I
Music is an order of mystic, sensuous
mathematics. A sounding mirror, an aural mode
of motion, it addresses itself on the formal side to
the intellect, in its content of expression it appeals
to the emotions. Ribot, admirable psychologist,
does not hesitate to proclaim music as the most emotional
of the arts. “It acts like a burn, like
heat, cold or a caressing contact, and is the most
dependent on physiological conditions.”
Music then, the most vague of the
arts in the matter of representing the concrete, is
the swiftest, surest agent for attacking the sensibilities.
The cry made manifest, as Wagner asserts, it is
a cry that takes on fanciful shapes, each soul interpreting
it in an individual fashion. Music and beauty
are synonymous, just as their form and substance are
indivisible.
Havelock Ellis is not the only aesthetician
who sees the marriage of music and sex. “No
other art tells us such old forgotten secrets about
ourselves...It is in the mightiest of all instincts,
the primitive sex traditions of the race before man
was, that music is rooted...Beauty is the child of
love.” Dante Gabriel Rossetti has imprisoned
in a sonnet the almost intangible feeling aroused
by music, the feeling of having pursued in the immemorial
past the “route of evanescence.”
Is it this sky’s vast
vault or ocean’s sound,
That is Life’s self
and draws my life from me,
And by instinct ineffable
decree
Holds my breath
Quailing on the bitter bound?
Nay, is it Life or Death,
thus thunder-crown’d,
That ’mid the tide of
all emergency
Now notes my separate wave,
and to what sea
Its difficult eddies labor
in the ground?
Oh! what is this that knows
the road I came,
The flame turned cloud, the
cloud returned to flame,
The lifted, shifted steeps
and all the way?
That draws around me at last
this wind-warm space,
And in regenerate rapture
turns my face
Upon the devious coverts of
dismay?
During the last half of the nineteenth
century two men became rulers of musical emotion,
Richard Wagner and Frederic Francois Chopin. The
music of the latter is the most ravishing gesture
that art has yet made. Wagner and Chopin, the
macrocosm and the microcosm! “Wagner has
made the largest impersonal synthesis attainable of
the personal influences that thrill our lives,”
cries Havelock Ellis. Chopin, a young man slight
of frame, furiously playing out upon the keyboard his
soul, the soul of his nation, the soul of his time,
is the most individual composer that has ever set
humming the looms of our dreams. Wagner and Chopin
have a motor element in their music that is fiercer,
intenser and more fugacious than that of all other
composers. For them is not the Buddhistic void,
in which shapes slowly form and fade; their psychical
tempo is devouring. They voiced their age, they
moulded their age and we listen eagerly to them, to
these vibrile prophetic voices, so sweetly corrosive,
bardic and appealing. Chopin being nearer the
soil in the selection of forms, his style and structure
are more naïve, more original than Wagner’s,
while his medium, less artificial, is easier filled
than the vast empty frame of the theatre. Through
their intensity of conception and of life, both men
touch issues, though widely dissimilar in all else.
Chopin had greater melodic and as great harmonic genius
as Wagner; he made more themes, he was, as Rubinstein
wrote, the last of the original composers, but his
scope was not scenic, he preferred the stage of his
soul to the windy spaces of the music-drama.
His is the interior play, the eternal conflict between
body and soul. He viewed music through his temperament
and it often becomes so imponderable, so bodiless
as to suggest a fourth dimension in the art.
Space is obliterated. With Chopin one does not
get, as from Beethoven, the sense of spiritual vastness,
of the overarching sublime. There is the pathos
of spiritual distance, but it is pathos, not sublimity.
“His soul was a star and dwelt apart,”
though not in the Miltonic or Wordsworthian sense.
A Shelley-like tenuity at times wings his thought,
and he is the creator of a new thrill within the thrill.
The charm of the dying fall, the unspeakable cadence
of regret for the love that is dead, is in his music;
like John Keats he sometimes sees:
Charm’d magic casements, opening
on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.
Chopin, “subtle-souled psychologist,”
is more kin to Keats than Shelley, he is a greater
artist than a thinker. His philosophy is of the
beautiful, as was Keats’, and while he lingers
by the river’s edge to catch the song of the
reeds, his gaze is oftener fixed on the quiring planets.
