No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Jean Philippe Rameau (1684–1764) is generally recognized as the greatest French musician of the eighteenth century. His achievements in theory and practice were considered outstanding by his contemporaries, friend and adversary alike, and posterity has not altered this opinion. After what would ordinarily amount to a lifetime as a church organist, Rameau propounded in 1722 and 1726 his famous principle of the basse fondamentale, which he expanded and defended in more than twenty-five books, articles, and pamphlets in the course of his career. After one failure (Samson, 1732), he conquered the operatic stage with Hippolyte et Aricie in 1733 and dominated it with his more than two dozen other operas until his death. His heavy-handed discipline exerted upon the singers, the dancers, and especially the orchestra of the Royal Academy of Music worked an enormous and radical improvement in performance. Few musicians in any time can lay claim to greater practical accomplishment in the service of their art.
1 Research used in this paper was made possible in part by a grant from the American Philosophical Society. I am indebted to MM. les Secretaires Perpetuels of the Academie des Sciences in Paris for permission to consult the archives of that body, and to its gracious archivist for her generous assistance.
2 The fullest and most recent biography of Rameau is C. Girdlestone's Jean-Philippe Rameau (London, 1957). Most other accounts are apologetic, inept, and ill-informed on his time, if not on the man. In my opinion the best older treatments are Maret's Eloge (Dijon and Paris, 1766); A. Pougin, Rameau: Essai sur sa vie et sur ses œuvres (Paris, 1876); J. Gardien, Jean-Philippe Rameau (Paris, 1949). See also Gardien, L'orgue et les organistes en Bourgogne (Paris, 1943).
3 These are the intervals assigned by Rameau and accepted by his contemporaries. I am outlining his theory, not criticizing it.
4 A documented and much fuller presentation of Rameau's system is given by A. R. Oliver, The Encyclopedists as Critics of Music (New York, 1947), passim. See especially Ch. viii, “The Rameau Controversy,” which contains an admirable treatment of the relationships between Rameau and the Encyclopedie in terms primarily of their musical doctrines.
5 The major items in the sequence are Traité de l'harmonie (1722); Nouveau système de musique théorique (1726); Génération harmonique (1737); Démonstration du principe de l'harmonie (1750)—all published in Paris.
6 Unnumbered final page of Generation. The approbation of this book is dated 22 Jan. 1737, privilege 1 Feb.; registered by Chambre des libraires 18 Feb.
7 “L'Auteur a fondé son Ouvrage, 1° sur une Hypothese Physique… 2” Sur une expérience connue… de cette Hypothèse & de cette Expérience soutenue de quelques autres, & de plusieurs raisonnemens propres au sujet… il tire ses Accords fondamentaux.“
8 Well over a year before the presentation of the Génération to the Academy, for example, Rameau's contention that the basse fondamentale was in fact a discovery had been attacked by no less a savant than the Jesuit Castel of color-organ fame, who had most favorably reviewed the Traité de l'harmonie in 1722. Writing now, as then, in the Mémoires de Trévoux, Castel refers with rather less enthusiasm to “ce que Kircher nous dit, ce que M. Rameau nous répète, sans trop le démontrer ni l'un ni l'autre” (Aug. 1735, p. 1636). His praise for Rameau has grown faint indeed: “Cet Auteur est toujours estimable d'avoir enchéri sur ses prédécesseurs en ébauchant au moins ce qu'ils n'avoient qu'indiqué” (ibid.). To which the outraged Rameau replies (Trévoux, July 1736, pp. 1691–1709) by reminding Castel of his praise for the Traité de l'harmonie. The unjust alignment of the experimentalist pioneer with the scholastic Kircher, and above all the critic's denial that Rameau has demonstrated his principle, irritate the sorest point of all.
9 “Lettre… au R. P. Castel au sujet de quelques nouvelles réflexions sur la Musique,” Trévoux (July 1736, Pt. ii), pp. 1697,1704.
10 “Réplique du Premier Musicien,” Mercure, p. 1338.
11 Printed in Memoires de mathematique et de physique tirés des Régistres de l'Académie Royale des sciences de l'annee 1737, p. 14. The paper was read 7 May 1737. Rameau's citation of Mairan in the Generation (see pp. 3–4) is the more gauche for appearing to claim that Mairan's theories derive from his own.
