Was Chopin Gay?

Hello Chopin. In fact, there is someone who has this doubt... Not only Bollani thinks this. The reasons stem mainly from a letter that Chopin wrote to his dearest friend Titus in which a kiss is mentioned... The letter on its own can indeed be ambiguous, but if instead we read all of Chopin's letters, we would understand that Chopin was like this with everyone. He often wrote: "please.... continue to love me.." or "...I love you."....but he behaved this way with everyone... not only did he write it to his soulmate but also to his family members... Another reason that has led to thoughts of homosexuality was the romantic relationship he had with George Sand. A writer of the era, who wrote signing with a masculine name, accustomed to dressing as a man.... However, this behavior was not to deny her feminine nature but rather to be able to work (since at the time female writers were not taken into consideration). Another reason still is Chopin's sweetness, sensitivity, and character fragility, very close to feminine sensitivity; for this reason too, his most faithful audience was very rich in women who understood and loved his music in a particular way.... All these data can lead to hasty conclusions, despite there being no proof demonstrating homosexuality; on the contrary, there are others that exclude it entirely. Perhaps some believe it also because (especially men) are used to having an image of a strong, virile man and do not accept that sweetness and sensitivity can coexist in masculinity. Chopin was passionate, romantic, sweet, sensitive... and like all hypersensitive people prone to sadness and melancholy. That sensitivity of his, however, was in turn his source of richness, which allowed him to see what others do not see and to feel what others do not feel and to put "more" into music than the music itself.....he would remain enchanted for hours admiring nature, flowers (which he loved very much) ......a rude man cannot understand all this.... An artist, however, yes, can understand this. Chopin was primarily a genius-artist and therefore it is very difficult to understand his soul.... tormented and extremely sensitive. What instead demonstrates that Chopin was not Gay is the fact that he fell in love with three women. The first is Konstancja Gladkowska, a conservatory companion of his, a soprano whom Chopin had accompanied at the piano several times. For her, Chopin lost his head and she became the model of woman he always desired (so he wrote of her...). He never declared himself... but this feeling tormented him for several years, even for some time after his departure from Warsaw for Vienna. A funny episode, told by himself to his friend Titus, gives a better understanding of what kind of person Chopin was. One Sunday in Church, he noticed that Konstancja was there. Suddenly she looked at him and he was left so confused and unsettled that he had to run out of the Church because he felt like he was going to faint. Upon leaving, he lost his balance and collided with the village doctor, who seeing him red-faced and worried, asked him if he had felt unwell. Feeling very ashamed, he made up an excuse saying that a dog had run between his legs and caused him to fall....he stayed outside the Church for 15 minutes before re-entering and pretending nothing happened... When he left Warsaw, somehow, he managed to get a ribbon of her hair... which he carried with him like the most sacred things and the night before going to bed he would take it to think of her far away (unaware of everything...). When his sister warned him that she had married, he replied that this did not prevent him from continuing to love her in a platonic way.... The second was Maria Wodzinska, a compatriot met during his travels abroad with whom he began a serious relationship, with the aim of marrying... unfortunately the relationship was interrupted by her father who opposed the marriage... certain reasons are still unknown.... He suffered greatly from this disappointment as well and on her bundle of letters he wrote "my ruin"..... The third and last, as we all know, was George Sand, of whom he was deeply in love. Even after Chopin's death, a lock of her hair was found in his jacket pocket, which he kept jealously as a memento. I hope I have pleased you by telling you a little bit about things regarding Chopin.... after all, all these things only confirm the reason for his music being so beautiful....

Hi Chopin (it feels a bit strange to call you that). I believe that you, like me, saw Sunday's episode of "Sostiene Bollani". I didn't know that Bollani thought Chopin was gay (to tell the truth, I don't even know for certain now, but I deduce it from the caricature he dedicated to him) and even less did I imagine that others thought so. This is completely new to me.

