It's rather difficult to find information on why Chopin and Georges Sand split up and I was wondering if anyone knows exactly why. I have heard that it was because Sand's family was somehow a strain on their relationship but I am curious to discover a bit more elaboration. Also, would you consider Chopin's relationship with Sand detrimental, beneficial, or neither to his health and creativity?

Thanks! This is something that has always interested me.

I'm don't really know much about your first question but I've read from several sources that Chopin was at his compositional peak during the time he was with Sand. When they split his health got worse and he didn't compose as much. So I guess I'm trying to say it was beneficial for him.

Well, what I was thinking was that the stress of a relationship was both a blessing and a curse: love inspired him to create great art but the obligations of love damaged his already ill health.

Hi--

I just noticed your question in the "new posts" list. If you want a bunch of opinions, maybe more than you want to know, check the "Just for those totally devoted to Chopin" thread. Especially look at the posts from early 2008. The monster is 164 pages long now, so there's really too much too look through, but some of us were having a heated argument about just the subject you've brought up earlier this year. We have a group of total Chopin nerds and between the bunch of us we know nearly all that is knowable about his life. However, we have vastly differing views of Mme Sand.

I wish I could recommend a biography that really makes the matter clear, but I'm afraid they all miss the mark in some way. There just isn't a simple answer about whether the relationship with Sand was beneficial or detrimental for Chopin. It seems to have been a bit of both, for both of them.

Jim Samson's and Jeremy Siepmann's books on Chopin are probably the best, though.

I could elaborate but I've already written reams on this subject!

Elene

Have you ever watched the movie "Impromptu." I personally think the movie is quite cheesy and not really that great but there are still some elements of truth in it that you may be able to pull out.

I personally believe that the relationship between the two wasn't detrimental to both Chopin's creativity or his health. I believe that love is an extremely important factor in an artist's creativity and that Sand was probably able to inspire to Chopin in some way or another. It was also a great thing that she was there to at least look after him in his harder times, health-wise.

Notes on Sands and Chopin:

Well, this peaked my curiosity.

Yes that thread is so long that I had not even begun to read it! ;-)

But, Elene, you didn't give us much to go on to find the references. We are in the Pianist Corner, so that is where I began my search. Couldn't find Sands (wrong spelling) nor later Chopin and Sand.

Tried 'Just for those totally devoted to Chopin' but that was too long a phrase for the SEARCH feature. Tried that in half. Still nothing.

Tried your past posts.

Tried just checking back for several pages on the Pianist Forum for JFTTDT Chopin.

Nothing.

Gave up for a while...

but then...

TA DAH! I found the 'Just for those totally devoted to Chopin' over on the Adult Beginner's Forum and started hunting. No easy feat but posts were finally found on about pages 132 on in the middle of that long thread.

Here is at least a place to start, for those interested:

http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/32/2901/132.html

It was an interesting read for this past hour. Certainly seems to me that I should be picking up a book or two to read about Chopin along with Sands.

I noted 2 books referencing Chopin. What about something on Sands?

Thanks for all your contributions. LL

Wouldn't it be funny if Julian Sands had been cast as Sand instead of Liszt in Impromptu?

Steven

Lol, A passionate love scene between Hough Grant and Julian sands would be hilarious!!! Lol!!!

Hi Akonow:

My favorite subject: Chopin

I’ll try to give you the story, in a nutshell…so to speak, although it is a bit complicated. Actually, there are quite a few opinions about THE breakup, and no one knows for certain. But I’ll give you the one that seems to make sense, according to Chopin’s letters and the thoughts of those close to the pair.

To her credit, Sand did take very good care of him for about 9 years, providing him a home, family life and nursing care. Chopin left Poland and his home, for good, at the age of 20, never to return. So it is quite understandable that he was quite happy with Sand and their “arrangement” for much of that time.

The action that was the apparent reason for the breakup was Chopin lending his carriage to Solange (Sand’s daughter). Sand and her daughter were constantly fighting, and Sand took Chopin’s kindness as his taking Solange’s side against hers. Really pretty silly, but there it was. Chopin was completely innocent as to why Sand was or would be so upset. After all, he was only trying to help Solange at a very difficult time. And, after watching her grow up from a child to a young woman, Chopin felt affection for her…like an uncle, if you will.

But Sand was tired of Chopin. Their relationship was not that of husband and wife but more mother and son. Even when Chopin was still in her household, she took lovers. A fact that either Chopin didn’t notice (hardly) or he chose to ignore, for he knew she had always been quite (ahem) sexually active.

Sand was not only upset, she was outraged! And she wanted all of Paris to know that it was Chopin who was at fault and not she. He was ungrateful and she was betrayed!! Again, so silly, but Sand had a very strong need to always be right. She could never admit any failings, unless, of course, they were that she cared too much. (Gag!) And being the gentleman that he was, he never uttered a disparaging word against her. In fact, he defended her stating that she was under much pressure and stress. In essence, she threw him out…bag and baggage.

Chopin was heartbroken, to put it mildly. His whole world fell apart. Not only did he lose the woman whom he loved and thought loved him, but he lost his home and family. That’s pretty rough for anyone and devastating for someone like Chopin.

To say that she was an inspiration to Chopin might not be really true. To say that she provided an environment that was conducive to Chopin’s creative spirit would be more accurate. Whether he could have composed what he did without Sand, is open to conjecture. I happen to think that genius always finds a way. Let's not forget that Chopin composed some of his most beautiful music BEFORE he even met Sand. So there!!

His health, which was failing at that time, took a real nosedive afterwards. Depression and despair played a big part in this. He composed little from this time to his death. Sand did try to see him when he was on his deathbed, but she was turned away by his sister.

So…that’s it.

Needless to say, she is not one of my favorite people.

Kathleen

Than you Kathleen. I started to reply to this and then decided I'd rather try to write a short essay explaining nuclear fusion or photosynthesis. You did well.

Ah what simplification!! Poor old George/Aurore gets no sympathy.. Chopin was pathetically ill and dependent for 10 years, plus they were already getting alienated well before the incident with the daughter, which I thought had to do with her choice of husband and not simply with the carriage. But I realize Sand does not stand a chance around here .. So dropping her cause, I do have a question. A while back I read about an attempt at analyzing his genetic profile to see if he died from a genetic lung disease (cystic fibrosis) rather than TB. I think permission to acquire a sample form his heart, preserved in Poland, was denied. But I never followed up on this. Does anyone know if there were any further sequelae, or why was cystic fibrosis was supected in the first place? I wonder if there are descendants form his family alive today (did his sisters have children?).

One trouble with getting at the heart of this is the world was only given Sand's side. As she'd never been one to let the truth stop her and was very conscious of her self image and also had a psychological need to see herself as always on the side of the angels her version of "The Truth" was hyped very much in her favor. Chopin kept his dignity the only way he could, by keeping his silence. The majority of their mutual friends, the "neutral observators" sided with Chopin and Sand found herself dropped and barred from some circles. The degree of devastation Chopin suffered was only revealed in rare cracks in that facade of resignation. As for his "pitiful" dependence that has been greatly exaggerated by Sand. He certainly was not financially dependent on her.

As for the business of the heart - The Polish government refused permission for DNA sampling, having consulted The Church and the surviving collateral descendents of the family. Two descendents were mentioned, one in favor of DNA testing, one against. Why was cystic fibrosis suspected in the first place? Because it makes an interesting academic theory and pathologists love to play around with stuff like this.

I personally saw nothing against it. Chopin himself requested that he be autopsied. (The cause of his death was actually cor pulmonale an irreversible cardiac deterioration caused by chronic lung disease.) This DNA examiniation might have been considered a continuation of that autopsy.

As for his sister's children - -His sister Emilia died at not quite 15, unmarried and childless. His sister Ludwicka married, had four children, and died in her midforties of asthma/pneumonia. His sister Isabella married, lived into her 70's but had no children. I don't know whether the "descendents" mentioned above were descendents of Ludwicka or more distant descendents of Chopin's mother's several brothers and sisters.

I knew Chopin wasn't financially dependent on "poor old George" and, obviously, he was most "pathetically ill and dependent [sic]" during the few brief years at the end of his life when he was alone and independent! But, as you know, I know much more about his music than the man and the details of his life, and I couldn't have articulated such a clear response.

Chopin's reticence to make plain any of those details reminds me of an old saw attributed to Shakespeare: "Discretion is the better part of valor."

