Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician

F >> Frederick Niecks >> Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64

[Footnote: The statistics concerning old Poland are provokingly
contradictory. One authority calculates that the nobility
comprised 120,000 families, or one fourteenth of the population
(which, before the first partition, is variously estimated at
from fifteen to twenty millions); another counts only 100,000
families; and a third states that between 1788 and 1792 (i.e.,
after the first partition) there were 38,314 families of nobles.]

All nobles were equal in rank, and as every French soldier was
said to carry a marshal's staff in his knapsack, so every Polish
noble was born a candidate for the throne. This equality,
however, was rather de jure than de facto; legal decrees could
not fill the chasm which separated families distinguished by
wealth and fame--such as the Sapiehas, Radziwills, Czartoryskis,
Zamoyskis, Potockis, and Branickis--from obscure noblemen whose
possessions amount to no more than "a few acres of land, a sword,
and a pair of moustaches that extend from one ear to the other,"
or perhaps amounted only to the last two items. With some
insignificant exceptions, the land not belonging to the state or
the church was in the hands of the nobles, a few of whom had
estates of the extent of principalities. Many of the poorer
amongst the nobility attached themselves to their better-situated
brethren, becoming their dependents and willing tools. The
relation of the nobility to the peasantry is well characterised
in a passage of Mickiewicz's epic poem Pan Tadeusz, where a
peasant, on humbly suggesting that the nobility suffered less
from the measures of their foreign rulers than his own class, is
told by one of his betters that this is a silly remark, seeing
that peasants, like eels, are accustomed to being skinned,
whereas the well-born are accustomed to live in liberty.

Nothing illustrates so well the condition of a people as the way
in which justice is administered. In Poland a nobleman was on his
estate prosecutor as well as judge, and could be arrested only
after conviction, or, in the case of high-treason, murder, and
robbery, if taken in the act. And whilst the nobleman enjoyed
these high privileges, the peasant had, as the law terms it, no
facultatem standi in judicio, and his testimony went for nothing
in the courts of justice. More than a hundred laws in the
statutes of Poland are said to have been unfavourable to these
poor wretches. In short, the peasant was quite at the mercy of
the privileged class, and his master could do with him pretty
much as he liked, whipping and selling not excepted, nor did
killing cost more than a fine of a few shillings. The peasants on
the state domains and of the clergy were, however, somewhat
better off; and the burghers, too, enjoyed some shreds of their
old privileges with more or less security. If we look for a true
and striking description of the comparative position of the
principal classes of the population of Poland, we find it in
these words of a writer of the eighteenth century: "Polonia
coelum nobilium, paradisus clericorum, infernus rusticorum."

The vast plain of Poland, although in many places boggy and
sandy, is on the whole fertile, especially in the flat river
valleys, and in the east at the sources of the Dnieper; indeed,
it is so much so that it has been called the granary of Europe.
But as the pleasure-loving gentlemen had nobler pursuits to
attend to, and the miserable peasants, with whom it was a saying
that only what they spent in drink was their own, were not very
anxious to work more and better than they could help, agriculture
was in a very neglected condition. With manufacture and commerce
it stood not a whit better. What little there was, was in the
hands of the Jews and foreigners, the nobles not being allowed to
meddle with such base matters, and the degraded descendants of
the industrious and enterprising ancient burghers having neither
the means nor the spirit to undertake anything of the sort. Hence
the strong contrast of wealth and poverty, luxury and distress,
that in every part of Poland, in town and country, struck so
forcibly and painfully all foreign travellers. Of the Polish
provinces that in 1773 came under Prussian rule we read that--

the country people hardly knew such a thing as bread, many
had never in their life tasted such a delicacy; few villages
had an oven. A weaving-loom was rare; the spinning-wheel
unknown. The main article of furniture, in this bare scene of
squalor, was the crucifix and vessel of holy-water under
it....It was a desolate land without discipline, without law,
without a master. On 9,000 English square miles lived 500,000
souls: not 55 to the square mile. [Footnote: Carlyle.
Frederick the Great, vol. x., p. 40.]