I know Chopin's biography quite well and I have never had the suspicion that he could be homosexual. I should preface this by saying I have nothing against homosexuals; on the contrary... my best friend is one. It is only for the sake of accuracy and love of truth.

I subscribe to everything Gilda said and all the facts she reported.

I recommend reading Chopin's letters; they are truly illuminating regarding the Genius's personality.

I take the liberty of adding that, in my opinion, his personality was truly multifaceted and full of nuances. Those who think of him only as a delicate, gentle, almost ethereal or feminine soul are mistaken. He was also very virile, energetic, and passionate. And if you listen closely to some of his masterpieces (just to mention a few at random: the Etude op.10 no.12, Ballades 1 & 2 rather than some Polonaises), it will become very evident.

......and he was also very nice, theatrical....When he wanted to, he could make you die laughing with his imitations.

I do not know Chopin's life and the related documents well enough to give an opinion.

But...

some of Gilda's assertions are methodologically unfounded, just as much as those of those who claim that Chopin was homosexual solely by analyzing his music. These issues can only be addressed with documentary evidence. To deny Chopin's homosexuality, it is enough to say that we have no evidence regarding it. All the talk about male sensitivity, virility, artists, or George Sand is nonsensical. Furthermore, Gender Theory, which deals with relating sexual tendencies to the world of art, is not limited to a "Gay-NonGay" judgment. George Sand was, probably, bisexual. The mere act of crossdressing (dressing in clothes of the opposite sex) remains an epochal and revolutionary thing. But in her case, WE HAVE letters that support relationships with women (Marie Dorval).

A quick internet search confirms to me that there is no consistent evidence of anything regarding Chopin. But there are opposing theories. I tend to always be a possibilist, if there are theories and if I am not an expert on the matter. But the problem with these arguments is that in most situations documents are lost or deliberately concealed. It was like this with Tchaikovsky; many of his letters have not been published or have been censored. Even regarding Leopardi, a shroud of bigotry was cast for a long time.

In short, a controversial issue. It's just that until the moment Bollani told it, I didn't know about this possibility. I repeat, it changes nothing for me, it was just a curiosity

My assertions are by no means without foundation, as Thallo claims. Besides, how can they say that when they admit to not knowing Chopin's life well..... I have read a lot about it and I can affirm that there really are those who have had this doubt, and the reasons are exactly those I have listed. In any case, my intervention was very badly interpreted or was not understood. The fact that some have had these doubts because of George Sand or because of the music written by this composer does not mean that Chopin was unmanly or lacked masculinity. It only means that some have had these doubts. Besides this, it seems to me that they wrote that what excludes Chopin's homosexuality are precisely the relationships he had with three women. I also tell Thallo that these are all historically documented; one just needs to read. I referred only to history and to what I have read. In my opinion, before passing certain judgments, one should inform oneself. Regarding George Sand, I will not pronounce myself, it was not the subject.

thallo wrote:

A quick internet search confirms that......

In effect, when would one ever need to go (quickly) on the internet to get confirmation?

I always say that the internet is a great mine, but to know what is good and what is less so, one must still turn to books... at this point I would like to read which texts (and documents) are being referred to (I am speaking generally "in favor" or "against" one hypothesis or the other)

Hello Rotore,

in books about Chopin's life, they don't dwell on his alleged homosexuality. Absolutely not. Instead, the life of this composer is described, his music, and everything sublime he has done for music. Some don't even talk about it. However, reading many biographies, some people have emerged who had this doubt... I repeat... doubt means nothing; in fact, as I explained earlier in my post, often it is merely dwelling on a superficial judgment without delving deep into the artist's personality. There are countless biographies.

The one by Liszt (in my opinion the most descriptive and complete, but that is my opinion), that of Rattalino, Bellotti, the letters, the many letters, both from Chopin and from friends, family, etc. Other books too... there are plenty.... I have done nothing more than report what I have learned through these readings. Anyway, I repeat that

the historians who have studied Chopin's life more deeply, as well as his life itself, have excluded the doubt of homosexuality... in short! If anything, Chopin liked women!