Steven

Thanks for the explanation Frycek. The reason I asked about immediate relatives and the suspicion of Cystic fibrosis is the fact that it is a genetic disease (you did mention that one of the sisters had a lung problem)..so I was wondering if there was evidence of cystic fibrosis among family members that was recognized recently, thus prompting the request for DNA analysis. I doubt that the request was initiated only because pathologists love that stuff.
Whether he died from complications of pulmonary TB or CF, he must have been quite miserable due to his disease. I don't know enough about the details of their story but from what is known, he was clearly in a dependent mother/child healthy/chronically ill probably largely asexual and definitely not a very exclusive relationship (she was not monogamous and was not shy about it)..
In my opinion, his genius and creativity overshadow hers by far, but the minutiae of daily living tend to wear out the best of people .
I do think that some day they should allow his DNA to be analyzed. With so much known and about to be known about the human genome, we might learn a great deal. A point can be made though that this science is still relatively primitive and may not decipher much yet (beyond the somewhat voyeuristic details of what disease he had). A few Nobel laureates and prominent scientists have had their DNA decoded and nothing terribly interesting has come out of it..I do hope that heart is well preserved.. (is it still in brandy?)

George was already warming the Wamsuttas with another guy (or two) before the break-up. She complained she was living the life of a nun with Chopin. What always surprised me was: why they ever got together in the first place. Chopin rarely weighed more than 107 pounds on a good day, yet took on (arguably) the toughest woman of the 19th century! She was kind of looking for an excuse to split the sheets with Fred. I surmise that the relationship was always mostly intellectual. I looked on him as the Gore Vidal of his era. She took pretty good care of him for a while, gotta give her credit for that.

Actually it really is because pathologists love this stuff. There have been masters's theses and disertations written about "poor Fred's" cadaver. These are the same sort of folks who decided Poe died of rabies, that Mozart had a subdural hematoma, Beethoven died of lead poisoning -and Hitler only had one ball. (Obviously I love this stuff too.) There's never been any mention of any modern "descendants" with CF in any of the stuff I've read and I try to keep up with it. I work in pathology myself and also have chronic lung/heart problems - severe persistent asthma and pulmonary hypertension. Ludwicka was an asthmatic as were Frederyk, the youngest sister Emilia and the father, Nicholas (Mikoljai). Nicholas also died of some combination of heart/lung disease as well, but made it to about 70. Since Chopin's mother lived a healthy life (except for arthritis) into her 80's it's probable that the "weak chest" of the Chopin's came from the French, not the Polish side of the gene pool. According to Liszt, Chopin himself believed that.

The heart, taken from Paris and smuggled across the Polish border under Ludwicka's skirts, is still sealed in some sort of crystal vessel and preserved in cognac.

PS. I just remembered the "justification" those seeking the DNA sample gave was that the genius Chopin could become a sort of poster child/avatar for CF sufferers showing what could be achieved despite CF. Of course that means they'll have to wrestle him away from the TB people. http://www.iconsofeurope.com/tuberculosis.htm

Yeah, but he had such great hands - - - -

If she had affairs on the side, perhaps she wasn't referring to celibacy but instead meant that she was married to God!

Dang ... despite my own worshipful reverence for Chopin, it hadn't quite occurred to me that he might have been literally divine.

Steven

Steven: I think you hit the nail on the head. What an astute observation.


I did mention at the start of my post that I was giving a rather "simplified" version of the break-up. The final straw, as it were, was the incident about the carriage. But, as has been mentioned, Sand was weary of him and (in my opinion) grabbed onto this as her excuse.

Just why the two got together is another mystery. George, from the moment she first saw him, set out to add him to her long list of paramours. She was quite determined in her pursuit of him, even writing to a mutual friend, asking him to help her capture Chopin's heart. It's very possible that she may have wanted to outdo Countess Marie d'Agoult, who managed to capture Liszt's heart.

But Chopin was not attracted to her at all. From that first moment, he thought her strange, and wrote that he felt an aversion toward her and something about her repelled him.

However, although it took a couple of years of her constant hound-dogging, Chopin finally gave in. Perhaps he was flattered that such a strong-willed and famous woman would find him desirable. In one of his letters, he wrote: "She loves me! A good indication that he was amazed by her affection for him. No where in his letters does he state that he loved her, in the true romantic sense. He respected and admired her and grew to be quite fond of her, but true love??? I don't think so. Sand, herself, even wrote that he was in love with the idea of love, but found it impossible to give himself to another, completely. Chopin had his heart broken twice when he was still quite young. And perhaps this might have been the reason why he was fearful of it happening again.

There is also the fact that Sand was still married at this time. This didn't matter much to her, but to Chopin...well, he was quite concerned about what people would think or say. And he was very worried that his parents would find out. So he tried to keep their relationship as discrete as possible. While in Paris, they lived in separate apartments. However, they did share her home while in Nohant, but they took separate carriages and arrived at different times. Of course, no one in Paris was fooled, but Chopin was not one to flaunt what he considered a sin.

And yes, I do agree that she took very good care of him. And he was not always the easiest person to live with, aside from his illnesses. And many believe that his health began its final downfall while they were vacationing in a monastery on Valldemossa.

Chopin's heart is kept in a jar of cognac. And the Polish government still refuses DNA testing on it. The following is a quote taken from Wiki about why the test is deemed so essential.

'This is a very important request,' said Dr Michael Witt, of Warsaw's Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology. 'If we can prove Chopin suffered from cystic fibrosis, then we will have shown that a serious medical disability is still no barrier to achieving fame and success.'

Finally, Chopin was one of a kind. His music continues to delight and move many to tears after almost two hundred years. I admit my bias toward him, for it is his music alone that can speak to my emotions as none others can do.

George Sand rescued Chopin from the lonely life of a bachelor, giving him a family environment and caring for him during his illnesses, so that he could compose masterpieces in relative peace and comfort. Chopin rescued Sand from an eternity known only as a minor French author; now she is famous largely through him.

I'd call it about even.

Hey, I just thought of something (which has probably already been answered in the DtC thread. )

How did Aurore choose her pseudonym? Was it a literary or historical reference, or entirely the product of her imagination?

* * *

Oh dang, I checked Wikipedia before posting this to see if my question was answered there. (As familiar as I am with the entry for Chopin there, I think this may have been my first visit to the George Sand page !)

They refer to her liaison and collaboration with Jules Sandeau as the inspiration for her nom de plume—and that reminds me yet again of Julian Sands!

And check out what Baudelaire had to say about his contemporary:
Yipes, them's fightin' words!

Anyway, here's a different question: How is Sand pronounced in French?

My guess would have been [ʒɔʁʒ sɑ̃ ]), but Wikipedia gives [ʒɔʁʒ sɑ̃ d] instead (as though it were written George Sande).

The letter "d" at the end of a word wouldn't normally be articulated in French except in the context of a liaison with a word that follows it. If it's an exception (which is certainly possible), it comes as a shock and surprise to me.

I'm inclined to believe Wikipedia is incorrect here—it wouldn't be the first time!—but I'd be hesitant to edit it without confirmation from an expert. BruceD, are you reading this?

Steven

Numerian: Have you read any of Sand's novels? Or perhaps her 3 volume autobiography? I would venture to say that I could probably count on one hand the number of people who have done so (aside, of course, from her fans/admirers and biographers).

Whereas, Chopin's music reaches far and wide, and I would take another venture to say that there are few who haven't listened to, at least, one of his compositions. (Not counting the hip-hop generation, that is.) Literally, millions play his music, and I don't see how you could possibly call her a famous author. Her true notoriety comes from being Chopin's companion.

And I certainly could not call it "even." What she gave, she took away in spades!

Sorry, Steven, but I can't help you with the French pronounciation. And WOW, Baudelaire's description of her is pretty harsh. But then I didn't really know her, did I?

JMHO,
Kathleen

Sand's autobiography is three volumes?

Dang, she must have had many more "experiences" than I could have imagined. (I guess it wouldn't surprise Baudelaire, though!)

Steven

Wow.. You guys are knowledgeable and passionate !..
I have read (was made to read) La petite Fadette and La mare au diable and some other minor novels by George Sand. They were Ok , the latter being better than the former. She also wrote Elle et Lui about her relationship with Alfred de Musset.. interesting, passionate (was not "required reading").. I think her social impact was much greater than her literary legacy but I am not an expert. I wonder if anyone has read her novel "Lucrezia something. It is said to be about a relationship similar to that of George and Chopin, not very flattering of the latter. I looked briefly at amazon.fr and FNAC but did not find it.

N.B. the d in her name is pronounced..
N.B.2. that quote by Baudelaire!!! Yikes!! He writes much better when he is drugged and drunk ..another brilliant soul with a short life..

Steven :

Proper names - often depending on their origin - don't always observe the basic rules of French pronunciation. In this case [ʒɔʁʒ sɑ̃ d] is correct; the final 'd' is pronounced.

Regards,

Bruce, thanks very much indeed.

