Frederic Chopin as a Man and Musician | Page 4

"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 of exquisite beauty; his songs,
though always acceptable, and sometimes charming, are not. We
should know nothing of them and the composer, if of his works they
alone had been published. In not publishing them himself, Chopin gave
us his own opinion, an opinion confirmed by the singers in rarely
performing them and by the public in little caring for them. In short,
Chopin's songs add nothing to his fame. To mention them in one breath
with those of Schubert and Schumann, or even with those of Robert
Franz and Adolf Jensen, is the act of an hero-worshipping enthusiast,
not of a discriminating critic.
On two points, often commented upon by critics, I feel regret, although
not repentance--namely, on any "anecdotic iconoclasm" where fact
refuted fancy, and on my abstention from pronouncing judgments

where the evidence was inconclusive. But how can a conscientious
biographer help this ungraciousness and inaccommodativeness? Is it
not his duty to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, in order that his
subject may stand out unobstructed and shine forth unclouded?
In conclusion, two instances of