And this poverty and squalor were not to be found only in one
part of Poland, they seem to have been general. Abbe de Mably
when seeing, in 1771, the misery of the country (campagne) and
the bad condition of the roads, imagined himself in Tartary.
William Coxe, the English historian and writer of travels, who
visited Poland after the first partition, relates, in speaking of
the district called Podlachia, that he visited between Bjelsk and
Woyszki villages in which there was nothing but the bare walls,
and he was told at the table of the ------ that knives, forks, and
spoons were conveniences unknown to the peasants. He says he
never saw--

a road so barren of interesting scenes as that from Cracow to
Warsaw--for the most part level, with little variation of
surface; chiefly overspread with tracts of thick forest;
where open, the distant horizon was always skirted with wood
(chiefly pines and firs, intermixed with beech, birch, and
small oaks). The occasional breaks presented some pasture-
ground, with here and there a few meagre crops of corn. The
natives were poorer, humbler, and more miserable than any
people we had yet observed in the course of our travels:
whenever we stopped they flocked around us in crowds; and,
asking for charity, used the most abject gestures....The
Polish peasants are cringing and servile in their expressions
of respect; they bowed down to the ground; took off their
hats or caps and held them in their hands till we were out of
sight; stopped their carts on the first glimpse of our
carriage; in short, their whole behaviour gave evident
symptoms of the abject servitude under which they groaned.
[FOOTNOTE: William Coxe, Travels in Poland, Russia, Sweden,
and Denmark (1784--90).]

The Jews, to whom I have already more than once alluded, are too
important an element in the population of Poland not to be
particularly noticed. They are a people within a people,
differing in dress as well as in language, which is a jargon of
German-Hebrew. Their number before the first partition has been
variously estimated at from less than two millions to fully two
millions and a half in a population of from fifteen to twenty
millions, and in 1860 there were in Russian Poland 612,098 Jews
in a population of 4,867,124.

[FOOTNOTE: According to Charles Forster (in Pologne, a volume of
the historical series entitled L'univers pittoresque, published
by Firmin Didot freres of Paris), who follows Stanislas Plater,
the population of Poland within the boundaries of 1772 amounted
to 20,220,000 inhabitants, and was composed of 6,770,000 Poles,
7,520,000 Russians (i.e., White and Red Russians), 2,110,000
Jews, 1,900,000 Lithuanians, 1,640,000 Germans, 180,000
Muscovites (i.e., Great Russians), and 100,000 Wallachians.]

They monopolise [says Mr. Coxe] the commerce and trade of the
country, keep inns and taverns, are stewards to the nobility,
and seem to have so much influence that nothing can be bought
or sold without the intervention of a Jew.

Our never-failing informant was particularly struck with the
number and usefulness of the Jews in Lithuania when he visited
that part of the Polish Republic in 1781--

If you ask for an interpreter, they bring you a Jew; if you
want post-horses, a Jew procures them and a Jew drives them;
if you wish to purchase, a Jew is your agent; and this
perhaps is the only country in Europe where Jews cultivate
the ground; in passing through Lithuania, we frequently saw
them engaged in sowing, reaping, mowing, and other works of
husbandry.

