manager, probably in the hope of attracting public attention, and forcing the management of the Académie to alter their treatment of him. Finally he composed for the Court 'Lysis et Délie,' 'Daphnis et Eglé,' 'Les Sybarites' (Oct. and Nov. 1753); 'La Naissance d'Osiris,' and 'Anacréon' (Oct. 1754), all given at Fontainebleau. Some years previously, on the occasion of the marriage of the Dauphin with the Infanta, he had composed 'La Princesse de Navarre' to a libretto of Voltaire's (3 acts and prologue, performed with great splendour at Versailles, Feb. 23, 1/45). This was the most successful of all his opéras de circonstance, and the authors adapted from it 'Les Fêtes de Ramire' a 1-act opera-ballet, also performed at Versailles (Dec. 23, 1745).
In estimating Rameau's merits we cannot in justice compare him with the great Italian and German masters of the day, whose names and works were then equally unknown in France; we must measure him with contemporary French composers for the stage. These writers had no idea of art beyond attempting a servile copy of Lully, with overtures, recitatives, vocal pieces, and ballet airs, all cast in one stereotyped form. Rameau made use of such a variety of means as not only attracted the attention of his hearers, but retained it. For the placid and monotonous harmonies of the day, the trite modulation, insignificant accompaniments, and stereotyped ritornelles, he substituted new forms, varied and piquant rhythms, ingenious harmonies, bold modulations, and a richer and more effective orchestration. He even ventured on enharmonic changes, and instead of the time-honoured accompaniments with the strings in 5 parts, and flutes and oboes in 2, and with tuttis in which the wind simply doubled the strings, he gave each instrument a distinct part of its own, and thus imparted life and colour to the whole. Without interrupting the other instruments, he introduced interesting and unexpected passages on the flutes, oboes, and bassoons, and thus opened a path which has been followed up with ever-increasing success. He also gave importance to the orchestral pieces, introducing his operas with a well-constructed overture, instead of the meagre introduction of the period, in which the same phrases were repeated ad nauseam. Nor did he neglect the chorus; he developed it, added greatly to its musical interest, and introduced the syllabic style with considerable effect. Lastly, his ballet-music was so new in its rhythms, and so fresh and pleasing in melody, that it was at once adopted and copied in the theatres of Italy and Germany.
We have said enough to prove that Rameau was a composer of real invention and originality. His declamation was not always so just as that of Lully; his airs have not the same grace, and are occasionally marred by eccentricity and harshness, and disfigured by roulades in doubtful taste; but when inspired by his subject Rameau found appropriate expression for all sentiments, whether simple or pathetic, passionate, dramatic, or heroic. His best operas contain beauties which defy the caprices of fashion, and will command the respect of true artists for all time.
But if his music was so good, how is it that it never attained the same popularity as that of Lully? In the first place, he took the wrong line on a most important point; and in the second, he was less favoured by circumstances than his predecessor. It was his doctrine, that for a musician of genius all subjects are equally good, and hence he contented himself with uninteresting fables written in wretched style, instead of taking pains, as Lully did, to secure pieces constructed with skill and well versified. He used to say that he could set the 'Gazette de Hollande' to music. Thus he damaged his own fame, for a French audience will not listen even to good music unless it is founded on an interesting drama. His ballet-music, too, often only serves to retard the action of the piece and destroy its dramatic interest.
Much as Rameau would have gained by the cooperation of another Quinault, instead of having to employ Cahusac, there was another reason for the greater popularity of Lully. Under Louis XIV. the king's patronage was quite sufficient to ensure the success of an artist; but after the Regency, under Louis XV., other authorities asserted themselves, especially the 'philosophes.' Rameau had first to encounter the vehement opposition of the Lullists; this he had succeeded in overcoming, when a company of Italian singers arrived in Paris, and at once obtained the attention of the public, and the support of a powerful party. The partisans of French music rallied round Rameau, and the two factions carried on what is known as the 'Guerre des Bouffons,' but when the struggle was over, Rameau perceived that his victory was only an ephemeral one, and that his works would not maintain their position in the répertoire of the Académie beyond a few years. With a frankness very touching in a man of his gifts, he said one evening to the Abbé Arnaud, who had lately arrived in Paris, 'If I were 20 years younger I would go to Italy, and take Pergolesi for my model, abandon something of my harmony, and devote myself to attaining truth of declamation, which should be the sole guide of musicians. But after sixty one cannot change; experience points plainly enough the best course, but the mind refuses to obey.' No critic could have stated the truth more plainly. Not having heard Italian music in his youth, Rameau never attained to the skill in writing for the voice that he might have done; and he is in consequence only the first French musician of his time, instead of taking his rank among the great composers of European fame. But for this, he might have effected that revolution in dramatic music which Gluck accomplished some years later.
But even as it was, his life's work is one of which any man might have been proud; and in old age he enjoyed privileges accorded only to talent of the first rank. The directors of the Opéra decreed him a pension; his appearance in his box was the signal for a general burst of applause,
