“Rameau’s nephew” Diderot in brief summary
The work is written in the form of a dialogue. His characters – the narrator and nephew of Jean-Philippe Rameau – the largest representative of classicism in French music of the times of Diderot. The narrator first gives a characterization to Rameau’s nephew: he certifies him as one “one of the most bizarre and strange creatures in these parts”; he does not boast of his good qualities and is not ashamed of the bad; he leads a disorderly life: today in rags, tomorrow – in luxury. But, according to the narrator, when such a person appears in society, he makes people throw off a secular mask and discover their true nature.
Rameau’s nephew and storyteller accidentally meet at a cafe and start a conversation. There is a theme of genius; nephew Rameau believes that geniuses are not needed, since evil always appears in the world through some genius; In addition, geniuses expose delusions, but for peoples there is nothing more harmful than truth.
The narrator, indignant at the cynicism of his interlocutor, suggests changing the subject. But, before doing this, Rameau has time to play two more skits: first he portrays a violinist, and then, with no less success, a pianist; because he is not only the nephew of the composer Rameau, but also his pupil and a good musician. They talk about the education of the narrator’s daughter: the narrator says that dancing, singing and music will teach her at a minimum, and the main place will be devoted to grammar, mythology, history, geography, morality; there will also be a bit of drawing. Rameau’s nephew believes that it will be impossible to find good teachers, because they would have to devote their entire lives to studying these subjects; in his opinion, the most skilful of the current teachers is the one who has more practice; so he, Rameau, coming to the lesson, pretends that he has more lessons than a clock in a day. But now, according to him, he gives lessons well, and before that he was paid for nothing, but he did not feel remorse, because he took money not honestly earned, but looted; because in society all the classes devour each other. And the general rules of morality do not apply here, because the universal conscience, like universal grammar, allows exceptions to the rules, the so-called “moral idiots.” Rameau’s nephew says that if he had become rich, he would have led a life full of sensual pleasures, and would have cared only about himself; while he notes that his point of view is shared by all wealthy people. The narrator objects that it is much more pleasant to help an unfortunate person, to read a good book and the like; to be happy, you need to be honest. Rameau replies that, in his opinion, all the so-called virtues are nothing more than vanity. Why defend the fatherland – it is no more, but there are only tyrants and slaves; to help friends is to make ungrateful people out of them; and to occupy a position in society is only to enrich itself. Virtue is boring, it is ice-cold, this is a very uncomfortable thing; and virtuous people in actual fact turn out to be hypocrites, cherishing secret vices. It is better to let him make his own happiness as inherent in his vices, than he will distort himself and hypocritically, to appear virtuous when it turns his patrons away from him. Describes how he humiliated before them, how he and the company of other hangers-on defied remarkable scientists, philosophers, writers, including Diderot, to please his “masters”. He demonstrates his ability to take the right postures and speak the right words. He says that he reads Theophrastus, Labriere and Moliere, and draws this conclusion: “Keep your vices that are useful to you, but avoid the intrinsic tone and appearance that can make you ridiculous.” To avoid such behavior, one must know it, and these authors very well described it. He is funny only when he wants to; There is no better role for the powerful of this world than the role of the jester. It should be the way it is profitable; if virtue could lead to wealth, he would be virtuous or pretended to be. Rameau’s nephew curses his benefactors and says at the same time: “When you decide to live with people like us, you have to wait for countless dirty tricks.” However, people who take to their homes mercenary, low and treacherous clowns, perfectly know what they are going to; all provided for by a tacit agreement. It is useless to try to correct congenital depravity; To punish such errors is not human law, but nature itself; in proof Rameau tells a scabrous story. Interlocutor Rameau wondered why Rameau’s nephew so openly, without embarrassment, reveals his meanness. Rameau replies that it’s better to be a greater criminal than a small bastard, since the former causes certain respect for the scales of his villainy. Tells a story about a man who informed the Inquisition of his benefactor, a Jew who endlessly trusted him, and also robbed this Jew. The narrator, dejected by this conversation, again changes the subject. It’s about music; Rameau expresses correct judgments about the superiority of Italian music and the Italian comic opera buff over the French musical classicism: in the Italian opera, in his words, music corresponds to the semantic and emotional movement of speech, speech falls perfectly on music; and the French arias are awkward, heavy, monotonous, unnatural. Rameau’s nephew very dexterously depicts the whole opera house, successfully reproduces opera roles. He expresses judgments about the shortcomings of French lyric poetry: it is cold, unyielding, it lacks something that could serve as the basis for singing, the order of words is too hard, therefore the composer has no opportunity to dispose of the whole and every part of it. These judgments are clearly close to the judgments of Diderot himself. Rameau’s nephew also says that the Italians teach the French how to make expressive music, how to subordinate the song to rhythm, the rules of recitation. The narrator asks how he, Ramo, being so sensitive to the beauty of music, is so insensitive to the beauties of virtue; Ramo says, that it is innate. The conversation goes to Ramo’s son: the narrator asks if Ramo will not try to stop the influence of this molecule; Rameau replies that this is useless. He does not want to teach his son music, because it does not lead to anything; he inspires the child that money is everything, and wants to teach his son the easiest ways, leading him to be respected, rich and influential. The narrator himself remarks that Rameau does not hypocrite, confessing to the vices peculiar to him and others; he is more frank and more consistent in his depravity than others. Rameau’s nephew says that the most important thing is not to develop in the child the vices that enrich him, but to inspire him with a sense of proportion, the art of escaping shame; According to Ramo, all living things are looking for well-being at the expense of the one on whom they depend. But his interlocutor wants to move from the topic of morality to music and asks Rameau why, with his flair for good music, he did not create anything significant. He replies that nature has so decreed; in addition, it is difficult to feel deeply and exalted in spirit when you rotate among empty people and cheap gossip.
Rameau’s nephew talks about some of the vicissitudes of his life and concludes that we are in charge of “accursed accidents.” It says that in the whole kingdom only the monarch goes, the others only accept poses. The narrator objects that “the king takes a pose before his mistress and before God,” and in the world everyone who needs the help of another, is forced to “engage in pantomime”, that is, to portray different rapturous feelings. Only philosopher does not resort to pantomime, since he does not need anything, Rameau responds that he needs different vital benefits, and let him better be obliged to them by benefactors than he will get them by work. Then he recollects that it’s time for the opera, and the dialogue ends with his wish to live for another forty years.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)