n can be a good judge in his
own cause. No wonder, therefore, that Fetis, enraged at this unprovoked
attack of one artist on a brother-artist, took up his pen in defence of
the injured party. Unfortunately, his retort was a lengthy and pedantic
dissertation, which along with some true statements contained many
questionable, not to say silly, ones. In nothing, however, was he so far
off the mark as in his comparative estimate of Liszt and Thalberg.
The sentences in which he sums up the whole of his reasoning show this
clearly: "You are the pre-eminent man of the school which is effete and
which has nothing more to do, but you are not the man of a new school!
Thalberg is this man--herein lies the whole difference between you two."
Who can help smiling at this combination of pompous authoritativeness
and wretched short-sightedness? It has been truly observed by Ambros
that there is between Thalberg and Liszt all the difference that
exists between a man of talent and a man of genius; indeed, the former
introduced but a new fashion, whereas the latter founded really a new
school. The one originated a few new effects, the other revolutionised
the whole style of writing for the pianoforte. Thalberg was perfect
in his genre, but he cannot be compared to an artist of the breadth,
universality, and, above all, intellectual and emotional power of Liszt.
It is possible to describe the former, but the latter, Proteus-like, is
apt to elude the grasp of him who endeavours to catch hold of him. The
Thalberg controversy did not end with Fetis's article. Liszt wrote a
rejoinder in which he failed to justify himself, but succeeded in giving
the poor savant some hard hits. I do not think Liszt would have approved
of the republication of these literary escapades if he had taken the
trouble to re-read them. It is very instructive to compare his criticism
of Thalberg's compositions with what Schumann--who in this case is by no
means partial--said of them. In the opinion of the one the Fantaisie sur
Les Huguenots is not only one of the most empty and mediocre works, but
it is also so supremely monotonous that it produces extreme weariness.
In the opinion of the other the Fantaisie deserves the general
enthusiasm which it has called forth, because the composer proves
himself master of his language and thoughts, conducts himself like a man
of the world, binds and loosens the threads with so much ease that it
seems quite unintentional, and draws th