He is nature’s most exquisite sounding-board
and vibrates to her with intensity, color and vivacity
that have no parallel. Stained with melancholy,
his joy is never that of the strong man rejoicing
in his muscles. Yet his very tenderness is tonic
and his cry is ever restrained by an Attic sense of
proportion. Like Alfred De Vigny, he dwelt in
a “tour d’ivoire” that faced the
west and for him the sunrise was not, but O! the miraculous
moons he discovered, the sunsets and cloud-shine!
His notes cast great rich shadows, these chains of
blown-roses drenched in the dew of beauty. Pompeian
colors are too restricted and flat; he divulges a
world of half-tones, some “enfolding sunny spots
of greenery,” or singing in silvery shade the
song of chromatic ecstasy, others “huge fragments
vaulted like rebounding hail” and black upon
black. Chopin is the color genius of the piano,
his eye was attuned to hues the most fragile and attenuated;
he can weave harmonies that are as ghostly as a lunar
rainbow. And lunar-like in their libration are
some of his melodies glimpses, mysterious
and vast, as of a strange world.
His utterances are always dynamic,
and he emerges betimes, as if from Goya’s tomb,
and etches with sardonic finger Nada in dust.
But this spirit of denial is not an abiding mood;
Chopin throws a net of tone over souls wearied with
rancors and revolts, bridges “salty, estranged
seas” of misery and presently we are viewing
a mirrored, a fabulous universe wherein Death is dead,
and Love reigns Lord of all.
II
Heine said that “every epoch
is a sphinx which plunges into the abyss as soon as
its problem is solved.” Born in the very
upheaval of the Romantic revolution a revolution
evoked by the intensity of its emotion, rather than
by the power of its ideas Chopin was not
altogether one of the insurgents of art. Just
when his individual soul germinated, who may tell?
In his early music are discovered the roots and fibres
of Hummel and Field. His growth, involuntary,
inevitable, put forth strange sprouts, and he saw
in the piano, an instrument of two dimensions, a third,
and so his music deepened and took on stranger colors.
The keyboard had never sung so before; he forged its
formula. A new apocalyptic seal of melody and
harmony was let fall upon it. Sounding scrolls,
delicious arabesques gorgeous in tint, martial,
lyric, “a resonance of emerald,” a sobbing
of fountains as that Chopin of the Gutter,
Paul Verlaine, has it the tear crystallized
midway, an arrested pearl, were overheard in his music,
and Europe felt a new shudder of sheer delight.
The literary quality is absent and
so is the ethical Chopin may prophesy but
he never flames into the divers tongues of the upper
heaven. Compared with his passionate abandonment
to the dance, Brahms is the Lao-tsze of music, the
great infant born with gray hair and with the slow
smile of childhood. Chopin seldom smiles, and
while some of his music is young, he does not raise
in the mind pictures of the fatuous romance of youth.
His passion is mature, self-sustained and never at
a loss for the mot propre. And with
what marvellous vibration he gamuts the passions,
festooning them with carnations and great white tube
roses, but the dark dramatic motive is never lost in
the decorative wiles of this magician. As the
man grew he laid aside his pretty garlands and his
line became sterner, its traceries more gothic; he
made Bach his chief god and within the woven walls
of his strange harmonies he sings the history of a
soul, a soul convulsed by antique madness, by the
memory of awful things, a soul lured by Beauty to
secret glades wherein sacrificial rites are performed
to the solemn sounds of unearthly music. Like
Maurice de Guerin, Chopin perpetually strove to decipher
Beauty’s enigma and passionately demanded of
the sphinx that defies:
“Upon the shores of what oceans
have they rolled the stone that hides them, O Macareus?”
His name was as the stroke of a bell
to the Romancists; he remained aloof from them though
in a sympathetic attitude. The classic is but
the Romantic dead, said an acute critic. Chopin
was a classic without knowing it; he compassed for
the dances of his land what Bach did for the older
forms. With Heine he led the spirit of revolt,
but enclosed his note of agitation in a frame beautiful.
