expression, it is not only meditative but even melancholy. This
last point leads me naturally to another question. The delicate
build of Chopin's body, his early death preceded by many years of
ill-health, and the character of his music, have led people into
the belief that from childhood he was always sickly in body, and
for the most part also melancholy in disposition. But as the
poverty and melancholy, so also disappears on closer
investigation the sickliness of the child and youth. To jump,
however, from this to the other extreme, and assert that he
enjoyed vigorous health, would be as great a mistake. Karasowski,
in his eagerness to controvert Liszt, although not going quite
this length, nevertheless overshoots the mark. Besides it is a
misrepresentation of Liszt not to say that the passage excerpted
from his book, and condemned as not being in accordance with the
facts of the case, is a quotation from G. Sand's novel Lucrezia
Floriani (of which more will be said by-and-by), in which the
authoress is supposed, although this was denied by her, to have
portrayed Chopin. Liszt is a poet, not a chronicler; he must be
read as such, and not be taken au pied de la lettre. However,
even Karasowski, in whom one notices a perhaps unconscious
anxiety to keep out of sight anything which might throw doubt on
the health and strength of his hero, is obliged to admit that
Chopin was "delicate," although he hastens to add, "but
nevertheless healthy and pretty strong." It seems to me that
Karasowski makes too much of the statement of a friend of
Chopin's--namely, that the latter was, up to manhood, only once
ill, and then with nothing worse than a cold. Indeed, in
Karasowski's narrative there are not wanting indications that the
health of Chopin cannot have been very vigorous; nor his strength
have amounted to much; for in one place we read that the youth