12 He advertises in the Mercure (Dec. 1737, p. 2648) an “Ecole de Composition de Musique.”
13 A. M. Wilson, Diderot: The Testing Years (New York, 1957), pp. 88–89, brings together most of the evidence. Diderot's “J'ai donné l'exposition du système de musique de M. Rameau” in his Vincennes confession reproduces almost exactly the original title of the Démonstration.
14 MS register in the Academy archives contains under 8 Feb. 1749 the following item: “Mrs. de Reaumur, Nicole et Clairaut Pensionnaires, Mrs. l'abbé Nollet et le Marquis de Courtivron, Associés Mécaniciens, ayant présenté à l'Académie pour la place d'Adjoint Mécanicien vacante par la promotion de Mr. de Courtivron, Mrs. Darcy, Didrot [sic], le Roy, et Genti, la pluralité des voix a été pour Mrs. Darcy et le Roy.” On 15 Feb. Darcy is reported to have been named to the vacancy by authority of a letter from Maurepas.
15 The MS of this paper is in the archives of the Académie des Sciences.
16 MS register under dates mentioned. Rameau had evidently taken care to prepare the way. Register note dated 13 Aug. preceding: “On a distribué à l'Académie une Table des Rapport [sic], &c, relative à un nouveau système de Musique de Monsr. Rameau qui doit en faire la lecture à la Compagnie.”
17 Page xliv of the report as extracted by Rameau and bound, separately paged, with the Démonstration. Rameau lost no time in publishing. The report was made on 10 Dec. Grandjean de Fouchy, the Secrétaire Perpétuel of the Academy, certified the true copy on 22 Dec. The Démonstration was published around 1 Feb. 1750 (see note 23).
18 Demonstration, pp. 7–8. The printed text is here identical with the MS, as is that of the next quotation.
19 Extract in Demonstration, p. xlvi.
20 The only contemporary evidence for the invitation and its rejection is provided by Rameau some 8 years at least after the supposed event; it appears moreover in an indignant reply to the extremely snide treatment accorded Rameau in the preface to Vol. vi of the Encyclopédie and is therefore open to suspicion, the more so because Rameau shows himself capable of outright prevarication in other polemic writings. Addressing the editors, he says: “Vous auriez pu éviter ces erreurs [on music in the Encyclopédie] en me communiquant vos manuscrits que je vous avais offert d'examiner, apres m'étre excusé d'entreprendre tout l'ouvrage” (Réponse de Rameau aux éditeurs de l'Encyclopédie, sur leur dernier avertissement, London [Paris], 1757, quoted in Mi-chaud, Biographie universelle, s.v. Rameau, J. F.). No one else who can be supposed to know the truth of the matter either denies or confirms Rameau's statement.
21 Diderot probably collaborated on Rameau's Memoir of 1749; like the Démonstration, it was published by Durand and Pissot. Durand, in addition to employing Diderot, stood godfather to his son in 1750 (30 Sept., according to Jal s.v. Diderot; the godmother was Durand's sister-in-law and the wife of Pissot). Durand also published Rameau's Nouvelles réflexions sur sa Démonstration (1752, with Pissot) and his reply to Euler on the identity of octaves (1753, extracted from the Mercure).
22 D'Alembert, Œuvres (Paris, Belin, 1821), i, 80–81.
23 Alluding to Rameau's Memoir he writes to “Monsieur Cramer professeur de mathématique à Genève”: “L'ouvrage de Rameau est imprimé et paraîtra dans le courant de cette semaine. Je crois que vous en serès content” (autograph MS in Columbia Univ. Lib., dated Paris, 12 [?] Feb. 1750; the 2nd digit in the “12” is overwritten, making the reading doubtful).
24 Paris, David, Le Breton, Durand. Approbation dated 23 Nov. 1751.
25 Nor is d'AIembert the only spokesman for the last. The Abbé de Condillac happened to be the censor for both d'Alembert‘s Elémens de musique and Rameau's Nouvelles réflexions. Approving the Elémens, he writes: “Les systèmes dont l'expérience donne ou confirme les principes peuvent seuls contribuer aux progrès des Arts & des Sciences; celui-ci me paraît un modèle en ce genre; l'ordre, la netteté & la précision en font le caractère. M. Rameau doit être flatté de voir à la portée de tout lecteur intelligent, un système dont il a découvert les principes, & qui, ce me semble, pour être approuvé, n'a besoin que d‘être connu.” Of the Nouvelles réflexions (approbation dated 3 June 1752): “Je crois que le Public ne peut recevoir, qu'avec empressement, les réflexions de M. Rameau, sur un Art dans lequel il excelle, & dont il me paroît avoir découvert les vrais principes.”
