Frederic Chopin as a Man and Musician, vol 1 | Page 4

edition differs from the first by little more than the
correction of some misprints and a few additions. These latter are to be
found among the Appendices. The principal addition consists of
interesting communications from Madame Peruzzi, a friend of Chopin's
still living at Florence. Next in importance come Madame Schumann's
diary notes bearing on Chopin's first visit to Leipzig. The remaining
additions concern early Polish music, the first performances of
Chopin's works at the Leipzig Gewandhaus, his visit to Marienbad
(remarks by Rebecca Dirichlet), the tempo rubato, and his portraits. To

the names of Chopin's friends and acquaintances to whom I am
indebted for valuable assistance, those of Madame Peruzzi and
Madame Schumann have, therefore, to be added. My apologies as well
as my thanks are due to Mr. Felix Moscheles, who kindly permitted a
fac-simile to be made from a manuscript, in his possession, a kindness
that ought to have been acknowledged in the first edition. I am glad that
a second edition affords me an opportunity to repair this much regretted
omission. The manuscript in question is an "Etude" which Chopin
wrote for the "Methode des Methodes de Piano," by F. J. Fetis and I.
Moscheles, the father of Mr. Felix Moscheles. This concludes what I
have to say about the second edition, but I cannot lay down the pen
without expressing my gratitude to critics and public for the
exceedingly favourable reception they have given to my book.
October, 1890.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

BESIDES minor corrections, the present edition contains the correction
of the day and year of Frederick Francis Chopin's birth, which have
been discovered since the publication of the second edition of this work.
According to the baptismal entry in the register of the Brochow parish
church, he who became the great pianist and immortal composer was
born on February 22, 1810. This date has been generally accepted in
Poland, and is to be found on the medal struck on the occasion of the
semi- centenary celebration of the master's death. Owing to a
misreading of musicus for magnificus in the published copy of the
document, its trustworthiness has been doubted elsewhere, but, I
believe, without sufficient cause. The strongest argument that could be
urged against the acceptance of the date would be the long interval
between birth and baptism, which did not take place till late in April,
and the consequent possibility of an error in the registration. This,
however, could only affect the day, and perhaps the month, not the year.
It is certainly a very curious circumstance that Fontana, a friend of
Chopin's in his youth and manhood, Karasowski, at least an
acquaintance, if not an intimate friend, of the family (from whom he
derived much information), Fetis, a contemporary lexicographer, and
apparently Chopin's family, and even Chopin himself, did not know the

date of the latter's birth.
Where the character of persons and works of art are concerned, nothing
is more natural than differences of opinion. Bias and inequality of
knowledge sufficiently account for them. For my reading of the
character of George Sand, I have been held up as a monster of moral
depravity; for my daring to question the exactitude of Liszt's
biographical facts, I have been severely sermonised; for my inability to
regard Chopin as one of the great composers of songs, and continue
uninterruptedly in a state of ecstatic admiration, I have been told that
the publication of my biography of the master is a much to be deplored
calamity. Of course, the moral monster and author of the calamity
cannot pretend to be an unbiassed judge in the case; but it seems to him
that there may be some exaggeration and perhaps even some
misconception in these accusations.
As to George Sand, I have not merely made assertions, but have
earnestly laboured to prove the conclusions at which I reluctantly
arrived. Are George Sand's pretentions to self- sacrificing saintliness,
and to purely maternal feelings for Musset, Chopin, and others to be
accepted in spite of the fairy- tale nature of her "Histoire," and the
misrepresentations of her "Lettres d'un Voyageur" and her novels "Elle
et lui" and "Lucrezia Floriani"; in spite of the adverse indirect
testimony of some of her other novels, and the adverse direct testimony
of her "Correspondance"; and in spite of the experiences and firm
beliefs of her friends, Liszt included? Let us not overlook that
charitableness towards George Sand implies uncharitableness towards
Chopin, place. Need I say anything on the extraordinary charge made
against me--namely, that in some cases I have preferred the testimony
of less famous men to that of Liszt? Are genius, greatness, and fame the
measures of trustworthiness?
As to Chopin, the composer of songs, the case is very simple. His
pianoforte pieces are original tone-poems