the Ms. of the first book of his studies.] and some of Op. 25; and these works prove decisively the inconclusiveness of the lady’s argument.  The twelfth study of Op. 10 (composed in September, 1831) invalidates all she says about fire, passion, and rushing torrents.  In fact, no cogent reason can be given why the works mentioned by her should not be the outcome of unaided development.[FOONOTE:  That is to say, development not aided in the way indicated by Miss Ramann.  Development can never be absolutely unaided; it always presupposes conditions—­external or internal, physical or psychical, moral or intellectual—­which induce and promote it.  What is here said may be compared with the remarks about style and individuality on p. 214.] The first Scherzo alone might make us pause and ask whether the new features that present themselves in it ought not to be fathered on Liszt.  But seeing that Chopin evolved so much, why should he not also have evolved this?  Moreover, we must keep in mind that Liszt had, up to 1831, composed almost nothing of what in after years was considered either by him or others of much moment, and that his pianoforte style had first to pass through the state of fermentation into which Paganini’s, playing had precipitated it (in the spring of 1831) before it was formed; on the other hand, Chopin arrived in Paris with his portfolios full of masterpieces, and in possession of a style of his own, as a player of his instrument as well as a writer for it.  That both learned from each other cannot be doubted; but the exact gain of each is less easily determinable.  Nevertheless, I think I may venture to assert that whatever be the extent of Chopin’s indebtedness to Liszt, the latter’s indebtedness to the former is greater.  The tracing of an influence in the works of a man of genius, who, of course, neither slavishly imitates nor flagrantly appropriates, is one of the most difficult tasks.  If Miss Ramann had first noted the works produced by the two composers in question before their acquaintance began, and had carefully examined Chopin’s early productions with a view to ascertain his capability of growth, she would have come to another conclusion, or, at least, have spoken less confidently. [Footnote:  Schumann, who in 1839 attempted to give a history of Liszt’s development (in the “Neue Zeitschrift fur Musik"), remarked that when Liszt, on the one hand, was brooding over the most gloomy fancies, and indifferent, nay, even blase, and, on the other hand, laughing and madly daring, indulged in the most extravagant virtuoso tricks, “the sight of Chopin, it seems, first brought him again to his senses.”]