Jump to content

Talk:Frédéric Chopin/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Refocusing on the Issue

There has been a great tendency in the above discussion to digress into many off-topic issues (by myself included). Let's refocus on the issue of Chopin's ethnicity, or if you prefer nationality. That will be the only way that some consensus can be reached here. Chopin is a national hero in Poland, much in the same way that Lord Byron is a national hero to the Greeks. The difference being that Byron is only of British ethnicity and Chopin is both French and Polish. This nonsense about you are what you think you are, didn't make Idi Amin "King of Scotland". Is anyone able to explain how or why Chopin loses his French paternity to an eraser (or in modern times with the delete button)? That would be helpful. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've constructed a few strawman arguments. First of all, insanely declaring oneself the "King of Scotland" isn't exactly asserting a nationality (Amin also declared himself "Conquerer of the British Empire" and had a fascination with Scottish kilts; last time I checked, Chopin didn't have a fascination with kilts. Besides, Uganda was a part of the British Empire when Idi Amin was born.) Secondly, I have never attempted to deny Chopin's French paternity. That Mikolaj was born in France is an obvious fact. What I have been arguing is that a) there generally isn't a precedent on Wikipedia for including hyphenated nationalities in the lead paragraph when the subject's parents were born in a foreign country, b) you can't find any sources in which Chopin acknowledges his automatically-acquired French citizenship or nationality (this is an important fact, and the only source I could find that addressed this seems to suggest that he had to apply for French citizenship after his arrival in Paris), and c) Chopin was tremendously conflicted about returning to Poland after the November Uprising and was urged by his family not to return, suggessting that he regarded Poland as his one and only homeland. I am bothered by the lack of verifiable sources showing that Chopin was automatically born a Frenchman and I am bothered by your dismissal of how considered himself Polish (see the quotations from letters I included in other posts I've made) and how you're comparing him to an African warlord who declared himself the King of Scotland. These aren't exactly equals. --Atwardow (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Atwardow, I'm not sure if if it's a language barrier or what. I'm not comparing Chopin to an African warlord. So don't put words into my mouth. It is you who has repeatedly argued that an individual's ethnic heritage is determined by "how they feel" about the matter rather than by reality. As for "kilts", I have no idea what Chopin's views about them were, and I dare say, that you don't either. Last time I checked his domestic partner aka George Sand did have a fascination with wearing men's clothes, smoking cigars, and engaging in other unusual behavior for the time. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Very well, point taken. Either way, I still maintain two things: a) There doesn't appear to be a precedent on Wikipedia for including hyphenated nationalities in the lead paragraph when the subject's parents were born in a foreign country, and b) you can't find any sources in which Chopin acknowledges his automatically-acquired French citizenship or nationality (this is an important fact, and the only source I could find that addressed this seems to suggest that he had to apply for French citizenship after his arrival in Paris). The last one is especially important because this would mean that any assertion that Chopin was automatically French by his birth would amount to original research. At least that's how I understand Wikipedia's policy on such things. If I'm wrong, please correct me.--Atwardow (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Original research": what a great excuse used to repudiate a valid argument!

Here are some "mythical" documents:

Found at paragraph 2 of the above under the heading L’ÉVOLUTION HISTORIQUE DU DROIT FRANÇAIS DE LA NATIONALITÉ

  • Le Code Napoléon de 1804 accorde en revanche une primauté au droit du sang, qui permet à l'enfant né d'un père français d'avoir la nationalité française à la naissance, même si l'enfant est né hors des frontières hexagonales (contrairement au droit révolutionnaire, cette législation favorise les enfants des Français qui ont émigré pour fuir la Révolution).

--Frania W. (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, here is an interesting find[1] to compare with your comments: "It seems a little baffling that one country can simply pass a law and declare that an indiscriminate number of people anywhere in the world and for all perpetuity are going to be nationals of that country whether they like it or not..." & "By the way, I find it absolutely bewildering that a consistent application of your interpretation of this problem would lead you to assign nationalities to a bunch of people who probably wouldn't feel the same way about it." It would seem that, at least on nationality, modern Poland has adopted (or kept) the French Napoleonic Code of 1804:

POLOGNE (mis à jour le 17.09.2004) 1. Dispositions législatives sur la nationalité a. Textes en vigueur - Loi du 15 février 1962 sur la citoyenneté polonaise (Journal officiel/Dziennik Ustaw n° 28, 2000, point 323 et amendements). Traduction en langue anglaise disponible.

4. Droit du sang (Jus sanguinis) Depuis 1920, le droit polonais reconnaît le principe de l’acquisition de la nationalité polonaise du fait d’être né de parents polonais (droit du sang). Un enfant né de parents qui ont la nationalité polonaise acquiert donc cette nationalité quel que soit le pays dans lequel il est né. Le droit polonais reconnaît aux parents le droit de donner à leur enfant la nationalité d’un autre Etat lorsque l’un des deux parents est polonais et l’autre ressortissant d’un autre Etat. Les parents peuvent opter pour une nationalité étrangère dans les trois mois suivants la naissance de l’enfant.

I apologize for sending this in French, but if you are a Pole, I am sure you can find this in the Civil Code of Poland which you seem to know by heart.