Having considered the condition of the lower classes, we will now
turn our attention to that of the nobility. The very unequal
distribution of wealth among them has already been mentioned.
Some idea of their mode of life may be formed from the account of
the Starost Krasinski's court in the diary (year 1759) of his
daughter, Frances Krasinska. [FOOTNOTE: A starost (starosta) is
the possessor of a starosty (starostwo)--i.e., a castle and
domains conferred on a nobleman for life by the crown.] Her
description of the household seems to justify her belief that
there were not many houses in Poland that surpassed theirs in
magnificence. In introducing to the reader the various ornaments
and appendages of the magnate's court, I shall mention first,
giving precedence to the fair sex, that there lived under the
supervision of a French governess six young ladies of noble
families. The noblemen attached to the lord of the castle were
divided into three classes. In the first class were to be found
sons of wealthy, or, at least, well-to-do families who served for
honour, and came to the court to acquire good manners and as an
introduction to a civil or military career. The starost provided
the keep of their horses, and also paid weekly wages of two
florins to their grooms. Each of these noble-men had besides a
groom another servant who waited on his master at table, standing
behind his chair and dining on what he left on his plate. Those
of the second class were paid for their services and had fixed
duties to perform. Their pay amounted to from 300 to 1,000
florins (a florin being about the value of sixpence), in addition
to which gratuities and presents were often given. Excepting the
chaplain, doctor, and secretary, they did not, like the preceding
class, have the honour of sitting with their master at table.
With regard to this privilege it is, however, worth noticing that
those courtiers who enjoyed it derived materially hardly any
advantage from it, for on week-days wine was served only to the
family and their guests, and the dishes of roast meat were
arranged pyramidally, so that fowl and venison went to those at
the head of the table, and those sitting farther down had to
content themselves with the coarser kinds of meat--with beef,
pork, &c. The duties of the third class of followers, a dozen
young men from fifteen to twenty years of age, consisted in
accompanying the family on foot or on horseback, and doing their
messages, such as carrying presents and letters of invitation.
The second and third classes were under the jurisdiction of the
house-steward, who, in the case of the young gentlemen, was not
sparing in the application of the cat. A strict injunction was
laid on all to appear in good clothes. As to the other servants
of the castle, the authoress thought she would find it difficult
to specify them; indeed, did not know even the number of their
musicians, cooks, Heyducs, Cossacks, and serving maids and men.
She knew, however, that every day five tables were served, and
that from morning to night two persons were occupied in
distributing the things necessary for the kitchen. More
impressive even than a circumstantial account like this are
briefly-stated facts such as the following: that the Palatine
Stanislas Jablonowski kept a retinue of 2,300 soldiers and 4,000
courtiers, valets, armed attendants, huntsmen, falconers,
fishers, musicians, and actors; and that Janusz, Prince of
Ostrog, left at his death a majorat of eighty towns and boroughs,
and 2,760 villages, without counting the towns and villages of
his starosties. The magnates who distinguished themselves during
the reign of Stanislas Augustus (1764--1795) by the brilliance
and magnificence of their courts were the Princes Czartoryski and
Radziwill, Count Potocki, and Bishop Soltyk of Cracovia. Our
often-quoted English traveller informs us that the revenue of
Prince Czartoryski amounted to nearly 100,000 pounds per annum,
and that his style of living corresponded with this income. The
Prince kept an open table at which there rarely sat down less
than from twenty to thirty persons. [FOOTNOTE: Another authority
informs us that on great occasions the Czartoryskis received at
their table more than twenty thousand persons.] The same
informant has much to say about the elegance and luxury of the
Polish nobility in their houses and villas, in the decoration and
furniture of which he found the French and English styles happily
blended. He gives a glowing account of the fetes at which he was
present, and says that they were exquisitely refined and got up
regardless of expense.

Whatever changes the national character of the Poles has
undergone in the course of time, certain traits of it have
remained unaltered, and among these stands forth predominantly
their chivalry. Polish bravery is so universally recognised and
admired that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon it. For who has
not heard at least of the victorious battle of Czotzim, of the
delivery of Vienna, of the no less glorious defeats of
Maciejowice and Ostrolenka, and of the brilliant deeds of
Napoleon's Polish Legion? And are not the names of Poland's most
popular heroes, Sobieski and Kosciuszko, household words all the
world over? Moreover, the Poles have proved their chivalry not
only by their valour on the battle-field, but also by their
devotion to the fair sex. At banquets in the good olden time it
was no uncommon occurrence to see a Pole kneel down before his
lady, take off one of her shoes, and drink out of it. But the
women of Poland seem to be endowed with a peculiar power. Their
beauty, grace, and bewitching manner inflame the heart and
imagination of all that set their eyes on them. How often have
they not conquered the conquerors of their country? [FOOTNOTE:
The Emperor Nicholas is credited with the saying: "Je pourrais en
finir des Polonais si je venais a bout des Polonaises."] They
remind Heine of the tenderest and loveliest flowers that grow on
the banks of the Ganges, and he calls for the brush of Raphael,
the melodies of Mozart, the language of Calderon, so that he may
conjure up before his readers an Aphrodite of the Vistula. Liszt,
bolder than Heine, makes the attempt to portray them, and writes
like an inspired poet. No Pole can speak on this subject without
being transported into a transcendental rapture that illumines
his countenance with a blissful radiance, and inspires him with a
glowing eloquence which, he thinks, is nevertheless beggared by
the matchless reality.