The color, the “lithe perpetual escape”
from the formal deceived his critics, Schumann among
the rest. Chopin, like Flaubert, was the last
of the idealists, the first of the realists.
The newness of his form, his linear counterpoint,
misled the critics, who accused him of the lack of
it. Schumann’s formal deficiency detracts
from much of his music, and because of their formal
genius Wagner and Chopin will live.
To Chopin might be addressed Sar Merodack
Peladan’s words:
“When your hand writes a perfect
line the Cherubim descend to find pleasure therein
as in a mirror.” Chopin wrote many perfect
lines; he is, above all, the faultless lyrist, the
Swinburne, the master of fiery, many rhythms, the
chanter of songs before sunrise, of the burden of
the flesh, the sting of desire and large-moulded lays
of passionate freedom. His music is, to quote
Thoreau, “a proud sweet satire on the meanness
of our life.” He had no feeling for the
epic, his genius was too concentrated, and though
he could be furiously dramatic the sustained majesty
of blank verse was denied him. With musical ideas
he was ever gravid but their intensity is parent to
their brevity. And it must not be forgotten that
with Chopin the form was conditioned by the idea.
He took up the dancing patterns of Poland because they
suited his vivid inner life; he transformed them,
idealized them, attaining to more prolonged phraseology
and denser architecture in his Ballades and Scherzi but
these periods are passionate, never philosophical.
All artists are androgynous; in Chopin
the feminine often prevails, but it must be noted
that this quality is a distinguishing sign of masculine
lyric genius, for when he unbends, coquets and makes
graceful confessions or whimpers in lyric loveliness
at fate, then his mother’s sex peeps out, a
picture of the capricious, beautiful tyrannical Polish
woman. When he stiffens his soul, when Russia
gets into his nostrils, then the smoke and flame of
his Polonaises, the tantalizing despair of his Mazurkas
are testimony to the strong man-soul in rebellion.
But it is often a psychical masquerade. The sag
of melancholy is soon felt, and the old Chopin, the
subjective Chopin, wails afresh in melodic moodiness.
That he could attempt far flights
one may see in his B flat minor Sonata, in his Scherzi,
in several of the Ballades, above all in the F
minor Fantasie. In this great work the technical
invention keeps pace with the inspiration. It
coheres, there is not a flaw in the reverberating
marble, not a rift in the idea. If Chopin, diseased
to death’s door, could erect such a Palace of
Dreams, what might not he have dared had he been healthy?
But forth from his misery came sweetness and strength,
like honey from the lion. He grew amazingly the
last ten years of his existence, grew with a promise
that recalls Keats, Shelley, Mozart, Schubert and
the rest of the early slaughtered angelic crew.
His flame-like spirit waxed and waned in the gusty
surprises of a disappointed life. To the earth
for consolation he bent his ear and caught echoes
of the cosmic comedy, the far-off laughter of the
hills, the lament of the sea and the mutterings of
its depths. These things with tales of sombre
clouds and shining skies and whisperings of strange
creatures dancing timidly in pavonine twilights, he
traced upon the ivory keys of his instrument and the
world was richer for a poet. Chopin is not only
the poet of the piano, he is also the poet of music,
the most poetic of composers. Compared with him
Bach seems a maker of solid polyphonic prose, Beethoven
a scooper of stars, a master of growling storms, Mozart
a weaver of gay tapestries, Schumann a divine stammerer.
Schubert, alone of all the composers, resembles him
in his lyric prodigality. Both were masters of
melody, but Chopin was the master-workman of the two
and polished, after bending and beating, his theme
fresh from the fire of his forge. He knew that
to complete his “wailing Iliads” the strong
hand of the reviser was necessary, and he also realized
that nothing is more difficult for the genius than
to retain his gift. Of all natures the most prone
to pessimism, procrastination and vanity, the artist
is most apt to become ennuied. It is not easy
to flame always at the focus, to burn fiercely with
the central fire. Chopin knew this and cultivated
his ego. He saw too that the love of beauty for
beauty’s sake was fascinating but led to the
way called madness. So he rooted his art, gave
it the earth of Poland and its deliquescence is put
off to the day when a new system of musical aestheticism
will have routed the old, when the Ugly shall be king
and Melody the handmaiden of science. But until
that most grievous and undesired time he will catch
the music of our souls and give it cry and flesh.
