Camille Mauclair (1872-1945) was a writer, poet, historian and music critic, with no formal theoretical training in music, who made a significant contribution to the musical education of the French public at the end of the nineteenth century. Following in the steps of Théophile Gautier and Charles Baudelaire, he used a distinctive poetic and literary style in his musical criticism. From 1893 to 1936, he wrote articles on musical topics for several music and literary journals. The article which started the conflict between himself and the musicologist Louis Laloy, examined the operas of the naturalist composer, Alfred Bruneau, Messidor and L'Ouragan, for which Emile Zola had written the librettos in prose form. Gustave Charpentier's work, Louise is also mentioned. These new style operas were not popular with the usual bourgeois opera audience but attracted those who were interested in political and social issues. The thematic material of the dramas offered an homme de lettres like Mauclair plenty of scope for literary comment, however he gave minimum attention to the music itself. His contemporary, Louis Laloy, Docteur ès Lettres in musicology from the newly created Ecole de Musique at the Sorbonne, disliked the naturalist trend in opera intensely and, writing for the Mercure Musical, he inferrred that Bruneau and Charpentier were no more than imitators of the Italian Vériste School. He was scathing in his attack on the musical ability of Bruneau, and also considered Charpentier's music to be a copy of that of Wagner and Massenet. Unable to comment on theoretical aspects of music, Mauclair responded with a direct attack on musicologists themselves implying that they missed the beauty of the music by transforming its structure into »logarithmic problems«. He defended his own right to criticism stating that interpreting the emotion and magnetic attraction of music was as much his right as it was for others. He also stated that no matter how specialised a critic becomes, he cannot demonstrate why a harmony moves an audience. In further articles, Laloy defended Debussy's music emphasising its originality and complexity, contrasting it with the banality of Bruneau's music. This gave Mauclair the opportunity to call into question the devotion shown by Debussy's supporters which »blinded« their musical judgement. The conflict between the two adversaries degenerated into name-calling, Laloy insisting that Mauclair was »universally incompetent«, whilst Mauclair labelled Laloy as a »professor«. Nonetheless, both continued afterwards to contribute musical articles according to their respective styles. This bitter »war of words« from opposing critic camps highlights the vexing question as to who indeed has the competence to criticise music? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]