Regards, --Frania W. (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen all of these documents before. Yes, I've seen Chopin's certificate of baptism which took place in Poland. You claim that the existing laws may have offered him automatic French citizenship (which is itself contradicted by other sources I've provided which assert that he had to apply for citizenship), but this changes nothing about his nationality. Chopin was born in (some political variant of) Poland, spoke Polish as his first language, left Poland because of political developments, etc. I don't care if the Code de Napoleon or whatever claimed his a Frenchman. This assertion is utterly meaningless because Frederic Chopin wasn't born in France, so he wasn't a Frenchman. France claiming him as a Frenchman is as meaningless as Russia claiming him as a Russian because Poland was at some point during his life in Poland incorporated into the Russian Empire. Was he a Russian national because the laws of Russia claimed him as a Russian citizen? Should the lead read "Chopin was a French-Russian composer of the Romantic Era?" With that example you see how absurd the whole situation becomes. Chopin regarded himself as a "Pole" (see an above quotation I provided). He did not regard himself as a Frenchman, so France's desire to make him a Frenchman will simply not suffice.--Atwardow (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, like you, I've heard all of these arguments before. You seem to be an intelligent person, and a reasonable one too. Why then do you return to the nonsensical argument concerning his "place of birth"? Can we at least agree on the simple fact, that had Chopin been born in Madagascar, with the same parents, you'd still consider him to be Polish, and I'd still consider him to be Polish-French? Can you see, with your example or argument, how absurd the whole situation becomes? Then you say "he left Poland because of political developments, etc." That's nonsense too. A nationalistic "point of view", without basis, created by others after his death. Does anyone have any statement by Chopin corroborating that assertion? An assertion, from him, that he left Poland because of "political developments"? No, it's not possible, because that is not why he left Poland. Or isn't such a claim subject to the original research taboo (oops, it can probably be linked to some tabloid)? It's pure nonsense, propagated after his death, without any connection to reality. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Atwardow, you say This assertion is utterly meaningless because Frederic Chopin wasn't born in France, so he wasn't a Frenchman. According to you, this "utterly meaningless assertion" should touch thousands of modern-day children born outside Poland of Polish parents - although Polish law says otherwise. Please read article 34 of the 1997 Constitution of Poland [2], and tell us how different it is from what the Napoleonic Code said about French nationality being acquired at birth when one parent was French, no matter where the child was born?
--Frania W. (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that this provision of the Polish constitution is also utterly meaningless. It's just another instance of a country doing everything it can to claim, in perpetuity, an indiscriminate number of people for generations to come. (I notice that you, Frania, have a Polish last name. Are you a Polish national beyond your choice?) Just to show both of you that I am not motivated by mindless nationalism, I would like to share these facts with you: I think that Marie Curie is probably as French as she is Polish (even though she was born of Polish parents) because that's a nationality that she voluntarily chose. Now, using your line of thinking, was she French in addition to being Polish? Only Polish? Only French? (Remember, neither one of her parents was French. I think you'd have to say she was only Polish to be consistent with your line of arguing.) I don't think it makes sense to say that Nicholas Copernicus is "Polish" or "German" or anything else because "nationality" really didn't have the same meaning in those days (and I say this even though the region he was in was a part of the Kingdom of Poland). So I actually like how the page on Copernicus starts right now: with no mention of his nationality at all. As I recall he was subject to a Prussian duke (or someone Germanic, I can't remember who) who himself was subject to the King of Poland. And he spoke German and Polish (in fact, one of the few existing personal letters of his that wasn't written in Latin was written in German). So I assure you that I'm not doing this to splatter Poland over every page of Wikipedia. The case of Chopin is simply different. He was born in Warsaw. His family identified itself as Polish. He identified himself as Polish. He spoke Polish better than any language. And, again, he left Poland forever because, in his absence during a tour, the Russians littered the streets of Warsaw with "thousands of corpses" and "burned his home" and made life impossible for many, many Poles (see Great Emigration). He went to France (after deliberating about it pretty intensely, by the way, even though he supposedly had French nationality and could presumably return to his "French homeland" anytime) to be free and to be creative, something that the Russians wouldn't let him do in Warsaw.--Atwardow (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
On the admittedly unrelated subject of Marie Curie, if anyone on that page cared about my opinion, I would have her labeled as "Polish-French" and remove that worthless paragraph in the lead extolling her lifelong closeness to Poland.--Atwardow (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Atwardow, let me respectfully say you're doing too much thinking here. In fact you are overthinking the problem. When you say "I think that this provision of the Polish constitution is also utterly meaningless," maybe that's what you think, but for better or for worse, it remains a fact. A fact that is currently in force in Poland. As was the Code Napoleon in Żelazowa Wola in 1810. Personally I believe you are correct regarding Marie Curie, she was ethnically Polish, and it is the fact that she emigrated to France and spent more than half of her life in France that allows her to be called French-Polish. Chopin, on the other hand was half French and half Polish. And the fact that he too emigrated to France and spent half of his life in France would normally make him French-Polish. At least in the real world. On the question of his motivations for leaving Poland (we are in total disagreement, btw), even if you were correct that he left Poland because of the November Uprising, it wouldn't change his ethnicity one iota. It also wouldn't change the fact that emigres like Joseph Conrad are usually referred to in a "dualistic" manner concerning nationality. There are many, many examples like Conrad and Curie, not only on Wikipedia, but other encyclopedias, biographies, etc. And unlike in the case of Chopin, typically these people do not have the dual ethnicity that Chopin had to boot. Like David Garrett. Furthermore the comment, "He spoke Polish better than any language". That's meaningless. I speak Polish better than I speak Lithuanian. It doesn't make me Polish. I speak English better than I speak Polish. It doesn't make me British. And, again, "he left Poland forever because, in his absence during a tour, the Russians... "burned his home"..." (never happened). Lastly ..."even though he supposedly had French nationality and could presumably return to his French homeland anytime". That's what he had, not supposedly (i.e., French nationality), and what Chopin did do (emigrate to his paternal homeland). Sometimes a person can have two homelands, today even dual citizenship, but in any case he never returned to his "Polish homeland", at anytime, after he left it. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess it all boils down to the way one interprets nationality. You're right; if we define nationality in the way you do, if we should care that the Code Napoleon was in force in Zelazowa Wola in 1810, then Chopin was Polish-French. If you want to change the lead paragraph to reflect that and "source" it, then go ahead. I'm powerless to stop you, especially if you are able to include this "hard evidence" to back it up. However, I continue to hold tremendous doubt about the appropriateness of this approach. Unlike you, I do think that it is important to take an individual's personal views regarding his own nationality into consideration. The only quotations we have from Chopin on this matter show that he considered himself Polish, not French. I am not a huge fan of assigning people distinctions and titles against their will or without their cooperation (which is obviously not possible now because Chopin is no longer with us). If he was French, why did Cyprian Norwid announce to the world that a Pole had left this world? Why didn't anyone in France declare that a Frenchman had left the world? I continue to completely disagree with you about the reason Chopin left Poland. I think that the violent upheaval in Warsaw and his parents' admonition not to return after he left was the reason Chopin never returned to Poland (I don't think the Russians would have let him leave Poland if he attempted to return with his French passport). The point is that I don't hold the kind of deterministic view of nationality that you do, and it's very difficult for me to accept a piece of paper and and a convenient principle of assigning future generations in perpetuity a nationality whether or not they want it to be proof that Chopin was a "son of France." I continue to regard him as fully Polish. I've said everything that I have to say on this matter. I hope that if you change this article to reflect this view of yours, you don't forget to take that fact into consideration. I have to let go of this discussion now because I have other obligations that will prohibit me from thinking about this so much now.--Atwardow (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Atwardow, thank you for your input here. If it's any comfort to know this, I have no plans to "railroad" my understanding of the facts into the article, without a general consensus first. It would be of great benefit to hear other viewpoints concerning the matter. Regarding your belief "I do think that it is important to take an individual's personal views regarding his own nationality into consideration" you may be surprised to know that I do not completely disagree with that premise. Only with the idea that the personal views of the individual could negate the reality of their nationality. Bluntly put, if a person was Jewish, but didn't want to be Jewish, and said they weren't Jewish, does that make them not Jewish? I happen to think not. As for Chopin, I see no evidence that he called himself Polish, or French, or Polish-French. Not everybody has such a need. More importantly, I see no evidence that Chopin, communicating in letters with his family in French, had some reason to deny the French aspect of his heritage. As for the question "why did Cyprian Norwid announce to the world that a Pole had left this world" , rather than a Frenchman left this world, I don't think a lot of effort is necessary to answer that question. Like you, I have other obligations, and best think that others should weigh in on this matter for now. I enjoyed the interaction with you because of your intelligence and reasonableness. Best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As usual, I thank you for your interesting thoughts and I may come back in some time and admit that you've changed my perspective. I'll "chew on it" for a while. You and Frania definitely had a lot of thought-provoking ideas. And who's to say we should live our lives without changing our mind at least sometimes? I hope some consensus will be reached at some point, I'll be more than open to hearing other views. But I also appreciated the interaction. --Atwardow (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Atwardow, to your: "I guess it all boils down to the way one interprets nationality", I would answer: "There might be two ways of interpreting nationality: that of the passport and that of the soul", and Frédéric Chopin had both.
It was a hard discussion. Thank you for taking our thoughts into consideration.
Aurevoir ! --Frania W. (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Polish nationalism at work