III
Chopin is the open door in music.
Besides having been a poet and giving vibratory expression
to the concrete, he was something else he
was a pioneer. Pioneer because in youth he had
bowed to the tyranny of the diatonic scale and savored
the illicit joys of the chromatic. It is briefly
curious that Chopin is regarded purely as a poet among
musicians and not as a practical musician. They
will swear him a phenomenal virtuoso, but your musician,
orchestral and theoretical, raises the eyebrow of
the supercilious if Chopin is called creative.
A cunning finger-smith, a moulder of decorative patterns,
a master at making new figures, all this is granted,
but speak of Chopin as path-breaker in the harmonic
forest that true “forest of numbers” as
the forger of a melodic metal, the sweetest, purest
in temper, and lo! you are regarded as one mentally
askew. Chopin invented many new harmonic devices,
he untied the chord that was restrained within the
octave, leading it into the dangerous but delectable
land of extended harmonies. And how he chromaticized
the prudish, rigid garden of German harmony, how he
moistened it with flashing changeful waters until it
grew bold and brilliant with promise! A French
theorist, Albert Lavignac, calls Chopin a product
of the German Romantic school. This is hitching
the star to the wagon. Chopin influenced Schumann;
it can be proven a hundred times. And Schumann
understood Chopin else he could not have written the
“Chopin” of the Carneval, which quite out-Chopins
Chopin.
Chopin is the musical soul of Poland;
he incarnates its political passion. First a
Slav, by adoption a Parisian, he is the open door
because he admitted into the West, Eastern musical
ideas, Eastern tonalities, rhythms, in fine the Slavic,
all that is objectionable, decadent and dangerous.
He inducted Europe into the mysteries and seductions
of the Orient. His music lies wavering between
the East and the West. A neurotic man, his tissues
trembling, his sensibilities aflame, the offspring
of a nation doomed to pain and partition, it was quite
natural for him to go to France Poland had
ever been her historical client the France
that overheated all Europe. Chopin, born after
two revolutions, the true child of insurrection, chose
Paris for his second home. Revolt sat easily
upon his inherited aristocratic instincts no
proletarian is quite so thorough a revolutionist as
the born aristocrat, witness Nietzsche and
Chopin, in the bloodless battle of the Romantics,
in the silent warring of Slav against Teuton, Gaul
and Anglo-Saxon, will ever stand as the protagonist
of the artistic drama.
All that followed, the breaking up
of the old hard-and-fast boundaries on the musical
map is due to Chopin. A pioneer, he has been rewarded
as such by a polite ignorement or bland condescension.
He smashed the portals of the convention that forbade
a man baring his soul to the multitude. The psychology
of music is the gainer thereby. Chopin, like
Velasquez, could paint single figures perfectly, but
to great massed effects he was a stranger. Wagner
did not fail to profit by his marvellously drawn soul-portraits.
Chopin taught his century the pathos of patriotism,
and showed Grieg the value of national ore. He
practically re-created the harmonic charts, he gave
voice to the individual, himself a product of a nation
dissolved by overwrought individualism. As Schumann
assures us, his is “the proudest and most poetic
spirit of his time.” Chopin, subdued by
his familiar demon, was a true specimen of Nietzsche’s
Übermensch, which is but Emerson’s
Oversoul shorn of her wings. Chopin’s transcendental
scheme of technics is the image of a supernormal lift
in composition. He sometimes robs music of its
corporeal vesture and his transcendentalism lies not
alone in his striving after strange tonalities and
rhythms, but in seeking the emotionally recondite.
Self-tormented, ever “a dweller on the threshold”
he saw visions that outshone the glories of Hasheesh
and his nerve-swept soul ground in its mills exceeding
fine music. His vision is of beauty; he persistently
groped at the hem of her robe, but never sought to
transpose or to tone the commonplace of life.
For this he reproved Schubert. Such intensity
cannot be purchased but at the cost of breadth, of
sanity, and his picture of life is not so high, wide,
sublime, or awful as Beethoven’s. Yet is
it just as inevitable, sincere and as tragically poignant.