The French of the North--for thus the Poles have been called--are
of a very excitable nature; easily moved to anger, and easily
appeased; soon warmed into boundless enthusiasm, and soon also
manifesting lack of perseverance. They feel happiest in the
turmoil of life and in the bustle of society. Retirement and the
study of books are little to their taste. Yet, knowing how to
make the most of their limited stock of knowledge, they acquit
themselves well in conversation. Indeed, they have a natural
aptitude for the social arts which insures their success in
society, where they move with ease and elegance. Their oriental
mellifluousness, hyperbolism, and obsequious politeness of speech
have, as well as the Asiatic appearance of their features and
dress, been noticed by all travellers in Poland. Love of show is
another very striking trait in the character of the Poles. It
struggles to manifest itself among the poor, causes the curious
mixture of splendour and shabbiness among the better-situated
people, and gives rise to the greatest extravagances among the
wealthy. If we may believe the chroniclers and poets, the
entertainments of the Polish magnates must have often vied with
the marvellous feasts of imperial Rome. Of the vastness of the
households with which these grands seigneurs surrounded
themselves, enough has already been said. Perhaps the chief
channel through which this love of show vented itself was the
decoration of man and horse. The entrance of Polish ambassadors
with their numerous suites has more than once astonished the
Parisians, who were certainly accustomed to exhibitions of this
kind. The mere description of some of them is enough to dazzle
one--the superb horses with their bridles and stirrups of massive
silver, and their caparisons and saddles embroidered with golden
flowers; and the not less superb men with their rich garments of
satin or gold cloth, adorned with rare furs, their bonnets
surmounted by bright plumes, and their weapons of artistic
workmanship, the silver scabbards inlaid with rubies. We hear
also of ambassadors riding through towns on horses loosely shod
with gold or silver, so that the horse-shoes lost on their
passage might testify to their wealth and grandeur. I shall quote
some lines from a Polish poem in which the author describes in
detail the costume of an eminent nobleman in the early part of
this century:--

He was clad in the uniform of the palatinate: a doublet
embroidered with gold, an overcoat of Tours silk ornamented
with fringes, a belt of brocade from which hung a sword with
a hilt of morocco. At his neck glittered a clasp with
diamonds. His square white cap was surmounted by a
magnificent plume, composed of tufts of herons' feathers. It
is only on festive occasions that such a rich bouquet, of
which each feather costs a ducat, is put on.

The belt above mentioned was one of the most essential parts and
the chief ornament of the old Polish national dress, and those
manufactured at Sluck had especially a high reputation. A
description of a belt of Sluck, "with thick fringes like tufts,"
glows on another page of the poem from which I took my last
quotation:--

On one side it is of gold with purple flowers; on the other
it is of black silk with silver checks. Such a belt can be
worn on either side: the part woven with gold for festive
days; the reverse for days of mourning.

A vivid picture of the Polish character is to be found in
Mickiewicz's epic poem, Pan Tadeusz, from which the above
quotations are taken.

[FOOTNOTE: I may mention here another interesting book
illustrative of Polish character and life, especially in the
second half of the eighteenth century, which has been of much use
to me--namely, Count Henry Rzewuski's Memoirs of Pan Severin
Soplica, translated into German, and furnished with an
instructive preface by Philipp Lubenstein.]