It seems to me that Chopins site has been a victim to polish editors that wanted to make sure Chopin is portrayed as a polish patriot on wikipedia. Here just some of the most ridiculous quotes: "The Polish spirit, culture and language pervaded the Chopins' home, and as a result the son would never, even in Paris, perfectly master the French language." It's obvious that someone wanted to make sure he would not be considered french by anyone - the source being a polish historian that is unknown beyond polish borders.

And here yet another quote: "Chopin at every step demonstrated his Polish spirit [...]" claimed by the same polish historian, Jachimecki.

"he was one of the first composers to clearly express nationalism through his music." the claim coming from Chopins "Mazurkas", which are basically unknown to the world - aside from the english wikipedia there is an article about them in the polish wikipedia alone.

"Though an ardent Polish patriot, in France he used the French versions of his given names and traveled on a French passport [...]"

All sources cited to prove these claims are mostly based on either polish historians or unknown ones. Just take a look "Delfina Potocka" his supposed muse and love - the single source of her article is the polish encyclopedia.

It is a disgrace that this article is being abused by nationalists. His polish heritage should be mentioned, but right now it is highly exaggerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.89.209.115 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

IMAGES -- Please read

This article is currently quite difficult to read because of all the cluttery and irrelevant images that crowd out the text and force the reader's eye to snake around the various irrelevant impediments in order to follow the sinuous line of copy. About a year ago I moved, reduced the size of, and judiciously re-located the already sizeable number of images in the article, but now the number of images has grown by leaps and bounds and the images have been enlarged and strewn about with no care towards readability.

The article does not need, and should not contain, images of every place that Chopin ever slept or visited, every museum or monument or plaque, and every person he ever studied with or was related to, MUCH LESS the friends of his in-laws!

The purpose of the article, as with any article in any encyclopedia, is to impart information, not to obscure it with a forest of irrelevant images.

Forgive this outburst; I'm simply frustrated at this problem, because it's a lengthy problem to solve, and I don't have the time to do so right now.

Let us take a lesson from the Chopin article in Spanish Wikipedia, which is a Featured Article on that site, and confine ourselves to no more images than they have: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chopin Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection, I've begun removing the more irrelevant and duplicative images. The article is still a mess visually, but at least it's a less cluttered mess now. What remains to be done is to alter placement of the images so that none faces another and thus blocks off text from both sides. Also, a few more images should be removed. Lastly, I want to suggest that if images of various Chopin museums and memorials and memorabilia and such are desired, that a separate article be created, called something like "Chopin memorials", and on that article images of such, indeed exhaustive listing of such, would be appropriate.
In sum, please do not add any further images to the article, and direct anyone who attempts to do so to this thread. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read this also regarding images

As may have been predicted. editors are trying to clutter the article back up with images. I'd like to set a few guidelines to prevent this:

(1) There's absolutely no reason that I can think of to have images of Chopin's parents. This only clutters the article, and I have no knowledge of any other biographcial article containing images of the subjects parents. Their images belong on articles about them.

(2) There is not reason to have an image of somewhere Chopin stayed less than 5 years. There's not even a really good reason to have an image of the house he was born in, although I suppose for sentimental reasons it can stay in.

(3) Images must not face each other with text in-between. The purpose of Wikipedia is to impart knowledge. It's hard to read when the text is crowded between images. This, again, is commn sense, and was posted above.

(4) Please do not add any more images to the article. If anything, remove more or, if you must, substitute something better. The Spanish article, which is an FA, has only 20, expertly placed, and the media files are also nicely consolidated and aligned.

Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


The Spanish article that you cite as a model includes the portraits of Chopin's parents and the photos of his death mask, all of which you have deleted.
The Spanish article also includes some illustrations of rather peripheral importance, such as a portrait of Paganini and a picture of the Warsaw Arsenal during the 1830 Uprising.
The Szafarnia manor is more important in Chopin's story than the "Fryderyk Chopin Palace" at Sanniki, which he visited during one summer.
In summary, your choices of illustrations are inconsistent with your "guidelines" above, and often capricious.
Your tone is gratuitously overbearing. Nihil novi (talk) 07:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


If my tone seemed overbearing, it's likely because I've had this notice about the cluttered excess of images here for two weeks and no one has either responded to it or helped trim the images. Then when you you revert my de-cluttering twice without checking the Talk page as requested, and without discussion or consensus, I felt I needed to make myself clearer. I hope I have laid it out clearly.
Here are my personal viewpoints about the article as it currently stands:
(1) I see no reason to include the deathmasks in the article. Seems gruesome to me, and no other biographical article that I am aware of has them. I feel something very subsidiary like that would be ideal for an article on "Chopin memorials", as suggested above.
(2) I never said the choice of images in the Spanish article was ideal. I said the number and placement of them was ideal.
(3) If Szafarnia is more important than Sanniki, by all means replace it.
(4) I don't think the article needs the memorials in Singapore and China. I'd like to delete them. Not to mention which, they look extremely odd in the Works section! Again, if someone creates an article on Chopin memorials, they can go there.
(5) If we delete the Asian memorials and move a lot of the media files to the Works section, the article might then have breathing room to add back in one or two more images. But lets keep it no more than 22, OK? Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Moving the media files would separate them from their biographic correlates, but it would de-clutter the article.
I disagree about the death mask. I don't find it gruesome. Where there are few convincing likenesses of Chopin, the mask gives a realistic sculptural representation of him at the end of his life. The "Dante Alighieri" article includes a death mask.
I did remove some illustrations before you set to work. Nihil novi (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess we disagree about the deathmask, but I'm happy to go with consensus, if other(s) want to weigh in. (I think Dante is in a different category because obviously photographs did not exist, whereas we have an excellent photo of Chopin.) BTW the media files were not necessarily correlated with the text, except possibly chronologically; the works were not mentioned in the surrounding text. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Chopin's autograph, stylised as a half note
In defense of the deathmask image, I would like to cite WP:DISC ("Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable"); also, personally, I do not find it gruesome. Blehfu (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" article shows Tchaikovsky's death mask, with a similarly sculptural effect. Nihil novi (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Instead of having his signature stylised as a half note in Music section, why not use Chopin's signature in infobox, like done in referred-to Spanish wiki article[3], then replace stylised signature by cast of his left hand, which was regretfully removed?
--Frania W. (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"Chopin" has no infobox, and it seems to be the convention in the English Wikipedia not to provide them for composers.
I like Chopin's stylized-half-note signature, which nicely illustrates his wit and artistic talent.
I wouldn't insist on including the photo of the cast of his left hand, which is not too informative or of best quality. Nihil novi (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
My mistake in mentioning "infobox", when I should have said: under the portrait at beginning, which I did not have time to correct after saving page.
Now, you like the stylised-half-note signature and I like the cast of the left hand: informative or not, it is the cast of the hand of a great pianist. So, unless many contest our choice, why not have the stylised signature under portrait at beginning, since there is so much empty space below between lead & Childhood, and the cast at Music section?
As for the death mask: why "gruesome"? Let's keep it!
--Frania W. (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Since no one replied to my above comment, I put back cast of Chopin's left hand... an appropriate picture in an article on one of the greatest pianists of all times.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuff deleted -- may want to re-add

The following recently added material was immediately deleted from the section on the Etudes as a copyvio:

The great majority of Chopin's compositions were written for the piano as solo instrument; all of his extant works feature the piano in one way or another. They are technically demanding, but emphasize nuance and expressive depth. Chopin invented musical forms such as the instrumental ballade, and made major innovations in the piano sonata, mazurka, waltz, nocturne, polonaise, étude, impromptu and prélude.

Chopin's first set of studies entitled Douze Grandes Études, Op.10, was composed from 1828-1832, published in June 1833 and dedicated to Liszt. The second set, Douze Grandes Études, Op.25, was composed from 1833-1836, published in 1837 and dedicated to the Countess Marie d’Agôult.

In October 1829 Chopin wrote to his friend Titus Woyciechowski, "I have composed a grand study in my own manner." Those last four words provide some insight into the originality of Chopin's style: the man and his music being inseparable.

The basic character and purpose of old stereotyped keyboard exercises and studies were principally didactic. To the young Chopin of eighteen existing exercises and studies were not sufficient to conquer all of the technical and musical demands his compositions presented. Within the year Chopin produced his first composition that would ultimately form part of Op.10 and had created a new genre -the 'grande étude'. Numbers 8-11 were first to be completed, originally numbered 7-10, and by 1831, when Chopin arrived in Paris, all but numbers 3 and 4 had been completed.

There is a hint of irony in Chopin’s typically modest choice of genre title. His études undeniably illustrate the importance Chopin placed on the art of touch and the cultivation of it beyond the acquisition of virtuosity, revealing an infinite variety of tone-colour and textural contrast. Each étude is as much a study in expression and emotional dynamic as pure technique. The extreme technical demands being only ‘a means to an end’.

Chopin's études are the perfect synthesis of art and technique - far transcending the basic didactic purposes of dealing with a principal technical difficulty. They present a formidable challenge to pianists and with few exceptions exhaust all technical and musical possibilities: exceptions being the ‘orchestral’ effects of tremolos and broken octaves, which held no interest for Chopin. His supreme mastery as a composer of works of the highest art is amply demonstrated in these magnificent compositions and provided early confirmation of Chopin’s creative genius. Chopin was more concerned with the quality of tone and how music is performed, than with piano exercises for finger dexterity and development of the high finger striking techniques, requesting his pupils to stroke or caress the keys – “.. mould the keyboard as if with a velvet hand and feel the key rather than striking it!”. [Chopin Pianist and Teacher: Eigeldinger] Technique is essential as a basis to the music, but should remain subordinate to the music itself. As Schumann commented, “.. no-one should dare to be a poor musician in order to become a fine virtuoso.” [Neue Zeitschrift (14) 1841]

