1888).]

In spite of appearances, Wagner is a classicist compared with Berlioz;
he carried on and perfected the work of the German classicists; he made
no innovations; he is the pinnacle and the close of one evolution of
art. Berlioz began a new art; and one finds in it all the daring and
gracious ardour of youth. The iron laws that bound the art of Wagner are
not to be found in Berlioz's early works, which give one the illusion of
perfect freedom.[92]



[Footnote 92: One must make mention here of the poorness and awkwardness
of Berlioz's harmony--which is incontestable--since some critics and
composers have been able to see (Am I saying something
ridiculous?--Wagner would say it for me) nothing but "faults of
orthography" in his genius. To these terrible grammarians--who, two
hundred years ago, criticised Molière on account of his "jargon"--I
shall reply by quoting Schumann.

"Berlioz's harmonies, in spite of the diversity of their effect,
obtained from very scanty material, are distinguished by a sort of
simplicity, and even by a solidity and conciseness, which one only
meets with in Beethoven.... One may find here and there harmonies
that are commonplace and trivial, and others that are incorrect--at
least according to the old rules. In some places his harmonies have
a fine effect, and in others their result is vague and
indeterminate, or it sounds badly, or is too elaborate and
far-fetched. Yet with Berlioz all this somehow takes on a certain
distinction. If one attempted to correct it, or even slightly to