for his elegant manners, for his polish and sweetishness, and for his whole marchpane-like appearance, in which, however, ihe calm observer discovers a shabby admixture of involuntary Berlinisms of the lowest class, so that Koreff could say of the man as wittily as correctly:  “He looks like a bon-bon that has been in the mud.”

A thorough belief in and an unlimited admiration of himself form the centre of gravity upon which the other qualities of Kalkbrenner’s character balance themselves.  He prided himself on being the pattern of a fine gentleman, and took upon him to teach even his oldest friends how to conduct themselves in society and at table.  In his gait he was dignified, in his manners ceremonious, and in his speech excessively polite.  He was addicted to boasting of honours offered him by the King, and of his intimacy with the highest aristocracy.  That he did not despise popularity with the lower strata of society is evidenced by the anecdote (which the virtuoso is credited with having told himself to his guests) of the fish-wife who, on reading his card, timidly asks him to accept as a homage to the great Kalkbrenner a splendid fish which he had selected for his table.  The artist was the counterpart of the man.  He considered every success as by right his due, and recognised merit only in those who were formed on his method or at least acknowledged its superiority.  His artistic style was a chastened reflex of his social demeanour.

It is difficult to understand how the Kalkbrenner-Chopin affair could be so often misrepresented, especially since we are in possession of Chopin’s clear statements of the facts. [Footnote:  Statements which are by no means invalidated by the following statement of Lenz:—­“On my asking Chopin ’whether Kalkbrenner had understood much about it’ [i.e. the art of pianoforte-playing], followed the answer:  ’It was at the beginning of my stay in Paris.’"].  There are no grounds whatever to justify the assumption that Kalkbrenner was actuated by jealousy, artfulness, or the like, when he proposed that the wonderfully-gifted and developed Chopin should become his pupil for three years.  His conceit of himself and his method account fully for the strangeness of the proposal.  Moreover, three years was the regulation time of Kalkbrenner’s course, and it was much that he was willing to shorten it in the case of Chopin.  Karasowski, speaking as if he had the gift of reading the inmost thoughts of men, remarks:  “Chopin did not suspect what was passing in Kalkbrenner’s mind when he was playing to him.”  After all, I should like to ask, is there anything surprising in the fact that the admired virtuoso and author of a “Methode pour apprendre le Piano a l’aide du Guide-mains; contenant les principes de musique; un systems complet de doigter; des regles sur l’expression,” &c., found fault with Chopin’s strange fingering and unconventional style?  Kalkbrenner could not imagine anything superior to his own method, anything