I don't have much time these days and I am very irritable. Therefore, I apologize in advance if I am aggressive.

I will try to quote Gilda's statements that I deem lacking in METHODOLOGICAL as well as substantial basis.

GILDA wrote:

Another reason that led to the thought of homosexuality was the romantic relationship had with George Sand. A writer of the era, who wrote signing with a male name, accustomed to dressing as a man.... However, this behavior was not to deny her feminine nature but rather to be able to work (since at the time female writers were not taken into consideration).

del della serie "one should inform oneself before writing". One thing is opinion, another is fact. George Sand continued to dress [that way] for years. This is called "Cross-dressing"; it is a practice that today is recognized among "queer" practices, namely those alternative ways of living one's sexual identity, which in itself does not mean being gay but means, precisely, living one's identity differently. Gender Theory, as I said in my last message, is not limited to saying "he is gay, he is not"; it tries to relate sexual identity to artistic practice. The phrase "Sand did not deny her feminine nature" is nonsense. Sand had a morality and behavior different from those of the majority of her female contemporaries. We do not know who entered her bed (excluding the letters I mentioned), but dismissing the issue without even raising a doubt is incorrect.

Perhaps some believe it also because (especially men) are used to having an image of the strong, virile man and do not accept that sweetness and sensitivity can coexist within masculinity.

this is, if I may say so, nonsense. Here we are not talking about masculinity; we are talking about homosexuality or, rather, reformulations of sexual identity. I am gay and I do not consider myself feminine, in any of the possible senses of the adjective, even if in our society "I could be", that is, it would be possible for me to behave in a way very different from the average of biological males. If we want to speak seriously about homosexuality in Chopin's time, we must first state that a "gay" social behavior could not exist; it is not even remotely imaginable that a person who felt attraction toward people of their own sex lived this thing with tranquility or freedom. And it is for this reason that scholars are very careful about certain ambiguous signals, such as very long-lasting friendly relationships. On the other hand, social history tells us of widespread homosexual sexual practices, especially among mature people and young men. All these data serve relatively little in musicology if they cannot be related to compositions and aesthetics, and it is precisely here that the Chopin problem arises: Chopin's aesthetics reformulates the classic "sexualized" concepts of composition. Knowing whether this had to do with his emotional life is interesting and worthy of further study.

Chopin was passionate, romantic, sweet, sensitive...

did you know him in person? Is there a psychological diagnosis that proves it??

e like all hypersensitive people prone to sadness and melancholy.

like all hypersensitive people?? THESE are methodologically erroneous statements. We can only suppose what Chopin's psychology was and, consequently, we can only suppose what the causes of his moods were. In the same way that we can only suppose the way he lived feelings or physical attractions. The prose you use when speaking about Chopin's emotional life is like a serialized novel; in this way, all the seriousness of the discussion on gender is lost. It seems as if the discussion is between those who believe that straight people can be sweet and those who believe that only gay people can be... oh?! This isn't a talk show, for heaven's sake!

That sensitivity of his was, in turn, his source of richness, which allowed him to see what others do not see and to feel what others do not feel and to put "more" into music than the music itself.....he would remain enchanted for hours admiring nature, flowers (which he loved very much)

as a matter of fact, Tchaikovsky spoke of flowers in one of his last letters. And today we know that many of Tchaikovsky's letters were hidden by the Soviet regime to cover up his homosexuality...

......a rude man cannot understand all this....An artist, however, yes, can understand this.

no, a psychologist can understand, not an artist, much less an "artist" with an apostrophe. We are transforming the search for historical truth into taking sides. All this

THIS is methodologically incorrect.

