the most evident advantage of my system into an invincible objection
against it, and affirmed that my mode of notation was good for vocal
music, but bad for instrumental; instead of concluding as they ought to
have done, that it was good for vocal, and still better for instrumental.
On their report the academy granted me a certificate full of fine
compliments, amidst which it appeared that in reality it judged my system
to be neither new nor useful. I did not think proper to ornament with
such a paper the work entitled 'Dissertation sur la musique moderne', by
which I appealed to the public.

I had reason to remark on this occasion that, even with a narrow
understanding, the sole but profound knowledge of a thing is preferable
for the purpose of judging of it, to all the lights resulting from a
cultivation of the sciences, when to these a particular study of that in
question has not been joined. The only solid objection to my system was
made by Rameau. I had scarcely explained it to him before he discovered
its weak part. "Your signs," said he, "are very good inasmuch as they
clearly and simply determine the length of notes, exactly represent
intervals, and show the simple in the double note, which the common
notation does not do; but they are objectionable on account of their
requiring an operation of the mind, which cannot always accompany the
rapidity of execution. The position of our notes," continued he, "is
described to the eye without the concurrence of this operation. If two
notes, one very high and the other very low, be joined by a series of
intermediate ones, I see at the first glance the progress from one to the
other by conjoined degrees; but in your system, to perceive this series,
I must necessarily run over your ciphers one after the other; the glance
of the eye is here useless." The objection appeared to me
insurmountable, and I instantly assented to it. Although it be simple
and striking, nothing can suggest it but great knowledge and practice of