The deleting editor tagged the material as a copyright violation from http://chopinfound.brinkster.net/ip.asp?op=GrandEtudes. However (I just noticed), since the user who added it, User:Adlear, is clearly the author of the original material (Angela Lear), if she wants to post this on Wikipedia, that is her prerogative, right?, if it is accurate and verifiable and not OR. So we may want to add it back in, perhaps in a truncated or modified version. Anyway, I haven't actually read the material. Also, I notice that the submitting user has only made this one contribution to Wikipedia, which does make it somewhat suspect. But if there's a kernel of useful information in there and she gives free usage, perhaps that bit could be used. Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

From my Wiki-layperson's understanding, if the author is cognizant of the disclaimer at the bottom of the page ("Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.") that maybe it's kosher. However, this begs the question if the original material at http://chopinfound.brinkster.net/ip.asp?op=GrandEtudes must also be published with a CC-BY-SA license. Who owns the right to the text? Blehfu (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Good question; I don't know, but this Help Desk "Article editing" query response (at the top of October 12) says it reads "© Angela Lear". I do notice that User:Adlear has received instruction on her talk page on how to release the material for free use, but hasn't yet taken any apparent action. Anyway, I'd perhaps say, leave it, unless we want to use some paraphrased portions of it and source it to that link or to this PDF. BTW, she also tried to add this same material to Études (Chopin), where it would actually be more appropriate given the level of detail. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please fill out edit summaries

This is a reminder to all editors that they need to fill out edit summaries for each edit. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do we list parentage in the lead?

This is not done in any other biography that I've seen on Wikipedia. Parentage belongs in the body text of the article, not in the lead.

Also the lead should not give precise birth-village data. That's far too fine a detail for the lead. Please see WP:LEAD for full details on how the lead should read. In short: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."

For good examples of how an expat's nationality is handled in the lead of a couple of other articles, see: Henry James and T.S. Eliot. In other words, just state the facts. Chopin was a Pole who expatriated to France and lived there for the rest of his life. End of story. No need for debate or for nationality wars.