Stanislaw Przybyszewski in his “Zur
Psychologie des Individuums” approaches
the morbid Chopin the Chopin who threw open
to the world the East, who waved his chromatic wand
to Liszt, Tschaikowsky, Saint-Saens, Goldmark,
Rubinstein, Richard Strauss, Dvorak and all Russia
with its consonantal composers. This Polish psychologist a
fulgurant expounder of Nietzsche finds in
Chopin faith and mania, the true stigma of the mad
individualist, the individual “who in the first
instance is naught but an oxidation apparatus.”
Nietzsche and Chopin are the most outspoken individualities
of the age he forgets Wagner Chopin
himself the finest flowering of a morbid and rare
culture. His music is a series of psychoses he
has the sehnsucht of a marvellously constituted nature and
the shrill dissonance of his nerves, as seen in the
physiological outbursts of the B minor Scherzo, is
the agony of a tortured soul. The piece is Chopin’s
Iliad; in it are the ghosts that lurk near the hidden
alleys of the soul, but here come out to leer and
exult.
Horla! the Horla of Guy de Maupassant,
the sinister Doppelganger of mankind, which races
with him to the goal of eternity, perhaps to outstrip
and master him in the next evolutionary cycle, master
as does man, the brute creation. This Horla,
according to Przybyszewski, conquered Chopin and became
vocal in his music this Horla has mastered
Nietzsche, who, quite mad, gave the world that Bible
of the Übermensch, that dancing lyric prose-poem,
“Also Sprach Zarathustra.”
Nietzsche’s disciple is half
right. Chopin’s moods are often morbid,
his music often pathological; Beethoven too is morbid,
but in his kingdom, so vast, so varied, the mood is
lost or lightly felt, while in Chopin’s province,
it looms a maleficent upas-tree, with flowers of evil
and its leaves glistering with sensuousness. But
so keen for symmetry, for all the term formal beauty
implies, is Chopin, that seldom does his morbidity
madden, his voluptuousness poison. His music
has its morass, but also its upland where the gale
blows strong and true. Perhaps all art is, as
the incorrigible Nordau declares, a slight deviation
from the normal, though Ribot scoffs at the existence
of any standard of normality. The butcher and
the candle-stick-maker have their Horla, their secret
soul convulsions, which they set down to taxation,
the vapors, or weather.
Chopin has surprised the musical malady
of the century. He is its chief spokesman.
After the vague, mad, noble dreams of Byron, Shelley
and Napoleon, the awakening found those disillusioned
souls, Wagner, Nietzsche and Chopin. Wagner sought
in the epical rehabilitation of a vanished Valhalla
a surcease from the world-pain. He consciously
selected his anodyne and in “Die Meistersinger”
touched a consoling earth. Chopin and Nietzsche,
temperamentally finer and more sensitive than Wagner the
one musically, the other intellectually sang
themselves in music and philosophy, because they were
so constituted. Their nerves rode them to their
death. Neither found the serenity and repose
of Wagner, for neither was as sane and both suffered
mortally from hyperaesthesia, the penalty of all sick
genius.
Chopin’s music is the aesthetic
symbol of a personality nurtured on patriotism, pride
and love; that it is better expressed by the piano
is because of that instrument’s idiosyncrasies
of evanescent tone, sensitive touch and wide range
in dynamics. It was Chopin’s lyre, the
“orchestra of his heart,” from it he extorted
music the most intimate since Sappho. Among lyric
moderns Heine closely resembles the Pole. Both
sang because they suffered, sang ineffable and ironic
melodies; both will endure because of their brave
sincerity, their surpassing art. The musical,
the psychical history of the nineteenth century would
be incomplete without the name of Frederic Francois
Chopin. Wagner externalized its dramatic soul;
in Chopin the mad lyricism of the Time-spirit is made
eloquent. Into his music modulated the poesy of
his age; he is one of its heroes, a hero of whom Swinburne
might have sung:
O strong-winged soul with prophetic
Lips hot with the blood-beats of song;
With tremor of heart-strings magnetic,
With thoughts as thunder in throng;
With consonant ardor of chords
That pierce men’s souls as with
swords
And hale them hearing along.