He handles his pencil lovingly; proclaiming with just pride the
virtues of his countrymen, and revealing with a kindly smile
their weaknesses. In this truest, perhaps, of all the portraits
that have ever been drawn of the Poles, we see the gallantry and
devotion, the generosity and hospitality, the grace and
liveliness in social intercourse, but also the excitability and
changefulness, the quickly inflamed enthusiasm and sudden
depression, the restlessness and turbulence, the love of outward
show and of the pleasures of society, the pompous pride,
boastfulness, and other little vanities, in short, all the
qualities, good and bad, that distinguish his countrymen.
Heinrich Heine, not always a trustworthy witness, but in this
case so unusually serious that we will take advantage of his
acuteness and conciseness, characterises the Polish nobleman by
the following precious mosaic of adjectives: "hospitable, proud,
courageous, supple, false (this little yellow stone must not be
lacking), irritable, enthusiastic, given to gambling, pleasure-
loving, generous, and overbearing." Whether Heine was not
mistaken as to the presence of the little yellow stone is a
question that may have to be discussed in another part of this
work. The observer who, in enumerating the most striking
qualities of the Polish character, added "MISTRUSTFULNESS and
SUSPICIOUSNESS engendered by many misfortunes and often-
disappointed hopes," came probably nearer the truth. And this
reminds me of a point which ought never to be left out of sight
when contemplating any one of these portraits--namely, the time
at which it was taken. This, of course, is always an important
consideration; but it is so in a higher degree in the case of a
nation whose character, like the Polish, has at different epochs
of its existence assumed such varied aspects. The first great
change came over the national character on the introduction of
elective kingship: it was, at least so far as the nobility was
concerned, a change for the worse--from simplicity, frugality,
and patriotism, to pride, luxury, and selfishness; the second
great change was owing to the disasters that befell the nation in
the latter half of the last century: it was on the whole a change
for the better, purifying and ennobling, calling forth qualities
that till then had lain dormant. At the time the events I have to
relate take us to Poland, the nation is just at this last turning-
point, but it has not yet rounded it. To what an extent the bad
qualities had overgrown the good ones, corrupting and deadening
them, may be gathered from contemporary witnesses. George
Forster, who was appointed professor of natural history at Wilna
in 1784, and remained in that position for several years, says
that he found in Poland "a medley of fanatical and almost New
Zealand barbarity and French super-refinement; a people wholly
ignorant and without taste, and nevertheless given to luxury,
gambling, fashion, and outward glitter."

Frederick II describes the Poles in language still more harsh; in
his opinion they are vain in fortune, cringing in misfortune,
capable of anything for the sake of money, spendthrifts,
frivolous, without judgment, always ready to join or abandon a
party without cause. No doubt there is much exaggeration in these
statements; but that there is also much truth in them, is proved
by the accounts of many writers, native and foreign, who cannot
be accused of being prejudiced against Poland. Rulhiere, and
other more or less voluminous authorities, might be quoted; but,
not to try the patience of the reader too much, I shall confine
myself to transcribing a clenching remark of a Polish nobleman,
who told our old friend, the English traveller, that although the
name of Poland still remained, the nation no longer existed. "An
universal corruption and venality pervades all ranks of the
people. Many of the first nobility do not blush to receive
pensions from foreign courts: one professes himself publicly an
Austrian, a second a Prussian, a third a Frenchman, and a fourth
a Russian."

CHAPTER I.

FREDERICK CHOPIN'S ANCESTORS.--HIS FATHER NICHOLAS CHOPIN'S
BIRTH, YOUTH, ARRIVAL AND EARLY VICISSITUDES IN POLAND, AND
MARRIAGE.--BIRTH AND EARLY INFANCY OF FREDERICK CHOPIN.--HIS
PARENTS AND SISTERS.

