gifts, but without studies, a man's most interesting work will be half spoilt, a state of things that is incompatible with the sublime. Moreover the distinction which Rameau drew was not between the "sublime" and the "flat," but between pieces that were very well constructed and pieces without form. That is quite another matter. Here, again, we have only to listen to the "confessions." There only remained some accompaniments and some filling in to be done. This drudgery was very wearisome to me. I suggested to Philidor that he should undertake it, offering him part of the proceeds, He came twice, and did some filling-in in the act of "Ovide"; but he could not tie himself down to this laborious work for a distant and even uncertain profit. He came no more, and I finished my task myself." I fancy that to anyone who can read the position is sufficiently clear. But for musicians its clarity is blinding. The pieces that Rameau had thought good were those which Philidor, one of the best musicians of his age, had furbished up.
It may be admitted that Rameau had gone rather far. We can understand that the personality of Jean-Jacques, being such as we know it to have been must have got on his nerves. But if he had given a little more attention and kindly consideration to the subject, he would not have crushed him with this summary accusation of theft.
He would have recognised that even in the work of Philidor Jean-Jacques had his share. As I have said, we no longer possess the Muses galantes. But we have the Village Seer, which must have been composed after the same fashion. Now, without entering into the detail (though I am not ignorant of it) of the numerous controversies to which the question of the