The lead should be much more about his music, its nature and importance, and his influence on music. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Softlavender, don't you believe that bringing this up now is not taking the risk of further debate and nationality war? For weeks, we have had discussions upon discussions upon discussions and finally agreed to the wording of the lead as it is; so could not we leave the matter to rest? As you are aware, the parentage issue came about because of the "Polish-only" nationality claimed & demanded by some, as if Chopin's father himself was nothing but a Pole.
  • Henry James' first sentence in lead:
"'Henry James, OM ((1843-04-15)April 15, 1843 – (1916-02-28)February 28, 1916) was an American-born writer...".
We agree that Henry James was: American-born, but does not "American-born" imply that he became something else later on in life, otherwise, the lead sentence would be "Henry James was an American writer..."
  • T. S. Eliot's first sentence in lead:
"'Thomas Stearns Eliot OM (September 26, 1888 – January 4, 1965) was an American-born English poet...":
In T.S. Eliot's case, please note that he is described as "an American-born English poet".
On the other hand, Chopin was born in the Duchy of Warsaw of a French father, detail that made him Franco-Polish at birth, a fact that is ferociously denied by some contributors who want a "Polish-only" Chopin, thus amputating Frédéric Chopin of part of his identity. So, after many heated debates, contributors of this article came upon the solution of including the "French-Polish parentage" in the lead.
We also have:
Now, if you believe that mentioning his parentage is putting too much weight in the lead, why don't we treat Frédéric Chopin the same as T.S. Eliot, Arthur Rubinstein, Alfred Cortot, Wernher von Braun & others, and describe him as he really was: "Polish-French"?
--Frania W. (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Good question. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, though, that for instance I've never heard anything about Rubinstein being American. Neither French nor German articles consider him American. The fact of acquiring and using a second passport should never be a reason to assign nationality. I live in Silesia, where German, Czech and Polish people have been merging for centuries; lots of my friends have two or even three passports. They speak no word in German, know no German relative, but do have German citizenship in documents. As they say, one day it may turn out to be useful. Don't tell me they would be called "Polish-German" if one day they had an article on wiki. It would be like calling Alexander Gavrylyuk an "Australian pianist". And, back to Chopin, please remember that Chopin had to have any passport. Poland, after three partitions, did not in fact exist then, so maybe we should call poor Fryderyk a Russian guy of French parentage? ;) Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Gregory of Nyssa, I would like to point out that when one becomes a citizen of the United States, for instance, what is involved is a bit more than getting an American passport. In the case of Frédéric Chopin, the reason he was issued a French passport was because he was a French national. He also spoke French, and his favorite author was Voltaire, which he learned to appreciate from his father who, contrary to what many are trying to persuade readers, taught French to his children, with French spoken in their household, and wrote only in French to his son.
I am curious: if Frédéric Chopin had emigrated to the United States & become a citizen of that country, would there be all this hullabaloo about denying him his American nationality/citizenship? No! The lead sentence would be
  • Frédéric Chopin (March 1, 1810 – October 17, 1849) was a Polish-American composer and the greatest pianist in the world of all times,
the whole article illustrated with a deluge of scintillating Stars on a background of White & Red stripes, under the watchful eyes & protecting wings of one Polish & one American Eagle.
--Frania W. (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Frania, I'm far from willing to take part in the argument how Polish or French Chopin was. For me the matter is clear and the phrase "Polish composer of French-Polish parentage" could not have been more suitable. The fact that Mikołaj wrote letters in French is well known in Poland, I did not know that French was used in his household, though. Where did you take this from? As to naturalised American citizens from abroad, please remember that Chopin did not want to stay in Paris more than it was necessary. I think no one doubts what he would have said if he'd been asked about his nationality and homeland. It's an irony of fate that all these matters are discussed, but of course that's what careful historicians should do. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
And finally as to his French... I don't know and won't know how well he spoke French (I assume he did well), but we do know that French isn't the language he wrote songs in ;) Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Gregory: Hmm! For someone who "... did not want to stay in Paris more than it was necessary...", to quote you, (it was supposed to be for three years), did not our dear Frédéric overextend the "necessity" to remain in the "great city that made such an impression" (on him) "after Stuttgart and Strasbourg" (in a letter dated 18 November 1831 to his friend Alfons Kumelski). Except for a few trips outside of France, he stayed there eighteen (!) years. No iron chains tied him to France & his celebrity made it possible for him to live wherever he would have chosen. He chose France.
--Frania W. (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • To Frania: All of the Wikipedia leads you quoted merely state citizenship. Not parentage. To repeat, no other article I've seen in Wikipedia puts parentage in the lead. There's merely citizenship, and if a person expatriated and lived in another country for a large majority of his life until death [without obtaining citizenship in the new country], that is stated. There's never a mention of parentage. That goes in the body of the article. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Softlavender: :I do not believe that any subject in Wikipedia has ever had his nationality discussed as much as Frédéric Chopin has, and for the good reason that the Poles do not want to accept the fact that he could be something else beside Polish, with the constant arguing & denial of his French nationality. And, in order to put a halt to it after weeks of heated debate, some time in May, we arrived at the wording that is now in the lead, with the mention of his French-Polish parentage, and the article has been at peace since then. In other words, as I wrote earlier:
  • Chopin was born in the Duchy of Warsaw of a French father, detail that made him Franco-Polish at birth, a fact that is ferociously denied by some contributors who want a "Polish-only" Chopin, thus amputating Frédéric Chopin of part of his identity. So, after much heated debating, contributors of this article came upon the solution of including the "French-Polish parentage" in the lead.
The problem does not arise with von Braun, Eliot, James & Rubinstein because they were born of same nationality parents in a country that existed at the time of their birth and moved to another country of which they became citizens afterward.
  • Marie Curie is listed in lead as a "Polish-born French physicist and chemist" because born in Poland of Polish parents (no French father) and she became a French citizen after settling in France.
  • Guillaume Apollinaire is listed in lead as a "French poet, playwright, and art critic" born in Italy to a Polish mother. Because of the law on nationality in Italy at the time of his birth, Apollinaire, whose father was unknown, was not Italian, but Polish because his mother was. A Polish citizen, he lived in France most of his life and, while still a Pole, joined the French army in WWI, to finally become a French citizen in March 1916, dying in 1918. Why no heated debate on his being a Polish Pole? Not a sound on his talk page. Naturally, he did not keep as good company as Chopin did, but his mother was a Polish noblewoman and, again, he was French for only the last two and a half years of his 38-year life.
  • Georges Charpak is listed in the lead as a "French physicist", although he was Polish-born in Dąbrowica, (now Dubrovytsia, in the Ukraine). Why is he "French" in the lead of the article & Chopin is not? Not much noise on his talk page either.
All the examples I gave show inconstancy in the way different subjects are treated, and it is more than obvious that Frédéric Chopin has been "kidnapped" by his Polish maternal side; yet, without that French father of his, Frédéric François Chopin would never have been.
--Frania W. (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You're still confusing parentage with nationality. Nationality means citizenship. Chopin never aquired French citizenship. All kinds of people have various mixed parentages (where I live it's the norm rather than the exception), but their nationality is their citizenship, not their parentage. The lead on the Charpak article (not a popular article at all; I'd never heard of him) is simply mistaken and needs to be fixed -- see all the categories he is listed under. Apollinaire is a "French poet" because he wrote exclusively in French; therefore he's not an Italian poet. His lack of French citizenship until a few years before his death was not for lack of trying. I think the lead on that article should simply read "French poet (born Polish)", like it does in French Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation re parentage, nationality & citizenship, subjects I have been swimming into all my life.
By the way, Chopin never acquired French citizenship because he did not have to. He was born a Frenchman because he had a French father. And I am not going to fill kilometers of pages again on this as you can read it above. I will only re-mention that the 1804 Code Napoléon was in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw where Frédéric Chopin was born in 1810, making the child a French national at birth because born of a Frenchman.
There are other articles in Wikipedia dealing with people who became French through naturalisation, or were French at birth & acquired another nationality, and who are listed as "French" or "French + another nationality"
yet, RE the lead of his article, Frédéric Chopin has been and still is the object of fierce arguments, denying him his own birthright as a French-Polish national.
Dommage that you were not acquainted with Georges Charpak while he was still alive, as he was one of the most intelligent, kind, cultured, likable Noble prize winner who would have made a cat fall in love with physics.
--Frania W. (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Déjà vu

