[Footnote:  In an article, entitled Musical Plagiarism in the Monthly Musical Record of July 1, 1882 (where also the mazurka in question is reprinted), we read as follows:—­“In 1877 Mr. E. Pauer, whilst preparing a comprehensive guide through the entire literature of the piano, looked through many thousand pieces for that instrument published by German firms, and came across a mazurka by Charles Mayer, published by Pietro Mechetti (afterwards C. A. Spinal, and entitled Souvenirs de la Pologne.  A few weeks later a mazurka, a posthumous work of F. Chopin, published by J. Gotthard, came into his hands.  At first, although the piece ‘struck him as being an old acquaintance,’ he could not fix the time when and the place where he had heard it; but at last the Mayer mazurka mentioned above returned to his remembrance, and on comparing the two, he found that they were one and the same piece.  From the appearance of the title-page and the size of the notes, Mr. Pauer, who has had considerable experience in these matters, concluded that the Mayer copy must have been published between the years 1840 and 1845, and wrote to Mr. Gotthard pointing out the similarity of Chopin’s posthumous work, and asking how he came into possession of the Chopin manuscript.  Mr. Gotthard replied,’that he had bought the mazurka as Chopin’s autograph from a Polish countess, who, being in sad distress, parted, though with the greatest sorrow, with the composition of her illustrious compatriot.’  Mr. Pauer naturally concludes that Mr. Gotthard had been deceived, that the manuscript was not a genuine autograph, and ’that the honour of having composed the mazurka in question belongs to Charles Mayer.’  Mr. Pauer further adds:  ’It is not likely that C. Mayer, even if Chopin had made him a present of this mazurka, would have published it during Chopin’s lifetime as a work of his own, or have sold or given it to the Polish countess.  It is much more likely that Mayer’s mazurka was copied in the style of Chopin’s handwriting, and after Mayer’s death in 1862 sold as Chopin’s autograph to Mr. Gotthard.’”]

Surveying the mazurkas in their totality, we cannot but notice that there is a marked difference between those up to and those above Op. 41.  In the later ones we look in vain for the beautes sauvages which charm us in the earlier ones—­they strike us rather by their propriety of manner and scholarly elaboration; in short, they have more of reflective composition and less of spontaneous effusion about them.  This, however, must not be taken too literally.  There are exceptions, partial and total.  The “native wood-notes wild” make themselves often heard, only they are almost as often stifled in the close air of the study.  Strange to say, the last opus (63) of mazurkas published by Chopin has again something of the early freshness and poetry.  Schumann spoke truly when he said that some poetical trait, something new, was to be found in every one of Chopin’s mazurkas.  They are indeed teeming