I should have suspected that les noms propres would lend themselves to exceptional pronunciations given the earlier bouleversements regarding Saint-Saëns (with its unexpected final "s") and Poulenc (which one might expect to rhyme with blanc rather than cinq).

When I "paged" you, I had no idea if you would notice. I'm glad you did!

Steven

Thanks for all this information, guys. I've started reading the 1,253,484-page thread on Chopin but I'm grateful that I got a little preview of what's in store for me in that thread.

There is a video biography of Chopin on youtube narrated by Andras Schiff (in 6 parts) that is excellent. Includes wonderful performances by Schiff of many pieces. Just go to youtube and search for "andras schiff chopin" and part one comes right up. Enjoy!

Wow Chopin is very close to our hearts here isn't he. Good to see that hasn't let your opinions of George Sand become biased in any way

Kathleen-

I have read several of her novels. Some are superb, though the later ones become tendentious.

She is a very fine writer and story teller, and deserving of some fame, though hardly among the great French writers of the 19th century.

My point is, Chopin repaid her many times over with his behavior after the break-up, and posthumously with his fame helping to drag her up from what would otherwise be relative obscurity.

Andromaque: I will now correct my pronunciation of "Sand" and add the D. I guess it goes with the English-style "George," which, come to think of it, was meant to go with the English-style "Sand." Anyway, bugs the heck out of me when people spell her name "Georges" or "Sands."

Kathleen: I have read some of Sand's novels, including "Lucrezia Floriani," upon which I promise to write a good, clear article in the not too distant future, which you will like some of and hate some of.

All: Sand is known to have had a brief affair with Louis Blanc in 1845, while still involved with Chopin. Otherwise, there is no evidence that I know of that she was sexually active with other men. I have reasons to doubt it.
There was at least one biographer, a long time ago, that stated that Chopin also had affairs in an attempt to make Sand jealous, but there is no evidence I know of for that either, and I haven't been able to find that reference. I remember it from much earlier in my life.

Kathleen's analysis of the relationship is knowledgeable but biased-- but you can read my old posts on the subject.

Chopin did not make Sand famous any more than she made him famous. This is not a matter of opinion.

And it's still Ludwika and not Ludwicka, which would be pronounced quite differently.

And I still think that alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency explains Chopin's symptoms better than other possible diagnoses, though a case of tuberculosis seems plausible, even concurrent with the alpha-1. CF seems highly unlikely to me. You might be able to find our old discussion of that too. In any case, it's true that Chopin's life shows that a person with a serious chronic illness can still accomplish a lot.

Elene

Elene, after reading through parts of the other Chopin thread I want to let you know how much I really appreciated your posts! I don't know much about this subject at all, but it was rather frustrating to read all the bias against Sand. A little bizarre too actually...

Anyway, I think people are really overlooking the cultural atmosphere of Sand's time, and how comments and criticism of her would have come about. I think she was a fabulous feminist figure and a lot of people here don't seem to realise the impact she had in this respect.

A wise man once told me that no one really knows every detail between lovers ( besides the lovers themselves).

I adore Chopin's music but I expect that he was actually quite human--regardless of the seemingly blinded groupie love some folks have for him.

blutack--you are spot on about Sand. It's so easy ( and cowardly) to label a woman promiscuous. Heck, the double standard is still alive and well today.

"No one can know what passes between a man and a woman but they themselves." George Sand

I have a suspicion that what's perceived as "seemingly blinded groupie love" is found to annoy those who don't quite embrace it, which in turn requires an imputation of bizarre bias toward Sand by the groupies where none actually exists.

I wondered if this thread might not end with the third post: "Well, what I was thinking was that the stress of a relationship was both a blessing and a curse ...." That duality exists in many relationships, after all, and it's not really remarkable. In the case of Chopin and Sand, it will never be precisely know what the net benefits and detriments were, on balance, and to whom. There's no control group, after all!

Chopin wrote the greatest works of his musical maturity during his years with Sand. That's undeniable. Whether he would have done better or worse without her can't be answered. Neither can it be known whether Sand's notoriety and legacy would be the same if she weren't indelibly linked to Chopin. I have no idea how much she facilitated his creativity, but at least she doesn't appear to have hampered it. That, alone, is worth something on the order of respect if not admiration.

The "double standard" is only applicable when both parties are engaging in the same conduct, e.g., if Sand were a slattern and Chopin a libertine—but his worshippers chose to ignore the latter while emphasizing the former.

I don't understand the statement that it's easy and cowardly to "label" a woman promiscuous. What if she really is, and it's no more than a matter-of-fact observation? Given the legitimate revolution in gender equality, rejection of the "double standard" and ensuing political correctness that now polices the topic, it might actually be more difficult and more brave to speak the truth!

Steven

I can not find a physical description of George Sand.

I have seen written that Chopin might have weighed 107 lbs.

Not that this matters in the least to each one's talent, but I am curious now that I have read more about each, and their several years together, be they very good friends, or lovers.

Did she 'pass' as a man or did she just dress like one when in the Paris scene for whatever her reasons might have been at the time.

I have looked up the Nohant home. Any pics of the insides? I'd love to see where Chopin worked. Is his piano still there?

Did George Sand actually play the piano (saw a reference to it somewhere in the readings)? Did Chopin ever dedicate a music to her? Or Liszt?

Chopin never dedicated a composition to Sand.

He dedicated his Op. 10 etudes to "his friend, Franz Liszt" (and the Op. 25 etudes to Liszt's lover, the Countess Marie d'Agoult!).

Steven

Hi, this discussion caught my attention because I have for several years been researching Chopin's life and music (in an amateur way, and purely to enhance my enjoyment and understanding of his music). I have come across a couple of good books which may be of interest:

CHOPIN'S FUNERAL by Benita Eisler. I felt this reappraised Sand's relationship with Chopin and portrayed her, for the most part, in a favourable light. She gave him the stability he needed to compose and he probably wrote some of his finest music while he was living with her.

CHOPIN IN PARIS by Tad Szulc. A good, well-written overview of Chopin's creative life in Paris and Nohant.

I believe it is possible to visit the house at Nohant.

A Pleyel believed to have been in Chopin's possession (and possibly actually played by him) is in the Cobbe Collection of historic keyboard instruments at Hatchlands, near Guildford, Surrey, UK. Last year I had the privilege of hearing Chopin's B minor sonata being played on this piano, which was fascinating. It made sense of the "construction" of his music - something which can be lost when the music is played/heard on a modern concert piano.

And finally - and if you can bear it! - there is a rather awful film about Chopin and Sand, called Impromptu, starring - wait for it - Hugh Grant as Chopin (!), Julian Sands as Liszt (arrgghhh!) and Judy Davis as Sand. She is actually very good in the role and the film does attempt to show that Sand was not just a breeches-wearing, cigar-smoking male impersonator. It also gives a rather nice sense of the period - music performed at home for friends, among friends, and the salon society of Paris at the time.

The double standard exists where one will condemn a woman for the same behaviour that is acceptable for a man to exhibit. It is clear that this is happening with George Sand, and it does still go on today. It's not about promiscuity, it's about our attitudes towards it and how they differ in regard to different genders. It's ironic that this is being directed to George Sand after she has done so much to change these attitudes.

It seems that a lot of people here have forgotten that Chopin was an autonomous being able to make his own decisions and deal with any misjudgements. Chopin and Sand is a very interesting subject but it seems people are more concerned with vilifying anyone who may have hurt Chopin (as if they have some personal relationship with him) than trying to find out what actually happened. Though, of course, we will never truly know, but all the bias isn't helping anyone any.

Why are you accusing the people on this forum of ignoring the unfaithfulness of a man and "condemn[ing] a woman for the same behaviour?" That wasn't the case here because Chopin was faithful so that argument is completely irrelevant. Why should we overlook Sand's licentiousness simply because she is a woman? Regardless of that fact, it's not as if she was a paragon of virtue to begin with... and the same could be said easily about many composers.

I'm not convinced, and I believe that the unrelenting presumption of bias serves its own agenda.

If Sand had many lovers and Chopin were chaste, I see no double standard in acknowledging and judging their respective behaviors. It would be a double standard if they were doing the same thing but only she was censured for it.

The thing is, the behavior in question was never "acceptable" for a man either. Trollop, slut, ... roué, rake. Less immoral and less subject to social opprobrium, sure, but not still not acceptable.

Steven

I never mentioned Chopin's behaviour, it is beside the point. I'm simply trying to point out many men throughout history have acted in the way Sand did, yet their talents haven't been disregarded because of it.

I also didn't say that we should overlook Sand's promiscuity, I'm saying that we can't judge it with our Western 21st Century morals. We should take into account the cultural atmosphere of her time and consider the social traditions that she was trying to subvert.