Reading the above thread concerning "parentage", etc. puts me into a déjà vu conundrum. Perhaps some of the newcomers to this discussion should read the archives of this entire talk page concerning what I believe to be the heart of the matter, namely ethnicity. That is, Chopin's ethnicity. The WP articles on citizenship and nationality aren't bad primers either. As pointed out, the opening line concerning "parentage" was hammered out in May in an effort to reach a consensus. Although I went along, I disagree that it was the best option, yet do agree that it is awkward and doesn't belong there. So Gregory and Softlavender what's the short version of your objection to calling Chopin a "French-Polish" composer? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For example the fact that the Grove Dictionary, which I just checked out of mere curiosity, calls him a "Polish composer and pianist", with no word about his supposed Frenchness whatsoever. Nor does the Oxford Companion to Music. I think it is you who should start to bring up arguments to challenge what is written in the sources. Unlike Frania has suggested, Chopin did not choose Paris as a whim of the moment or a strong inclination and love for the French. Please note that Polish intelligentsia (please read at least the article Hôtel Lambert if you haven't done it yet) resided in Paris because of the turmoil in their homeland. Chopin was persona non grata in Poland after his refusal to become "Russian court composer", and, what's more, I don't even want to think how he would have earned money if he had come back to Warsaw, trembling with consecutive uprisings. I don't want to take part in the argument, I'm no Chopinist, but I cannot understand the way of thinking: the strange aim to call a composer, who spent his life lamenting on his exile, and ordered to send his heart back home, "French". For me it is clear he was a Polish composer with French-Polish parentage. And again, Frania, I ask for the sources of the suggested habit of French-speaking in Chopin's household. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
And, to sum up what I tried to express, for me it's quite all the same to me whether you call him French-Polish, French or Polish. I just cannot understand why you try to delete the neutral sentence (even if it does not occur in other articles) and call him as he would not have liked to be called (I understand you don't agree with the last part). As to him having choosen Paris as a place to live, Frania, you are departing from the truth: Chopin lived poorly in Paris, although it was there that he had friends and pupils, where artistic life was on the highest level, and where people used a language he spoke; if he had moved to London, I wonder in what conditions he'd be forced to live in. Please mind that when you will rewrite your opinion about his enthusiasm about Paris and exile :) Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Gregory, I have no idea where you got your information on the kind of life Chopin had in Paris (he lived poorly? !). All I can say is: please get hold of Chopin's correspondence & read his letters & letters addressed to him from the time he left Poland to a few days before he died.
--Frania W. (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Frania, I've read a lot about Chopin, including his correspondence (which is even available online: [4], French with a translation when written in French; Polish when written in Polish). It is a pity you cannot read Chopin's original writings in Polish (Kurier Szafarski and then all the later letters to Grzymała, for example, or to his family), which lead Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz to suggest that Chopin was a kind of a "total genius", mastering not only music, but also language and drawing. As to living poorly, although he took a huge amout of gold for lessons he gave, he was not able to teach a lot, and in the end it was his friends who payed for his flat. The role of Jane Stirling and her sponsoring is, I suppose, well known. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)No article about Stirling in English? Weird. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It exists now. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Gregory, because he stopped composing & giving lessons the last year of his life because he was dying and, unknown to him for its extent, was helped financially by friends, namely Jane Stirling, does not mean that he "lived poorly in Paris" for eighteen years. He did not lead the life of a poor struggling artist but more that of a dandy. If there is one artist to whom misérabilisme does not apply, it is Chopin.
--Frania W. (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
And you suggest he was cheerful and happy with his life, at least when he didn't cough blood? I didn't mean he was a pauper pottering around in Paris, it's obvious that for some years he did quite good, especially when in Nohant. Not good enough, however, to live a few months without works being published and lessons given. Perhaps he could work (compose) in London or Brussels, but only if provided such a place as Nohant; however, he would give no lessons: he spoke no languages beside Polish and French. Please add that to Hotel Lambert and you will be given an answer why Chopin resided in Paris.
The problem is that his income is not the matter in question. I see you have got your own view of Chopin. However, please remember that Wikipedia should be based on exterior sources. Those have so far showed unanimity that Chopin was a Pole born from a Polish mother and a French emigrant. Please let us end the unfruitful discussion, at least until some new facts, not known to the authors of Grove, come to light. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(OD) How does the standard of living that Chopin enjoyed while living in Paris (at the Place Vendôme), or who paid for it, have anything to do with his ethnicity, which is supposedly what this is all about? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore how does the fact that the multi-millionaire and former Foreign Minister of Imperial Russia who bought a hotel in Paris which attracted people who shared linguistic and cultural associations change Chopin's ethnicity? I think by now it's pretty clear no one is denying the Polish component of that reality. Only the French component of his ethnicity. As for popular musical references claiming one thing and respected encyclopedias [5] claiming another, that's the way it goes. Dr. Dan (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically the problem of Paris emerged with the supposition, to me quite strange, that Chopin not only chose to live in Paris freely and happily, but also that his decision proved his Frenchness in any way. If you consider Grove Dictionary as "popular musical reference" and outdated Britannica as "respected encyclopedia", then I've got no further questions. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the "popular musical reference", I was thinking of The Oxford Companion to Music. You brought that up as a source. As for Encyclopedia Britannica being "outdated", and as a consequence not being a useful reference, if that is your belief, then I too would have no further questions to pose to you. Especially, since you consider Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz's opinion concerning Chopin's linguistic brilliance (he was "a total genius", because he mastered French) to trump EB's assessment of his ethnicity. Incidentally, Gregory, Iwaszkiewicz's opinion seems to contradict the sentence in the "Childhood" section of the Chopin article. The part, "The Polish spirit, culture and language pervaded the Chopins' home, and as a result the son would never, even in Paris, perfectly master the French language". That seems to be in disagreement with Iwaszkiewicz's spin regarding the matter. Also what, pray tell, is the Polish spirit? You said you may not have any further questions. Too bad. Unfortunately you didn't seem to have any answers to the questions posed to you either. They were in my last [6] [7] two posts. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC) No article about Stirling in Polish or French either? Agree, weird too. User: Dr. Dan (talk)