26 There is a story that Rameau lost his first love because his letters to her were so badly written that she found him ridiculous. Fact or legend, the tale represents a very real defect of which Rameau was always conscious. For example, the preface to the Traité de l'harmonie contains an apology which is also a good description of his style and procedure in general: “Je ne doute pas qu'on ne puisse encore enchérir sur moi, malgré le soin que j'ai pris à ne rien laisser échapper, comme mes longs discours & mes répétitions le prou vent assez : Défaut qui vient autant de mon attention à rendre les choses claires & intelligibles, que de la foiblesse de mon génie” (unpaged). We have seen in the text his compliments to Castel and d'Alembert.
27 Histoire de l'Académie royale des Sciences for 1750, p. 165.
28 The reference is to Charles Etienne Briseux, Traité du beau essentiel dans les arts… suivi d'un Traité des proportions harmoniques (Paris, 1752). Briseux does not say that music is the principle of the arts; he does say that the natural phenomenon of harmony is the principle of all the arts, including music.
29 The Observations, announced in d'Hemery's Journal in June 1754, is Rameau's sole contribution to the Querelle des Bouffons. It comes as an isolated shot after the general barrage of pamphlets has ceased. It is intended to answer Rousseau's attack, in the Lettre sur la musique françoise, upon a monologue in LulU's Armide et Renaud which Rousseau well knew was Rameau's favorite example of good recitative. Rameau's defense is preceded by the inevitable exposition of his system.
30 Lettres sur quelques écrits de ce tems, nouvelle édition (London, 1752), iii, 204–205. The passage occurs in Lettre ix, undated but failing between 9 and 22 Nov. 1750.
31 Trévoux (Aug. 1752), pp. 1869–1870.
32 One's suspicions of Berthier find some confirmation in his account, only a month previous to the foregoing, of d'Alembert's Elémens de musique. Acclaimed by Rameau and better judges as well to constitute a masterfully clear exposition for beginners, in the Jesuit's view these Elements “méritent d'être lus avec beaucoup d'attention; il ne faut pas plus se presser dans cette lecture que dans celle d'un Traité de Géométrie ou d'Algèbre…. Chaque point qu'on y traite peut paroître facile, & le tout ensemble assez épineux, parce qu'il faut savoir appliquer sur le champ, & à point nommé, les règles qu'on a tâché de comprendre…. Nous assurons qu'après nous en être occupés longtems, nous l'avons trouvé digne de la pénétration & des grandes lumières de l'Auteur” (Trévoux, July, 17S2, pp. 1721–1723). In short, d'Alembert's manual for neophytes can be understood only by experts. Cf. note 25.
33 Trévoux (Aug. 1754), pp. 2007–2008.
34 Année littéraire (June 1754), p. 340.
35 See Oliver, The Encyclopedists as Critics of Music, esp. pp. 106–107, 157.
36 We do not know exactly when this volume appeared; the earliest possibility seems to be about 1 May (see Wilson, p. 252; d'Hemery is useless here, having a lacuna from May 1756 to March 1757). A month previously, on 1 April, d'Hemery announces the Suite des erreurs sur la musique dans l'Encyclopédie, at the end of which Rameau retracts his criticism of the editors, insofar as they are not responsible for the said “errors,” and protests his “infinite esteem” for “les principaux Editeurs de ce Dictionnaire” (cited in Année littéraire, 26 May 1756). It is possible that by 1 April Vol. vi was too far advanced to permit alteration; in any case no disavowal was subsequently forthcoming.
37 Part ii, pp. 127–128.
38 Mercure (July 1761, Pt. i), p. 153 (continuation of foregoing).
39 Ibid., p. 156, n. Rameau makes the same charge in his Origine des sciences, p. 18.
40 Ibid., p. 157.
41 Ibid., pp. 157–158.
42 Réponse, in revised Elémens (1762), p. 231.
43 Harmony, says Rameau decrying plain song in the Traité de I'liarmonie, should be the object of the musician's labors, “la Musique n'étant faite que pour chanter les louanges de Dieu: Quel désagrément pour un homme rempli de cette vérité, de ne pouvoir déployer son génie sur un si grand sujet” (p. 147). Not until the Nouvelles réflexions of 1760 does the religious note again emerge, with the differences that will be seen.
44 Origine des sciences, pp. 13–14.
45 Année littéraire (July 1762).