smiling at this combination of pompous authoritativeness and wretched short-sightedness?  It has been truly observed by Ambros that there is between Thalberg and Liszt all the difference that exists between a man of talent and a man of genius; indeed, the former introduced but a new fashion, whereas the latter founded really a new school.  The one originated a few new effects, the other revolutionised the whole style of writing for the pianoforte.  Thalberg was perfect in his genre, but he cannot be compared to an artist of the breadth, universality, and, above all, intellectual and emotional power of Liszt.  It is possible to describe the former, but the latter, Proteus-like, is apt to elude the grasp of him who endeavours to catch hold of him.  The Thalberg controversy did not end with Fetis’s article.  Liszt wrote a rejoinder in which he failed to justify himself, but succeeded in giving the poor savant some hard hits.  I do not think Liszt would have approved of the republication of these literary escapades if he had taken the trouble to re-read them.  It is very instructive to compare his criticism of Thalberg’s compositions with what Schumann—­who in this case is by no means partial—­said of them.  In the opinion of the one the Fantaisie sur Les Huguenots is not only one of the most empty and mediocre works, but it is also so supremely monotonous that it produces extreme weariness.  In the opinion of the other the Fantaisie deserves the general enthusiasm which it has called forth, because the composer proves himself master of his language and thoughts, conducts himself like a man of the world, binds and loosens the threads with so much ease that it seems quite unintentional, and draws the audience with him wherever he wishes without either over-exciting or wearying it.  The truth, no doubt, is rather with Schumann than with Liszt.  Although Thalberg’s compositions cannot be ranked with the great works of ideal art, they are superior to the morceaux of Czerny, Herz, and hoc genus omne, their appearance marking indeed an improvement in the style of salon music.

But what did Chopin think of Thalberg?  He shared the opinion of Liszt, whose side he took.  In fact, Edouard Wolff told me that Chopin absolutely despised Thalberg.  To M. Mathias I owe the following communication, which throws much light on Chopin’s attitude:—­

I saw Chopin with George Sand at the house of Louis Viardot, before the marriage of the latter with Pauline Garcia.  I was very young, being only twelve years old, but I remember it as though it had been yesterday.  Thalberg was there, and had played his second fantasia on Don Giovanni (Op. 42), and upon my word Chopin complimented him most highly and with great gravity; nevertheless, God knows what Chopin thought of it in his heart, for he had a horror of Thalberg’s arrangements, which I have seen and heard him parody in the most droll and amusing manner, for Chopin had the sense of parody and ridicule in a high