national character is allied to traces no less deep of Italian seventeenth century influences. Rameau's music and the old Italian music are two provinces of the same kingdom rather than two independent kingdoms. Rousseau therefore is covering both in the same condemnation; here are some expressions of the horror with which they inspired him at this period: "ridiculous emphasis of harmonic science; pedantic pretension of learning; music that is methodical but without genius, invention or taste."
"All this, which only succeeds in making a noise, like the majority of our much admired choirs, is alike unworthy to occupy the pen of a man of talent and the attention of a man of taste. As regards the counter fugues, double fugues, reversed fugues, ground basses, and other difficult follies which the ear cannot endure and reason cannot justify, they are obviously the relics of barbarism and bad taste; like the porches of our gothic churches, they continue to exist only to the shame of those who had the patience to make them."
But Frenchmen would no longer put up with all this, because in the year of grace 1752 opéra-bouffe had come to open their ears. Italian ears had had to begin by getting themselves opened first. The formal thesis of Rousseau is that this came to pass from the day when France lost all influence on the Italian musicians. It was the French element that spoilt the natural gifts of Italy, because in music all that is anti-musical is French. The two terms are interchangeable.
I have dealt at too great length with Rameau for it to be necessary for me to defend him against this attempted travesty. The reproach of treating music as a scholastic and pedantic exercise often falls on