Less subject to social opprobrium, but still not acceptable? A bit of a contradiction, no? Or are you just saying that you don't find it acceptable? Which is fair enough, but irrelevant.

I don't recall anyone (except Baudelaire who isn't currently a member of this forum) denigrating Sand's talent , which was considerable, because of her sexual behavior. Several of us did credit her lack of fidelity to Chopin with being one of the causes of strain in their relationship. And it was. She also had the nerve to fault Chopin with jealousy for which he had every reason. Sand's literary ability doesn't come into it one way or the other. Personally, I think she's underappreciated.

Perhaps 'talents' wasn't the right word, or perhaps I was using it in a more artistic and freer way than interpreted. Maybe I should have written 'merits' or some such. Though I'm pretty sure I read a couple of people here in agreement with Baudelaire?

Even so, I still find it rather amazing how offended people are by her character. And how much Chopin's character has been idealised, as if one's character has anything to do with the art they create!

I'm not at all offended by her sexual mores, just by her ruthlessness in the treatment of anyone of whom she tired or came to despise. Her break with Chopin was stunning and brutal. Her treatment of her daughter Solange was unconscionable. Her attempts at self justification about both were sickening.

I prefer Liszt's first hand acessment to Baudelaire's:

"George Sand catches her butterfly and tames it in her cage by feeding it on flowers and nectar -- this is the love period. Then she sticks her pin into it when it struggles -- that is the congé [dismissal] and it always comes from her. Afterwards she vivisects it, stuffs it, and adds it to her collection of heroes for novels."

Naw, no contradiction there.

"Less subject to social opprobrium" doesn't mean not subject to any social opprobrium, just more accepted or more acceptable; more acceptable express a concept very different from acceptable (as relative and absolute terms can be expected to do).

Steven

p.s. I certainly agree that one's character has nothing to do with one's art (though this is frequently claimed with regard to Wagner!).

The art Chopin produced is so sublime that there's no need to idealize him! Its magnificence transcends such considerations.

But neither do I believe that Sand's "character" is the reason she's been "disregarded" (or even that she's been disregarded at all).

No one is disregarding Sand's talents. I, personally, can't speak on behalf of her abilities since I've only skimmed Mauprat and I doubt that many others on this forum have read many or even one of her works of literature. This is, after all, a piano forum and not a forum on French literature.

As to your second paragraph, I don't quite follow you. Why can't we judge her promiscuity by today's morals? Her actions were probably more scandalous then than they are now...

One example that immediately springs to mind is a comment an earlier poster made about her still being married during (some or all) of this. In today's world divorce is (relatively) easy to obtain and common. Not so in Sand's time. I have no idea whether it was possible (theoretically or practically) possible in Sand's time. So it is necessary to consider what her (realistic) options were before condemning her for not divorcing her husband before sleeping with other men.

Then as now, women are judged more harshly for having multiple sexual partners. Especially if she appears to have taken charge of her sexual life and been the pursuer.

She didn't bother to hide her affairs. While it may seem that she had 'many' lovers (compared to the ideal of only one...her husband), the fact that she was open about them probably makes the number seem large in comparison.

It would be a good bet that many male composers had larger numbers of sexual relationships.

I think that we should not be in the business of judging people's "morals", those being quite relativistic.
George Sand chose to challenge her times and to live her life the way she wanted it to be, Kudos for that! She was probably the first woman to make a living out of being an author. She did not "cross-dress" or impersonate a man as some said. She actually dressed in male clothes in order to gain access to circles where women were prohibited (that included museums for example).. Importantly, by writing under a male pseudonym she also made an important point of wanting to be judged for her prose objectively and not because she was a woman. She was indeed a major figure of her times. She was prolific, a novelist, essayist, literary critic, knew many artists who thought very highly of her and was even involved in politics. She made her mark on French literature regardless of her situation with Chopin.
Having said that, she was not a brilliant or a superb writer.. Her novels are not landmarks of French literature, if I say so myself (she did not write any Emma Bovary level novels, let us put it this way).
So if you simplify her relationship with Chopin to its main components, for lack of data (she did destroy their correspondence, and he did not say much so we are limited to hearsay), it goes something like this: Smart girl in relationship with great sickly musician for 10 long years. She dumps him (may be unceremoniously but how do you dump people), he drops dead soon thereafter: it is hard to avoid looking like the bad guy here..
By the way, there is a society of Sand Friends (Les Amis de George Sand) that is very active in promoting her oeuvre. They also organize meetings and (Chopin) concerts at Nohant or Ars .
And there is a similar association of "SSandists" at Hofstra University, taht actually publishes a journal called Sand Studies, for the interested..

George Sand considered herself a revolutionary and a socialist politician first and incidentally a writer who hacked out popular novels to pay the bills. Her contemporary stature cannot be measured just by looking at her novels or her relationship with Chopin. In her own time she was much bigger than those.

When I mentioned her talents I wasn't actually referring to her literature. I was referring to her abilities to question the morals and traditions of her society and the courage to act against them.

Regarding my second point - ProdigalPianist explained it much better than me. I was just asking for a bit of perspective when reading criticism of Sand from her time. When you read that she was uncaring, you have to bear in mind that women were supposed to be subservient to men and bow to their every whim; anything less and they were deemed heartless or disobedient. This is why all this criticism bothers me. I'm tempted to say that on some level it's just pandering the patriarchal traditions that are so ingrained in society (still), further fuelled by the backlash against feminism that tries to taint the name of any powerful woman in history. Basically, that none of this criticism would be considered if George Sand had been a man.

Maybe that's a little extreme, but it's what I'm reading here.

(Italics added.)

I wouldn't deny the existence of a backlash against feminism—a Google search on that phrase returned nearly 14,000 hits!—but I wonder what your basis is for claiming that it "tries to taint the name of any powerful woman in history."

I can't think of a single powerful female historical figure in politics, arts or science with a newly-revised status or reputation to confirm that belief. Could it be that their public standing is unaltered, and the barbs of which you speak are flung by antifeminists in private amongst themselves? That seems reasonable, but I don't see how it's changed the way such women are regarded generally.

I don't mean to cavil, but that assertion struck me as the kind of notion that is expressed in an off-hand, taken-for-granted fashion, and is in turn assumed to be valid and factual by others. If the accuracy of such statements isn't questioned, they can take on a life of their own!

Steven

No doubt! ...But that isn't the issue under discussion. When it is, I will be sure not to take it lightly as I know that Brahms enlisted the services of prostitutes and Liszt was a womanizer.

I agree that Sand was revolutionary in the promotion of feminism and the like but her relationship with Chopin did affect his composing and I simply ask myself how. I put this question to you guys and it seems that we will never reach an agreement and that's fine. I, nonetheless, consider that Sand's treatment of Chopin, knowing full well of his frail health, was harsh and may have prevented him from composing more. Yes, she set him up with a decent environment to compose but I doubt that she was the only one who could have done so with much less drama.

So, essentially, you are giving Sand the license to act however she like because it is admirable that she takes up the cause of women? Pardon me for saying so but I find that a bit ridiculous. It's an old-fashioned way of thinking to claim that all men on this forum are pointing out Sand's questionable morals simply because she is a woman... If Chopin were in a relationship with a man and this had happened, nothing would be different.

On the contrary, many powerful women of the past have only been given their due post feminism. Boudica, Hildegard von Bingin and Mary Magdalene come to mind.

Steven

I doubt that most people would give her license to act however she likes, but it is important to remember that any woman who did not behave like a doormat to the men in her life generally got called a lot of bad names back then. So it is probably impossible to determine how she really treated any of her lovers based on accusations of 'cruelty' or 'selfishness' by the lover's friends.

Even today, women who act in their own best interests instead of the best interest of others are judged harshly.

There is really no artistic licence granted round here huh!

Firstly when I say powerful, I mean women with the power to fight for equality in a society that remains inherently patriarchal. And the desire to undermine their voices is obvious, or maybe there isn't one and feminists are really just ruthless, hairy-armpitted, bra-burning dykes.

Yes, yes this is exactly what I'm saying. But not because she takes up the causes of women, but because she was a human being with a conscience who made what she would have deemed to be the best possible decisions according to her experiences and situations, and there is no one else who has ever lived that can criticise any of her actions because there is no one else who has experienced and been subject to the same opportunities and limitations as she had.

I like reading this post. (Hello, everyone. I deeply love Chopin, too. So I am biased.)

George Sand and Chopin... Their relationship is quite interesting.

George Sand was a proud woman. Chopin also was, in a somewhat different way.

The event that really ended the relationship between Sand and Chopin (and needs some more attention) was Sand's daughter, Solange's love affair. She wanted to marry the sculptor Auguste Clensinger (how "romantic," in a 21th century sense), and Chopin kindly supported their marriage; Sand did not.

