time we are speaking of. On another occasion Heine writes that
Kalkbrenner is envied

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

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

It is difficult to understand how the Kalkbrenner-Chopin affair could
be so often misrepresented, especially since we are in possession of
Chopin's clear statements of the facts. [FOOTNOTE: Statements which
are by no means invalidated by the following statement of Lenz:--"On my
asking Chopin 'whether Kalkbrenner had understood much about it' [i.e.
the art of pianoforte-playing], followed the answer: 'It was at the
beginning of my stay in Paris.'"]. There are no grounds whatever to
justify the assumption that Kalkbrenner was actuated by jealousy,
artfulness, or the like, when he proposed that the wonderfully-gifted
and developed Chopin should become his pupil for three years. His
conceit of himself and his method account fully for the strangeness
of the proposal. Moreover, three years was the regulation time of
Kalkbrenner's course, and it was much that he was willing to shorten
i