Besides, I am not writing; I have already cited what I believe to be the greatest methodological vulnerability, namely transforming the discourse on Chopin into a general discourse on human sensitivity...

thallo wrote:

a psychologist can understand

... I was trying to say that in Chopin's time this figure did not exist... how did they do it in his time?

Unfortunately, I haven't heard Bollani's program; I would like to know if he made mention of something particular that led him to the conclusion he described.

if we are talking about the episode I saw, he simply rearranged a piece "Chopin-style" and did it while speaking in an effeminate manner. But maybe he said something else in another episode, I don't know...

Regarding the psychologist, it was an exaggeration. What should be understood is that talking about the romantic behaviors or emotional states of historical figures only makes sense if one speaks "with caution," and if one manages to make that information useful. There have been generations and generations (and generations) of scholars who thought (and think) that Beatrice, Laura, or Fiammetta were real women whom Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio actually fell in love with. But it is mooooore likely that they were "Senhal," meaning bold rhetorical figures used to speak of love or other virtues. But we very often prefer to create completely absurd romantic mythologies just to have our cake and eat it too. For example, they even wrote operas about "straight" Sappho. So, how can we distinguish between Dante's love poems (which probably don't speak of real loves) and Sappho's love poems (which perhaps do speak of real loves)? We can't; we cannot do it with certainty. But we can better know the context and understand their statements within that context.

Chopin's context, probably, allows one to venture even the hypothesis of his homosexuality, or bisexuality. This would interest us in case it could be related to his personal history or his compositions. Tchaikovsky's homosexuality is discussed because in some letters he himself tries to relate his romantic torments to some of his works; one can speak of Handel's possible homosexuality when analyzing the choices of certain singers rather than others in his operas.

What could Chopin's homosexuality "be of use" to us for? This is a question we can ask ourselves. Premising that we will never know anything for certain about anyone's romantic life, not even those who are alive, if Chopin did not live his sexual-romantic life in a "tormented" way, or if this life did not influence his work regardless, then we can quite frankly not care about whom he took to bed or whom he fell in love with.

Whether they were women or men, eh...

What I have written is not my opinion. It is what I have read through the writings left by those who studied Chopin's life. All these considerations regarding the nonsense or non-nonsense written by Thallo must refer to what scholars have left written about it. I do not allow myself to criticize them. The fact that even Bollani referred to this matter is only because someone spoke of it before him. By studying the life of any figure, it is obvious that their personality is outlined and their features are traced. I absolutely disagree with Thallo when they say that the prose I use regarding Chopin's life is like a serial novel....By speaking in these terms, you think you are criticizing my thought, whereas instead you are only criticizing scholars of the subject. Well! I respond to you... read the life of Chopin written by F. Liszt... what phrase would you reserve for him then? I, on the other hand, think that there are people who knew Chopin and who fortunately left us much written about him, and thanks to these writings we have traces of everything regarding his work but also his personality. Liszt even allowed himself to outline his inner character, his sensitivity, his melancholy....Now I close the subject by saying that I have read at least a dozen biographies on the matter and many documents... as for the rest, continue to believe whatever you want.

