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