Chopin must have liked Solange, I presume. After all, he was from a family where he was the only son. (He had a lot of sisters)

However, Sand eventually disowned Solange.


Sand did not attend Chopin's funeral. Solange and her husband Auguste did, holding his hand, maybe thanking him. In fact, Auguste made Chopin's death mask.

Chopin loved Sand. Maybe Sand still loved him when he died. This I can never know.

Can Sand be labeled as a promiscuous woman? Perhaps. Yet judging someone's work and life is a controversial process, for there is no exact answer, and I can only say that I do not view Sand's decisions that favorably (as a person).

Not quite true. Solange was engaged to a very eligible young man who was apparently deeply in love with her. She became infatuated with the sculptor Clesinger, her mother's protegee (lover?). Solange became pregnant by Clesinger, broke her engagement, attempted suicide and was married off to Clesinger. George Sand might not have been best pleased with this scenario but she at least sanctioned it. Chopin was not even on the scene during these developments having gone back to Paris for the winter. Chopin was not even invited to the wedding and only informed of the situation afterwards. As he wrote to his sister, if he'd been on the scene the affair wouldn't have lasted ten minutes - -meaning that he knew enough about Clesinger, who had Sand thoroughly snowed, to turn both Sand and Solange against him. After the marriage, Clesinger revealed his true brutal, drunken and abusive nature. Sand turned against him, and Solange, after a quarrel over money in which Clesinger struck Sand across the face. It was immediately after this quarrel that Solange wrote to Chopin in Paris, telling him she'd had a spat with her mother and been thrown out of the house,making no mention of the seriousness of the quarrel, and asking to borrow the carriage that he kept at Nohant to return to Paris. Chopin, who'd helped raise Solange and whom he regarded as his daughter, agreed. Sand hit the ceiling and informed him by letter that if he had anything more to do with Solange, that their association was over. He did the only thing he could in conscience do, he helped Solange, teenaged, pregnant, destitute and in an abusive relationship. "She has no one left but me" as much as he could. Essentially Chopin was left to pick up the pieces of a situation that Sand had largely created and then turned her back on.

What you feel to be obvious is anything but, IMHO.

I don't believe that the fact that some feminists are "ruthless, hairy-armpitted, bra-burning dykes"—not that there's anything wrong with that!—is seen as representative of feminists generally any more than the legions of drag queens in gay pride parades are thought to represent gay men.

And isn't it a little ironic that the kind of butch lesbians you describe were historically rejected by other feminists who feared embarrassment, loss of credibility and the "taint" of the Lavender Menace?

I recognize that everybody isn't open-minded and it's still a challenge for many people not to make unfounded generalizations, but I just don't see the kind of pervasive prejudice or subversive intentions you describe unless their prevalence is limited to specific cultural or social strata.

Steven

Now, this is interesting.

Really???

So she had an affair with Clesinger? I thought Clensinger was a nephew of George Sand. Frycek, what you are saying changes everything. So relationship between Clesinger and Solange is a forced one due to a rape?

How can Chopin's sister allow Clesinger to make Chopin's death mask?

I should investigate. This is interesting.

That's a frighteningly libertarian and irresponsible point of view! It's not as if she was a messiah, so I truly can't understand your conviction of that. Like many other male celebrities of her time, she was an unpleasant person and that is no reason to disregard her work (no one ever said that). I find it rather alarming that you would give people a license to "[make] the best possible decisions according to [their] experiences and situation." That kind of argument excuses the actions of people like the KKK, Adolf Hitler, and Osama bin Laden. They too are making the best decisions they can from their experiences and situations.

Forgive me if I find your argument absolutely ridiculous...

I'm not sure of and am puzzled by the nature of the relationship between Sand and Clesinger but she definitely allowed an inappropriate relationship to develope between Clesinger and Solange. This is the first I've heard of Clesinger being her nephew though. Sand had only one sibling, her illigitimate half brother Hippolyte Chatiron. I've never heard of Clesinger in association with Hippolyte.

The pregnancy definitely forced the marriage though I doubt if it was the result of a rape. Solange probably wanted the marriage at the time, but came to regret it soon enough.

Clesinger made Chopin's death mask because Chopin, though he personally disliked Clesinger, did as much as he could to help Clesinger find work for Solange's sake. The death masks (there are actually at least three of them) were for reference for a couple of posthumous busts of
Chopin. Because of his association with Solange, Clesinger was given the commission to sculpt Chopin's tomb.

I agree with akonow.

blutack, I think you went too far on that argument. Your argument seems to imply that we can never criticize anyone.

Well, it should be apparent to everyone who wasn't born yesterday that people don't always make the best possible decisions according to their experiences and situations! The idea is laughable.

Anyway ... best for whom? People can generally be counted on to make decisions that are in their own self-interest, but even that's not guaranteed!

Why would George Sand be an exception to the fundamentals of human nature?

:rolleyes:

Steven

I see...

Clesinger was an opportunist, then. Solange, an innocent young woman who fell into a trap.

George Sand disowned Solange, partly because she wanted to cover up her mistakes?

This is a serious accusation to Sand. I never had knew this.

(I am not so sure about Clesinger being Sand's nephew.)

Steven, I think what akonow is saying is not exactly that people are always a logical decision-makers.

Of course, Sand was a human with a human nature, but that does not mean that her wrong decisions can be somehow "accepted" or ignored as such, when we are discussing her legacy or impact to Chopin.

I think this is what akonow is saying.

Clesinger was decidedly an opportunist. Solange was a headstrong teenager who (surprise, surprise) followed in her mother's liberated footsteps with disasterous results.
As far as George Sand was concerned Solange apparently was a mistake. Her son Maurice was pampered while Solange was never treated well and was left in a situation when Sand when to Italy with Musset that would have Sand up on child neglect charges today. After Chopin's death Sand totally did disown Solange, who was eventually abandonned by Clesinger and became destitute. Sand instructed the servants at Nohant that if Solange showed up to give her a meal in the kitchen like a beggar and to send her on her way. In no circumstances was she to stay in the house or see Sand.

Well, personally, I never liked George Sand (I am not criticizing her artistic works here). Now I have some more reasons.

It is such a tragedy that Chopin never got to marry Maria.

Apparently since she had good intentions...? :rolleyes:

Although even that doesn't seem true.

I would like to be able to feel fonder of George Sand than I do, because obviously Chopin regarded her affectionately so she must have had some excellent qualities. I admire her capacity for sheer hard work, and her boldness in flouting the conventions of the time.

I do not admire the way she treated her daughter when she was a little girl, nor how she abandoned the pregnant Solange in her late teens. What sort of mother would do that?

If you compare the way that Chopin behaved towards Sand with the way that Sand behaved towards him, a glaring difference of ethics and humanity becomes quite obvious. This is not just my own opinion - if you take note of the reactions of mutual friends at the time the couple split, it is absolutely apparent who was in the right.

I had promised to keep my keyboard shut, but wait just a darned minute:

My understanding is that Solange was NOT pregnant before marrying Clesinger. She THOUGHT she was pregnant, and she tried to throw herself into the river in an (obviously useless) attempt to end the pregnancy. Her mother thought that if things went on as they were, she was sure to get pregnant any second, and that was a major reason that she tried to get the wedding accomplished quickly.

I'd have to look at the child's birthdate, assuming I could find it (it shouldn't be hard) to be sure about this.

Chopin didn't support the relationship between Solange and Clesinger in the least when it began-- he understood that the guy was no good. However, once the marriage was a fact, he did his best to be supportive, even lending the couple money, which was never returned.

Elene

Solange appears to have had several miscarriages though, Elene.

If Solange was not pregnant when she married Clesinger she definitely conceived shortly afterwards. She was married to Clesinger sometime in May of 1847. The Carriage Incident occurred in July of 1847. Chopin informed George Sand of the birth of a granddaughter at their last fateful meeting on March 4, 1848. This child lived only a few days. Solange's second daughter, Jeanne was born in 1849.

I knew if I waited long enough, the facts about the relationship of Solange, Clesinger, Sand and Chopin would come out (thanks to Frycek and MaryRose, who are extremely knowledgeable on this particular subject).

Aside from the fact that Sand dumped Chopin as she did (and there are[/b] better ways to dump a person), her treatment of her daughter, I believe, shows a major flaw in her character, not only as a human being but as a mother. I believe that it is a parent's responsibility (not just a mother but also a father) to provide the love and support a child needs, no matter what a trial this might be. And raising a teenage daughter can often be a trial, especially when the daughter is strong-willed and spirited as her mother, which was the case here.