GOETHE playfully describes himself as indebted to his father for
his frame and steady guidance of life, to his mother for his
happy disposition and love of story-telling, to his grandfather
for his devotion to the fair sex, to his grandmother for his love
of finery. Schopenhauer reduces the law of heredity to the simple
formula that man has his moral nature, his character, his
inclinations, and his heart from his father, and the quality and
tendency of his intellect from his mother. Buckle, on the other
hand, questions hereditary transmission of mental qualities
altogether. Though little disposed to doubt with the English
historian, yet we may hesitate to assent to the proposition of
the German philosopher; the adoption of a more scientific
doctrine, one that recognises a process of compensation,
neutralisation, and accentuation, would probably bring us nearer
the truth. But whatever the complicated working of the law of
heredity may be, there can be no doubt that the tracing of a
remarkable man's pedigree is always an interesting and rarely an
entirely idle occupation. Pursuing such an inquiry with regard to
Frederick Chopin, we find ourselves, however, soon at the end of
our tether. This is the more annoying, as there are circumstances
that particularly incite our curiosity. The "Journal de Rouen" of
December 1, 1849, contains an article, probably by Amedee de
Mereaux, in which it is stated that Frederick Chopin was
descended from the French family Chopin d'Arnouville, of which
one member, a victim of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes,
had taken refuge in Poland. [Footnote: In scanning the Moniteur
of 1835, I came across several prefects and sous-prefects of the
name of Choppin d'Arnouville. (There are two communes of the name
of Arnouville, both are in the departement of the Seine et Oise--
the one in the arrondissement Mantes, the other in the
arrondissement Pontoise. This latter is called Arnouville-les-
Gonesse.) I noticed also a number of intimations concerning plain
Chopins and Choppins who served their country as maires and army
officers. Indeed, the name of Chopin is by no means uncommon in
France, and more than one individual of that name has illustrated
it by his achievements--to wit: The jurist Rene Chopin or Choppin
(1537--1606), the litterateur Chopin (born about 1800), and the
poet Charles-Auguste Chopin (1811--1844).] Although this
confidently-advanced statement is supported by the inscription on
the composer's tombstone in Pere Lachaise, which describes his
father as a French refugee, both the Catholicism of the latter
and contradictory accounts of his extraction caution us not to
put too much faith in its authenticity. M. A. Szulc, the author
of a Polish book on Chopin and his works, has been told that
Nicholas Chopin, the father of Frederick, was the natural son of
a Polish nobleman, who, having come with King Stanislas
Leszczynski to Lorraine, adopted there the name of Chopin. From
Karasowski we learn nothing of Nicholas Chopin's parentage. But
as he was a friend of the Chopin family, and from them got much
of his information, this silence might with equal force be
adduced for and against the correctness of Szulc's story, which
in itself is nowise improbable. The only point that could strike
one as strange is the change of name. But would not the death of
the Polish ruler and the consequent lapse of Lorraine to France
afford some inducement for the discarding of an unpronounceable
foreign name? It must, however, not be overlooked that this story
is but a hearsay, relegated to a modest foot-note, and put
forward without mention of the source whence it is derived.
[FOOTNOTE: Count Wodzinski, who leaves Nicholas Chopin's descent
an open question, mentions a variant of Szulc's story, saying
that some biographers pretended that Nicholas Chopin was
descended from one of the name of Szop, a soldier, valet, or
heyduc (reitre, valet, ou heiduque) in the service of Stanislas
Leszczinski, whom he followed to Lorraine.] Indeed, until we get
possession of indisputable proofs, it will be advisable to
disregard these more or less fabulous reports altogether, and
begin with the first well-ascertained fact--namely, Nicholas
Chopin's birth, which took place at Nancy, in Lorraine, on the
17th of August, 1770. Of his youth nothing is known except that,
like other young men of his country, he conceived a desire to
visit Poland. Polish descent would furnish a satisfactory
explanation of Nicholas' sentiments in regard to Poland at this
time and subsequently, but an equally satisfactory explanation
can be found without having recourse to such a hazardous
assumption.