music is no longer within the power of a single writer. It may even
be doubted whether the burden can be adequately shouldered by a
team of five.

The New Oxford History of Music is therefore not a revision of
the older work, nor is it the product of a small group of writers. It
has been planned as an entirely new survey of music from the earliest
times down to comparatively recent years, including not only the
achievements of the Western world but also the contributions made
by eastern civilizations and primitive societies. The examination of
this immense field is the work of a large number of contributors,
English and foreign. The attempt has been made to achieve uniform-
ity without any loss of individuality. If this attempt has been success-
ful, the result is due largely to the patience and co-operation shown by
the contributors themselves. Overlapping has to some extent been
avoided by the use of frequent cross-references; but we have not
thought it proper to prevent different authors from expressing dif-
ferent views about the same subject, where it could legitimately be
regarded as falling into more than one category.

The scope of the work is sufficiently indicated by the titles of the
several volumes. Our object throughout has been to present music
not as an isolated phenomenon or the work of a few outstanding
composers, but as an art developing in constant association with
every form of human culture and activity. The biographies of indivi-
duals are therefore merely incidental to the main plan of the history,
and those who want detailed information of this kind must seek it
elsewhere. No hard and fast system of division into chapters has been
attempted. The treatment is sometimes by forms, sometimes by
periods, sometimes also by countries, according to the importance
which one element or another may assume. The division into volumes
has to some extent been determined by practical considerations; but
pains have been taken to ensure that the breaks occur at points which
are logically and historically justifiable. The result may be that the
work of a single composer who lived to a ripe age is divided be-
tween two volumes. The later operas of Monteverdi, for example,
belong to the history of Venetian opera and hence find their natural
place in volume v, not with the discussion of his earlier operas to be
found in volume iv. On the other hand, we have not insisted on a
rigid chronological division where the result would be illogical or
confusing. If a subject finds its natural conclusion some ten years
after the date assigned for the end of a period, it is obviously prefer-
able to complete it within the limits of one volume rather than to

-vi-