Another fact about Sand: she brought into her household a young cousin (about Solange's age) upon whom she lavished all the love and attention that she should have shown her own daughter. Imagine, if you can, how hurt and jealous Solange must have felt. Sand actually flaunted this in front of her daughter. Why? No one really knows, but I believe it was a form of punishment and a very evil one at that. At a time when the daughter needed understanding and patience from her mother, she received a slap in the face. Of course, all during this time, Sand put her son, Maurice, up on a pedestal and favored him with his every desire. He turned out to be a spoiled brat and a self-indulging person. He was envious of the relationship between Chopin and Sand, and he did everything in his power to convince his mother to get rid of Chopin.

So, forgetting, for a moment, the contributions both Chopin and Sand have made, let's just concentrate on the character and kindness of soul that each possessed. If it were a contest, Chopin would win, hands down. And, as an aside, over 3,000 people attended Chopin's funeral. His grave site in Paris, which is one in which many famous authors and musicians are buried, is the most visited and is always overflowing with flowers.

I think all of our minds are made up even after reading all the very interesting posts above. And that's O.K. Words hardly ever change one's mind. We all have our opinions (and all opinions are biased). However, reading both sides of the story is a good start for those who want to further research this intriguing relationship.

Kathleen

Is there some kind of Chopincyclopedia I'm not aware of?

Well, if you read Chopin in Paris by Tad Szulc (a Pole), Chopin doesn't seem like the wonderful, flawless person that many make him out to be. He was human, and he could be quite unpleasant as well.

You can read the Dover collection of his correspondence, Chopin's Letters, and know that he was quite human—and therefore neither necessarily wonderful nor by any means flawless.

But his music, on the other hand, is both!

Steven

Chopin was a very human individual capable of being irritable, snappish, manipulative, passive, and indecisive just like all of us but also capable of as much kindness, humor, generosity, and loyalty as the very best of us. In balance he comes down quite heavily on the side of the angels.

And do read someone besides Sulky Tad Szulc for balance. He doesn't seem to like Chopin very much, or maybe that's just his academic pose. (All academics have to have one along with a personal ax the needs grinding.) Szulc actually goes out of his way to make him seem unpleasant by distorting incidents that are quite differently described in the primary sources.

Please don't quote me out of context. I said the decisions she deemed the best possible. If her decision was to commit genocide we'd be having a very different discussion. I'm saying it's not our place to criticise the actions of people when we don't truly understand their situation or cultural atmosphere, like, for instance, that of 19th Century France. I'm not 'excusing' anyone, I'm just not vilifying her for something that I and, quite clearly, a lot of people here do not have the knowledge or experience to empathise with. It's possible to be aware of what actions she took without forming an opinion on them.

Saying that she was unpleasant, a bad mother, ruthless, selfish etc. These are all subjective terms founded on opinion. This is bias! How will we ever understand all the versions of this story with these prejudices?

The fundamentals of human nature? What are they then?

Simply as a matter of curiosity, blutak, what would be your conclusions as to the character of the other party if you were to find yourself treated as Solange was by her mother, by Chopin?

You described Sand as "a human being with a conscience who made what she would have deemed to be the best possible decisions according to her experiences and situations." If you believe that's accurate or that it even makes sense, this must be the "artistic license" you referred to previously.

I believe the fundamental of human nature is self-preservation. That's the basis for my earlier statement that people can generally be counted on to make decisions that are in their own self-interest, and the source of my question, "the best possible decisions for whom?

Some people's behavior is affected by other traits, like self-destruction, stupidity, malice and even altruism. I consider the assertion you made to be ludicrous; human beings don't always make the "best possible decisions"; even if they did, would those decisions be best for themselves or for others?

You can't impute to George Sand attributes that aren't universally shared by all people, and you can't see into her character and know what motivated her actions—unless clairvoyance is a fundamental of human nature that I somehow overlooked.

Steven

How am I quoting you out of context? I've read all your responses...

And, no, words like "bad mother" and "unpleasant" are not so subjective. If you disown your daughter, you are absolutely and categorically a bad mother. I don't know anyone who advocates the disavowal of a child under any circumstances. If you are a self-centered libertine, 99% of people will find you unpleasant.

And, why can't we understand 19th-century France? We have thousands of books of fiction and history of the time which can probably describe every inch of Paris collectively.

Lastly, no one is without bias and... to me it seems your bias is your "refutation" of bias. If you were truly unbiased you wouldn't have contributed any opinion to this forum...

Frycek,
It sounds like Solange probably got pregnant very near the time of her marriage, either before or after, and we can't quite tell which, but at any rate the marriage must have been planned well before pregnancy was an issue. Thanks for the dates.

MR,
I've never heard of Solange having miscarriages but that's certainly possible. It was awfully sad about Jeanne.

I see I am not in the "extremely knowledgeable" category!

Elene

From Frycek:

Right on, Frycek! I also believe that another excellent "primary source" is Eigeldinger's Chopin: pianist and teacher, as seen by his pupils.

I've said over and over that all opinions are biased, and that certainly includes mine! An intelligent person always tries to approach any subject with an open mind, but, being the humans that we all are, we tend to be swayed in one way or another. I believe it's almost impossible not to "take a side" concerning Sand and Chopin. For we come with our very own "garbage," and thus, our final conclusions are a bit tainted.

And I also believe that it is not always in one's self-interest that we make our decisions. There are way too many instances where people, because of love, make their decisions against their own needs. For the meaning of true love, in my opinion, is to put another's needs in front of one's own. To put another's happiness above our own.

I'm sorry, Elene, that I did not include your name among those who are knowledgable about this subject. But I also did not include my own. Even though I have read over 20 biographies and done some research in other areas, I still don't consider myself an expert because I know I am biased[/b] and I believe that you are also. This is not meant to be an insult, so please do not take it as such. I could be completely and totally wrong and unfair to you, but, again, it is only my biased opinion...and nothing more.

Kathleen

I don't believe it's necessary to take a side, but this is coming from someone who's swayed first and foremost by Chopin's music. That's what I'm most knowledgeable about and most interested in; the details of his life—as compelling as they are in their own right for their triumph, tragedy and human drama—pale in importance compared to his artistic product.

I feel I've contributed to the misperception of the cult of blind lovesick Chopin groupies that some people persist in believing. My remark about my "worshipful reverence" was self-conscious hyperbole; my speculation about Sand's life of a nun with Chopin indicating she was in a relationship with God was intended to be humorous. I didn't imagine I would need to explain myself, but I don't wish to compound the misunderstanding.

This is how irrelevant the Sand matter is to me: to the extent that Chopin the man and his personal life have import to me, I've long been disappointed that he had romantic liaisons with women at all! That's my own personal bias, and from an early age I sought validation of it by looking for clues in what I gleaned about his life and the esthetic of his music.

Unfortunately (for me and others like me who've shared this vain hope), neither Chopin's lifelong friendship with (and obvious affection for) Tytus Woyciechowski, his acquaintance with the Marquis de Custine nor any other known details can confirm or deny this speculation. It cannot be known anymore than what passed between Chopin and Sand can be known.

I really have attempted to convey the equanimity and dispassion I feel about Sand. Obviously, there's evidence that she was a bad mother and can be legitimately judged on that basis. But there are, after all, all kinds of mothers , and I am well acquainted with parents for whom their child's welfare is no priority whatsoever. It's senseless and tragic, but it's commonplace, too. There are worse sins.

I think it's as absurd to demonize Sand as it is to deify Chopin! And I've seen no real evidence in this thread that any of my fellow cultists have done either. :p

Steven

I don't think anyone has yet pointed out that it is possible to make Chopin out as a parasitic creature who latched onto Sand because he realized that she could and would take care of him for some time. And indeed, she did, for a fairly long stretch. But on the other hand, he didn't do a lot for her in any pragmatic sense, on the other hand, did he?

I also find the "morals" charges against Sand in this thread sort of odd - I mean, first of all, Chopin could not have been unaware of Sand's long string of boytoys, so he would have had to know quite well the role to which he was assigned. They weren't married and they were in a bohemian artsy milieu, so expectations of either monogamy or any sort of "'til death do us part" continuation of the relationship seem fairly silly. I think it is just as reasonable to say that Chopin was very lucky she stuck it out as long and as helpfully as she did, considering everything, as it is to say she is at fault for not sticking it out longer.

Maybe no-one has pointed this out because it is so blatantly untrue, wr. Are you not aware that Sand 'chased' an unwilling Chopin for many months before finally managing to seduce him?
Moreover, there were occasions when he looked after her (and others). Far from being parasitic he was a natural carer (Sand said as much herself) and the only thing that prevented him being more so was his very genuine illness, exacerbated by Sand's taking him to the unsuitable conditions of Mallorca which nearly killed him. His health was never the same after that.

