great French symphonic composer dated from
before the latter's departure for Italy. The characters of Chopin and
Berlioz differed too much for a deep sympathy to exist between
them; their connection was indeed hardly more than a pleasant social
companionship. Liszt tells us that the constant intercourse with
Berlioz, Hiller, and other celebrities who were in the habit of saying
smart things, developed Chopin's natural talent for incisive remarks,
ironical answers, and ambiguous speeches. Berlioz. I think, had more
affection for Chopin than the latter for Berlioz.

But it is much more the artistic than the social attitude taken up by
Chopin towards Berlioz and romanticism which interests us. Has Liszt
correctly represented it? Let us see. It may be accepted as in the main
true that the nocturnes of Field, [Footnote: In connection with this,
however, Mikuli's remark has to be remembered.] the sonatas of
Dussek, and the "noisy virtuosities and decorative expressivities" of
Kalkbrenner were either insufficient for or antipathetic to Chopin; and
it is plainly evident that he was one of those who most perseveringly
endeavoured to free themselves from the servile formulas of the
conventional style and repudiated the charlatanisms that only replace
old abuses by new ones. On the other hand, it cannot be said that
he joined unreservedly those who, seeing the fire of talent devour
imperceptibly the old worm-eaten scaffolding, attached themselves to
the school of which Berlioz was the most gifted, valiant, and daring
representative, nor that, as long as the campaign of romanticism
lasted, he remained invariable in his predilections and repugnances.
The promptings of his genius taught Chopin that the practice of any one
author or set of authors, whatever their excellence might be, ought not
to be an obligatory rule for their successors. But while his individual
requirements led him to disregard use and wont, his individual taste set
up a very exclusive standard of his own. He adopted the maxims of the
romanticists, but disapproved of almost all the works of art in which
they were embodied. Or rather, he adopted their negative teaching, and
like them broke and threw off the trammels of dead formulas; but at the
same time he rejected their positive teaching, and walked apart from
them. Chopin's repugnance was not confined only to the frantic side and
the delirious excesses of romanticism as Liszt thinks. He presents to
us the strange