the simple and dignified charm of all his works, of the amazingly conceived and thrillingly beautiful harmonic progressions which could be surpassed only by those of J. S. Bach.

Purcell was English opera; it was born, lived, and died with him. He created a peculiarly national music-drama, which drew heavily on the popular Italian opera, but which also possessed an individuality and spirit more in keeping with English folk music. Such works as "King Arthur" are not operas in the ordinary sense, but combine in a different way music with drama. The story is told in plain, unaccompanied speech, and the music is interjected in incidental interludes, unconnected with the plot. Incidental music of this kind provided Purcell with his most fertile medium; "King Arthur," moreover, is commonly adjudged to include the beat music of the type.

John Dryden, political coupleteer extraordinary, wrote the libretto which Purcell set. It was originally intended as a glorification of James II, but since it appeared after the Glorious Revolution, it suddenly lost every bit of political significance. It also lost any legendary accuracy, and emerged as a merry little fantasy about fairies and such, rather in the spirit of Shakespere's "Tempest." The work was immediately taken to the English national heart, and it remained popular for several centuries, provoking a number of revivals. Few of this generation have heard it, since the last presentation was in 1935 by a BBC company.