Wrong, again. For a start, his respectability rubbed off on her so that she was able to gain entry to a level of society that she would not otherwise have enjoyed. She loved attending parties and using the swimming pool at Hotel Lambert, for example, where she was welcomed only because of Chopin. He allowed her to retrieve her reputation within normal society after a series of scandals. For all her lack of convention (which I admire) it is clear from her writings that she did like to present herself as a rather pure, earth-mother figure, and he aided this enormously. He also helped lure valued visitors to Nohant that came to see him rather than her.

On a very practical level, Chopin helped the ever-hard-up Sand financially. This is documented.

However even if Chopin had done none of these things for Sand, I think the intimate opportunity to hear him play and compose must have paid every debt a thousandfold.

I agree that, when she was a single woman, or even if she had been in a relationship where the partners agreed to external liaisons, then she would not have been at fault. I certainly wouldn't criticise her for having flings after the way her husband treated her. But most people, then and now, would say it is wrong to deceive someone, and most people would say it is wrong to treat one's children as she did. There were other matters too where she dismays my personal morality - for example, fixing her friend Pauline Viardot with a husband then overseeing an affair between Pauline and Sand's son Maurice, just for one instance of several. But maybe you don't see anything wrong with that - we all have different ideas about what is right and wrong.


I would not say she was wrong to end the affair, if she felt the need, although many people would be loathe to dismiss a lover of nearly a decade at a time when they were clearly in severe physical decline. But your comment suggests you are unaware of the manner in which Sand got rid of Chopin, what she said about him afterwards, and the reactions of first-hand witnesses to it all. I really don't have time to go into it all here but suggest you do a little more research before commenting so very inaccurately, wr.

The bearing it has is that there's a natural presumption of reciprocity in a mutually supportive relationship.
Anyone who's read my posts would know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I still want to know where the "distinct unfair bias in his favor in this thread" is. Who here buys into the "Chopin - all good, Sand - all bad" view? Is it possible for anyone (anyone unbiased, that is!) to read this entire thread and believe that's the sentiment generally expressed?

I repeat my assertion that imputing this supposed bias where none actually exists serves a distinct, familiar and transparent agenda: making Chopin lovers—and I hope by now it's obvious I mean Chopin's music—not just seem like blind, lovesick, groupie cultists, but "stupid, immature, and not in charge" of our own lives, too!

My "unfair" bias": Chopin wrote better music than Sand. Now that's a bias grounded in irrefutable fact.

Steven

I agree, Steven. No where in this rather long thread, has it ever been a case of: Chopin-all good and Sand-all bad.

Come on, wr. Take a little time to actually READ[/b] what has been written. Just because there are a few of us who totally admire Chopin and his music (blind groupies that we may be), we have NEVER stated that he was all-perfect and Sand was all-bad. Any intelligent person knows there is no such thing as perfect goodness or perfect evil in any human being. Sand definitely had her good points, and I think we have addressed these. And Chopin could be immature and demanding, which, I believe has also been mentioned somewhere above.

I think you are being unfair to those of us who admire Chopin more than we admire Sand. We've tried to bring out the good and the bad characteristics of both. Please have a heart and quit calling us totally prejudiced and "stupid." Yes, I know you haven't called us this, but I certainly get the impression from your posts that that's your opinion of us. And I would further mention that it is you[/b/] who appears to be blind because you either refuse to read what has been written or just "don't get it."

Kathleen

You need a good deal more than a "little surface knowledge" to have any kind of insight into that relationship or to make any sort of valid accessment of the characters of the two extraordinary individuals involved. I suggest you read their letters, a couple of dozen biographies, study the the cultural and moral milieu of the first half the the 19th century, with particular emphasis on Poland and France, and investigate the state of the pathology and treatment of tuberculosis circa 1840, mull it all over for a few years and then get back to us.

Excellent and very called-for advice, Frycek.

Kathleen

Going back a bit, I think Solange is buried at Nohant along with the rest of the family. Her birth and death dates are supposedly on the tombstone (sorry, I can't go look it up just now). There's a lot of this minutiae in Andre Maurois "Lelia..."

Solange "mother of Jeanne"

Not to hijack this thread, but a couple of females who did a little good/bad (the jury isn't in yet) were Fred's two "Scottish ladies." These gals dragged him all over the British Empire when he was at his worst and probably took months -- maybe a year off his life. Yes, they sponsored his trip, but they also capitalized/profiteered off him. Gotta say, Fred has curious choice in women...

"But...I had to...she came on to me!"

I am curious why Chopin is the only male in the Western hemisphere who could apparently get away with this excuse

Or, at least, it seems that it is being made for him. Surely he was a grown man and could have managed to resist Sand's advances if he had really wanted to...

I doubt if he really wanted to resist by the time she caught him. As far as we know she got every man she ever went after. They all must've thought it was a good idea at the time. I think Chopin finally gave in when he realized that because of his health his prospects of making a respectable marriage were slim to none. No need to "save himself." He really did have strong moral objections that he had to set aside. He probably felt that an independent woman whose reputation was already "ruined" was the only suitable candidate for a laision with a man who was unable to marry and provide in a more conventional fashion.

As no one knows for certain what went on between Solange, Sand and Chopin, this is a little hard to answer.


I didn't say people make the best possible decisions. This implies that there is some external entity that can judge what is 'best' or 'worst' outside of human opinion. I said that I expect George Sand was taking what she thought were her best options.

I absolutely agree with your last paragraph, which is why I have refrained from praising or vilfying her actions. If we can't know what motivated her, how can we judge her?

I can also agree with you that the fundamental of human nature can be described as self-preservation. But that's as far as it goes - any way that this manifests itself is experienced through cultural and social thoughts and actions.

I read through the posts on here and the other thread to get some information about a relationship I knew nothing about. But reading the posts it seemed very obvious to me in a very short time that people are less concerned with considering all perspectives of events, and more concerned with making Chopin out to be some sort of saint, and I can't think of any other reason for this other than because of the music he wrote. I know a bit about George Sand as a feminist figure, I know a lot about Chopin's music. However, I care very little about what their characters are like, how they treated people or how they were viewed by their peers. I really don't care.

I'm sure that the prevalent opinion expressed here on the events are probably close to one or two people's experience of them at the time, but there are other perspectives of this story that we have to consider. I didn't pipe up because I care about George Sand or what Chopin was like as a person; as a casual observer I think it's a shame that people are so interested in this subject but seemed to have narrowed their views quite considerably.

Again, the same bald assertion. I guess I gotta beat this danged dead horse some more: I do not believe that anyone could be justified in reaching the verdict you did—or insist on repeating it—unless there were a preconceived bias or agenda to do so.

"The posts"? "People"? Where are the appropriate qualifiers there? Did you glean your conclusion from all posts by all people, or is that just what you persist in wishing to be a truthful depiction of the opinions exchanged? Even I give you the benefit of the doubt that there was some evidence for your claim, why aren't you able to use that same very necessary adjective?

You portray yourself now as a neutral observer who has only wished to enlighten and bestow objectivity on those who appeared categorically closed-minded. If you re-read your own posts, starting with the very first, you may find the reasons you made a very different impression (and continue to do so): that of someone with an axe to grind.

Steven

Good grief!! Those Scottish ladies were kinder to Chopin than you could imagine, AND they did not make any money off of him...hardly. They were wealthy already and were not looking to make a profit from the trip. Just the opposite is true. They hoped to introduce Chopin to the English and perhaps a concert or two would not only bring him some fame, but also a bit of fortune. Neither happened, sad to say. However, Chopin was quite pleased that the Prince of England (I forgot just who) actually stood by the piano as Chopin played.

Jane Stirling, (one of the sisters) who would have liked to marry Chopin, actually lent Chopin 20,000 francs (but he would only accept 10,000) paid the rent for the last year of his apartment (the one in which he died, and a very nice one it was) AND she paid for his rather lavish funeral! After his death, she also devoted much of her time and attention in collecting his papers and manuscripts, etc. A sort of executor, if you will.

As far as that trip to England...it wasn't the best idea, that's for sure. But Chopin agreed to go after a lot of coaxing. They didn't drag him. It certainly took its toll on his health and he never really recovered afterwards.

As is so often the case with great artists from the past, he died penniless. It really blows one's mind when you think of the money that is being made today by people who produce garbage and whose name and music will be forgotten in a blink of an eye. But the real music...Mozart, Chopin and hundreds of others live on, well past their time here on earth and continues to bring much joy to many.

Nobody ever said life was fair.

Kathleen

Some of us "that are so interested in this subject" have studied this for quite awhile, some for a lifetime, have done extensive research, looked at the primary materials, corresponded with experts in the field and have come to conclusions based on that research. Yet as a casual observer admittedly not interested in what Chopin or Sand were like as people you feel yourself qualified to make a value judgement on those conclusions dismissing them as "narrow" because they are apparently not to your liking. Are you another Ivan Karamazov believing "all things are morally lawful", or just one of those people who think if facts are denied long enough they just fade away?