Yes there are. Created 2007 and 2009 respectively. Get there via Jane Stirling. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I supposed the answers to your questions were clear enough, and considered them rhetorical. Hotel Lambert was a part of my answer to Frania, who suggested that Chopin could have chosen any other place on the Earth for his exile, yet chose Paris because of his supposed Frenchness. The existence of Hotel Lambert, which was an extremely important factor in Polish culture in the 19th century, explains his decision. Paris was where Polish intelligentsia dwelt. The same goes to the standard of living, because the only place in which Chopin could afford to live was, again, Paris - contrary to what Frania suggests. As to Iwaszkiewicz, please read once more what I wrote about him. I did not write that Iwaszkiewicz is an important figure in our discussion and I don't understand your way of arguing: if Iwaszkiewicz had wrote something about Polish spirit, then we cannot cite him any more? Frania told me to read Chopin's correspondence, which I had already read thoroughly. Finally, I'm not going to argue whether Grove or EB is more up-to-date and reliable source. As to Oxford Companion, I wrote about it because it's on the same website as Grove, so when searching for Chopin I had two results. I may agree, of course, the Companion is a rather popular book. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC) By the way, perhaps because of my English, I did not understand your "No article...". Stirling is on both Polish and French wikipedias. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Gregory, I was not going to take any more part in this conversation; however, when I notice that you are misquoting me, I must step in. Where is it that I said that Chopin "chose Paris because of his supposed Frenchness", and the bit about where he could afford to live? Chopin chose Paris because it was the place to be for artists such as him. He could have chosen Vienna or London, or Italy. May I remind you that the destination on his Russian passport was London with a stopover at Paris? He got the authorisation to stop in Paris thanks to the intervention of the ambassador to France in Vienna, after the Russians had been holding his passport for two weeks. In July 1837, six years after arriving in France, he did visit London, which he described as "sooty" with "columns of grey air",[...] it's extraordinary, all uniform, all very proper, all well-washed BUT as black as a gentleman's bottom!". What difference with his description of Paris, a city he fell in love with at first sight a=& described as the "most beautiful sight in the world!"
Here is an excerpt from a letter written to a friend in Berlin in the second week of January 1833, just over one year after he had arrived in France:
  • "I have found my way into the very best society; I have my place among ambassadors, princes, ministers - I don't know by what miracle it has come about for I have not pushed myself forward. But today all that sort of thing is indispensable to me: those circles are supposed to be the fountain-head of good taste. You at once have more talent if you have been heard at the English or Austrian embassies; you at once play better if Princess Vaudemont has patronised you..."
Of course his "huge" financial difficulties are mentioned at the end of same letter:
  • "I have five lessons to give today. You will imagine that I am making a fortune - but my cabriolet and white gloves cost more than that, and without them I shoud not have bon ton."
Gregory, this was written by the same Frédéric Chopin who, about fifteen months earlier, had written while in Stuttgart: "Oh, God, God! ... Make the most frightful torments seize the French for not coming to our aid!"
--Frania W. (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we have both come to the moment when we are not going to take part in the discussion any more, at least up to the moment something new happens in the article. Thanks for your explanation of what you meant. (I still won't agree that the fact that Chopin gave lessons and took money for his work means he became wealthy. The income was temporary). As to his love for Paris (and probably all the rest of what we discussed) we will stay on our positions with our arguments and viewpoints. If you find a moment, I ask for the third time, please write your sources for supposed French-speaking Chopin household in Warsaw on my discussion page. Let's say it is my own mere curiosity. Regards Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(OD) As I said at the beginning of this thread, it's a "Déjà vu" situation. Lot's of banter, but no answers to some pertinent questions concerning Chopin. First, how the Hotel Lambert proves anything that detracts from Chopin's paternal ancestry, which was French, or Chopin's ethnicity which was half-French. Secondly, how the standard of living that Chopin enjoyed (owning a cabriolet and white gloves) has anything to do with his ethnicity. The only thing I got out of all of it was that there are people living in Silesia, who do not speak German, know no German relative (sic), but have German citizenship, and have two or three passports [8] (because someday it may prove to be useful). Sounds like the situation in Šalčininkai (someday it might prove to be useful to some people living there). Btw, if any of these people, one day, have an article about them on Wikipedia, we can worry about what they should be called at that time. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My last entry on this one, which was an answer to Gregory, but got into edit conflict with Dr. Dan:
Look, Gregory, I never implied that Chopin became wealthy with the money he received by giving lessons. Chopin was like everybody else on this earth, he had to work, but thanks to his genius, his only means of earning a living was his music. All artists were/are in the same position and, unfortunately, some have to work outside of their art in order to survive. From the beginning, Chopin was able to sell his compositions & give well-paid lessons to students he could choose from wealthy families. Without being wealthy, he was doing very well until tuberculosis or whatever caused his death caught up with him, making it impossible for him to compose & give lessons anymore. And we cerainly have to thank Jane Stirling & his close friends for allowing him to live the last months of his life with no worries & in dignity. Aside from the time he left Poland & was receiving money from his father, the last few months of his life was the only period when he had to depend on the financial help of others.
Now, as suggested by Dr. Dan: Déjà vu, so let's stop this discussion.
P.S. Chopin never learned French from his Polonised French father, nor did his father ever speak to him in French at home: Chopin learned French at the Berlitz School of Languages as he was crossing the border into France in November 1831, and so did later his sister - and that's why Nicolas Chopin knew that he could, and did write to his son Frédéric only in French.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That surprises me, Frania. Crossing a border takes only a moment in time. Even if it took the whole month of November 1831, how did he learn French so quickly? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, Jack of Oz !!! Didn't you get the jest of it? The P.S. was addressed to those who insist that only Polish was spoken in the Chopin household. Nicolas Chopin taught French all his life in Poland, he wrote poetry in French (something never mentioned in en:wiki), and after his son left for France - or should I say for London via Paris (!) - he wrote to Frédéric only in French. When Frédéric's sister Louise visited him in France, she befriended G. Sand & the two women corresponded in French after Louise's return to Poland because G. Sand did not know Polish. So it seems more likely to me that French was taught/spoken in the Chopin's household (whose head was a professor of French at the Warsaw lyceum) than not. Another detail, Voltaire - not an easy writer to read - was Nicolas Chopin's favorite author, as it was Frédéric's. I doubt very much that someone who does not know French, or who has much difficulty with that language, is going to have Voltaire by his/her bedside.
Now, Jack of Oz, please read my P.S. again, with mention of the Berlitz School of Languages and maybe you will get its mocking spirit... in the sense se moquer de la tête des gens (I could use another expression in French, but it would not be very polite!).
--Frania W. (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thenk you, Frania. I do have a finely-tuned humour meter, but some instances, usually involving people from foreign parts, and usually involving the written rather than the spoken word, whiz right past me without the slightest recognition. Sometimes I need a big banner saying "THIS IS HUMOUR". Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
For some at en:wiki, my "humour" has name "sarcasm"... Anyway, I'll deploy the banner next time.
--Frania W. (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Frania, let me only write that Voltaire, under the name Wolter that has been accepted in Poland ever since, was translated into Polish surprisingly quickly as the king was then especially fond of his writings. In the second half of the 18th century you could read a lot of Voltaire in Polish; of course I don't doubt that it is more probable that Nicolas read him rather in French, though. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Gregory, I'd bet my head under the guillotine that as a Frenchman teaching French at the Warsaw lyceum or wherever else he was teaching French in Poland, monsieur Nicolas Chopin chose to read Voltaire en version originale. Of course, this is only assuming on my part... as assuming that sieur Nicolas Chopin did serve a few French words to his brood during the souper aux chandelles à la maison. Because the Berlitz School of Languages at the border between Belgium & France can do only so much within an hour, even with a genius.
Salut & bonne année!
--Frania W. (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. It has been peaceful around here for the past couple of months, so I am out of here, refusing to get caught with Chopin in another Franco-Polish conflict.
So do I. Gregory of Nyssa (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_10&oldid=1136744293"