at in its sorrow, yet not epoch-making.
The one following has "the impression of an improvisation." It has also
the merit of being seldom heard. These two nocturnes are dedicated to
Mlle. J. W. Stirling.

Opus 62 brings us to a pair in B major and E major inscribed to Madame
de Konneritz. The first, the Tuberose Nocturne, is faint with a sick,
rich odor. The climbing trellis of notes, that so unexpectedly leads to
the tonic, is charming and the chief tune has charm, a fruity charm. It
is highly ornate, its harmonies dense, the entire surface overrun with
wild ornamentation and a profusion of trills. The piece--the third of
its sort in the key of B--is not easy. Mertke gives the following
explication of the famous chain trills:

[Musical score excerpt]

Although this nocturne is luxuriant in style, it deserves warmer praise
than is accorded it. Irregular as its outline is, its troubled lyrism
is appealing, is melting, and the A flat portion, with its hesitating,
timid accents, has great power of attraction. The E major Nocturne has
a bardic ring. Its song is almost declamatory and not at all
sentimental--unless so distorted--as Niecks would have us imagine. The
intermediate portion is wavering and passionate, like the middle of the
F sharp major Nocturne. It shows no decrease in creative vigor or
lyrical fancy. The Klindworth version differs from the original, as an
examination of the following examples will show, the upper being
Chopin's:

[Musical score excerpt]

The posthumous nocturne in E minor, composed in 1827, is weak and
uninteresting. Moreover, it contains some very un-Chopin-like
modulations. The recently discovered nocturne in C sharp minor is
hardly a treasure trove. It is vague and reminiscent The following note
was issued by its London publishers, Ascherberg & Co.:

The first question, suggested by the announcement of a new
posthumous composition of Chopin's, will be "What proof is
there of its authenticity?" To musicians and amateurs who
cannot recognize the beautiful Nocturne in C sharp minor as
indeed the work of Chopin, it may in the first place be
pointed out that the original manuscript (of which a facsimile
is given on the title-page) is in Chopin's well-known
handwriting, and, secondly, that the composition, which is
strikingly characteristic, was at once accepted as the work of
Chopin by the distinguished composer and pianist Balakireff,
who played it for the first t