Could you please run through the logic of this accusation. Why would I have an axe to grind?

And I've tried fairly hard in this discussion to make it clear objectivity doesn't exist in historical events.

Yes perhaps you're right. I'd be better off reading conclusions made by historians rather than musicians.

Better than that, research the facts and then draw your own conclusions. The whole truth rarely comes out in an adversarial setting and objectivity is the first casualty.

And since when have historians been known for their objectivity?

Kathleen

For a run through the logic of the accusation, take a read through your own posts.

Steven

Oh my. Well you're just taking on everyone on this forum aren't you? I think it's time to let go of your inflated ego and realize that some people--like Frycek, Mary Rose, and others--are not, in fact, idiots and they do know more than you and I about this subject. I admire your attempt at being bipartisan but there really is no reason to bring such hostility into this.

The bias I have noticed started with the longish explanation of the breakup, and continued fairly unabated after that in the posts from the Chopin fans. No, I'm not going to do a huge series of quotes as if presenting evidence at a trial - I think it's there for anyone to see. If you don't see it, well, there is not going to be anything I can say that's going to convince you otherwise and so I don't see the need for the effort. And yes, I am aware that some lip-service towards fairness gets paid, but I don't think it removes the bias, by any means. And yes, I know that my "Chopin - all good, Sand - all bad" description was hyperbole, but it does reflect what seems to me the strong tendency that exists, just from this limited exposure to the fan club.

It actually is no great feat of imagination to get some ideas about the Chopin/Sand relationship without reading extensively about it, simply because couples always have some kind of balance of interests, or else they no longer are together. The way the posts from the Chopin fans read, Sand was completely the beneficiary and Chopin got virtually nothing out of the relationship, and I simply don't think that things between people work that way.

Your transference of my comments regarding Chopin to yourself is, to put it mildly, not very sensible, and I really don't understand why you'd want to be seen as stupid, immature, and not in charge of your own life simply because of your enthusiasm for Chopin. I didn't say it or imply it or intend it or mean it; it's entirely of your making. If you are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, I ain't buying, because I don't think that you, or most of the other Chopin fans, are really all that deranged. It's just part of the nature of being a fan or serious enthusiast of any sort that perspective gets a little too caught up in the subject matter at times.

"he posts from the Chopin fans"?

Here we go again: a generalization that baldly imputes to all the actions of some. What's the motive for you and blutack to do that?

You've also decided to call the voice of anyone who didn't exhibit such putative bias "lip-service." Again, what's your motive?

"Chopin - all good, Sand - all bad" is your second admission of hyperbole in this thread; you already conceded suggesting Chopin was "parasitic" was an attempt at pot-stirring.

I have to conclude that pot-stirring is your motive.
"The way the posts from the Chopin fans read ...."

Yet again! All the posts? From all the fans?

I'm a Chopin fan, too. What about my posts?

Or are you actually defining "Chopin fan" to mean a biased Sand-hater, and anybody else doesn't count because, after all, that alleged lack of bias is just "lip-service"?
What you describe as "transference" related of blutack's and Less Rubato's statements on page 2 of the thread, not yours. I quoted your words about Chopin because they fit the context of blutack's and Less Rubato's agenda, so your analysis is off the mark. If you missed their language that included "bizarre" and "seemingly blinded groupie love" (and my previous reference to those quotations), you may not have read this thread as closely as you think.

I'd never call Sand a demon, but this whole discussion has become tedious as hell!



Steven

If you as an individual want to identify with my generalizations, go right ahead, I can't stop you. But, you know, you don't have to, since they ARE generalizations and I'm not pretending otherwise.

No, I didn't. I said some lip-service to fairness was paid - you are supplying that "voice of anyone..." business all by yourself.

And...?

I mean, that's what I said, right? Of course, we haven't discussed my motive for stirring the pot. Or the motive behind my motive for stirring the pot. Or the motive behind my motive that was behind my motive for stirring the pot.

No. Just some.

And I'm a Chopin fan, too. What about me?

I'm not defining anything. I'm just making some casual comments on a wide-ranging internet forum (even though I sometimes gets this weird feeling of having wandered into a court of law by accident).

Uh, let's see here...you quoted my words in a message in which you were directly responding to big quoted chunks of my previous post, and expect me to not only realize that you suddenly changed focus to some other posters, but also that I should have memorized the entire thread so that I'll know that even though you use my words, you aren't using my words as if they are my words.

Or something like that...?

But strangely compelling, nonetheless.

Communication is facilitated by clarity and precision:

• You reject the precision of qualifying words like some, a few, most, many—words that would readily change an inaccurate and incendiary declaration into an innocuous, irrefutable observation. But such bland statements of opinion are no fun; they don't stir the pot!
• Erroneous proclamations, on the other hand, are sure to inflame and incite—and they have such a convenient safety net, too: you were only making generalizations and "casual comments" all along, after all.

But to care about clarity and precision, you first have to be interested in communicating—not pot-stirring. It's apparent to me that you twist words for a different and twisted purpose: a cat-and-mouse game rather than communication.

wr's fun game[/b]

Rules for the mice:

• If the "fan club" says anything negative about George Sand, it's bias.
• If any one person mouse says anything negative about George Sand, they all said it.
• If anything neutral or positive is offered, it's "lip-service."

Rules for the cat:

• You confidently base your unqualified statements of fact on your thorough knowledge of what others have supposedly said in this thread (which is so apparent that there's no need to quote it).
• You don't need to remember critical information said by others and commented on repeatedly when it suits you to claim you didn't memorize the entire thread, after all.

[/b]

In any court of law into which you wandered, pot-stirrer in hand, you'd be guilty of intentional obfuscation on the basis of that nonsense alone.

Steven

I love your 'cat and mouse' game rules, Sotto!

I am a bit fed up with this subject now, other than to say something on which we all might agree: how amazing that a love affair that ended over 160 years ago should still be discussed with such fervour. They are up there with Anthony and Cleopatra, Hero and leander, Romeo and Juliet, our Chopin and Sand!

Elizabeth & Essex
Tracy & Hepburn
Bonnie & Clyde?

Somehow I could not stay away, and here I am surveying the bloody battlefield again.

I am mystified by the entire war.

I love Chopin. I love Sand. I impartially wish them both a happy and fulfilling afterlife and success in all their future lives and projects.

Best wishes to you all too. Go practice. Do widzenia and au revoir.

Elene

How about some musical pairings? (More on-topic, you know. )

Robert and Clara Schumann
Barenboim and Du Pré
Ashford and Simpson
John and Yoko
The Captain and Tennille
Steve and Eydie

Steven

Homer & Marge

Jonah and the Whale




Kathleen

Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears

Elton & Bernie

Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann

Richard Wagner and Cosima von Bülow :2hearts: (poor Hans)

[my only contribution to this thread, and an off-topic one... but I have to say I find this page the most interesting ]

Can you believe that "Robert Schumann" and "Brahms Nocturne" are anagrams?

http://www.sternestmeanings.com/

Nights aren't only for sleeping!

Steven

How scandalous! I love me some 19th century gossip.

Oh gosh.

And Chopin's name comes up as 'perky, iffy, chronic darkness'.

George Sand enrages dog.

Say no more.

So you are interested in continuing the tedium that you complained about earlier, eh? Okay, here goes...

As I said, you posted a message which included lengthy chunks of a previous message of mine, to which you responded. Then, without any indication of having done so, you changed your subject to stuff other people wrote, but without quoting them, though. And to top it off, you then used my words as if they came from god knows where, but not from me. And now you lecture me about clarity?!?!?!? And when I point out what you did, it is "nonsense"?!!!?

I don't get why you are putting energy into having extended fantasies about some "rules" that you imagine govern my posts in this thread. They do tell us more about your point of view, I guess, but I'm not sure that's what you intended. What you actually intended seemed to me to be an effort at a sort of very elaborate name-calling, but I don't see much connection to what I actually said or meant to say. If the meaning of my posts is really so impenetrable for you, maybe you ought not to bother reading them; they don't seem to be worthwhile to you in any way, after all.

I thought your posts were worthwhile until this thread, wr, but sometimes it takes a while to get to know where people are really coming from. And they're not impenetrable at all; they were clear from the start, and the defensive posture of a humble and misunderstood victim is bogus after the pot-stirring you happily admitted to.

So thanks for the tip about not reading them any further, and you can add me to that list of people whose posts you don't read, too.

I'll just get back to them "extended fantasies" now, and you can get back to pot-stirring. Hey, at least it's a good exercise for the forearms?!?!?!?

Steven