.........For such respect, the memory of Chopin will remain doubly dear to the friends and artists whom he encountered on his path, as well as to those unknown friends whom the poet's songs win over; as to the artists who, succeeding him, will strive to be worthy of him! In none of his many folds, Chopin's character ever concealed a single movement, a single impulse that was not dictated by the most delicate sense of honor and the noblest harmony of affections. And yet, never was nature more apt at being forgiven for eccentricities, incongruous singularities, and excusable but unbearable defects. His imagination was ardent, his feelings went as far as violence (his physical organism was weak and sickly!). Who can fathom the sufferings arising from this contrast? They must have been intense, but he never put them on display! He religiously guarded his own secret, withdrawing his sufferings from all eyes under the impenetrable serenity of a proud resignation. The delicacy of his constitution and his heart imposed upon him the feminine martyrdom of unconfessed tortures, thus giving to his destiny some features of feminine fates. Excluded from the frantic arena of usual activities due to his health, without sympathy for that useless buzzing where some bees join many drones, squandering the abundance of their strength, he created for himself a hive set apart from the too-trodden and too-frequented paths. Neither adventures, nor complications, nor episodes had importance in his life, which he simplified, although it was in conditions that seemed to make such a result difficult to achieve. His feelings and impressions formed its events, more notable and important to him than external changes and occurrences. The lessons he gave without respite, with regularity and assiduity, were like his task, domestic and daily, fulfilled with conscience and satisfaction. He poured out his heart in his compositions as others pour it out in prayer, pouring into them all those repressed expansions, those unexpressed sorrows, those unspeakable regrets that pious souls pour out in their conversations with God. He said in his works what those souls only say on their knees: those mysteries of passion and pain that man has been given to understand without words, because he has not been given to express them in words......(...)...The whole of his person was harmonious; it did not seem to require any comment. His blue gaze was more spiritual than dreamy; his sweet and fine smile never became bitter. The delicacy and transparency of his complexion seduced the eye, his blond hair was silky, his aquiline nose expressively accentuated, his stature not very tall, his limbs fragile. His gestures were graceful and manifold; the timbre of his voice a little muffled, often stifled. His attitudes possessed such nobility, and his manners such an imprint of aristocracy, that one involuntarily treated him like a prince. His entire appearance brought to mind that of convolutes, undulating above stems of incredible fineness, their calyxes divinely colored, but of a fabric so vaporous that the slightest contact tears them. ....(...)....He was usually cheerful; his caustic spirit quickly unearthed the ridiculous far beyond the surfaces where it strikes all eyes. He displayed in his mimicry a facetious brio, long undiminished. He often enjoyed reproducing, in comic improvisations, the musical formulas and particular tics of certain virtuosos; redoing their gestures and movements; counterfeiting their faces, with a talent that commented on their entire personality in a minute....(....) ...Material elegance was as natural to Chopin as that of the spirit. It betrayed itself as much in the objects that belonged to him as in his aristocratic manners. He had the coquetry of apartments; loving flowers very much, he always adorned his dwellings with them. Without approaching the splendid opulence with which some of the celebrities of Paris decorated their houses at that time, he maintained on this point—as on the chapter of elegance regarding canes, brooches, buttons, and jewelry, then in great vogue—the instinctive line of the 'comme il faut', between too much and too little. ...Since he did not confuse his time, his thought, or his ways of proceeding with those of anyone else, the company of women often suited him less, as it obliged him to fewer subsequent relations. Having always maintained an exquisite inner purity, which the storms of life have somewhat disturbed, but never sullied, because they never shook in him the propensity for good, the inclination toward honesty, respect for virtue, or faith in holiness, Chopin never lost that"

youthful ingenuity that allowed him to feel at ease in a circle of people whose virtue, honesty, and respectability formed their main characteristics and greatest attraction. He loved the lighthearted conversations of those he appreciated; he delighted in the childish pleasures of the young. He would gladly spend entire evenings playing hide-and-seek with young girls, telling them funny or charming little stories, making them laugh with those mad laughs of youth that are even more pleasing to hear than the song of a blackbird. All this together meant that Chopin—so intimately linked with some of the most prominent personalities of the artistic and literary movement of the time that their existences seemed to form a single one—remained nonetheless a stranger among them. His individuality did not merge with any other. None of the Parisians were able to understand that union, accomplished in the highest regions of being, between the aspirations of genius and the purity of desires. Even less could one feel the charm of that intimate nobility, of that innate elegance, of that virile chastity, all the more flavorful because it was unaware of its disdain for the common materialistic mortal, while everyone believed that imagination could not be fused into the forms of a masterpiece unless it was heated to a white heat in the high ovens of an acrid sensuality full of infamous dross!....(.....)....Sweet, sensitive, exquisite in everything, at fifteen he possessed all the graces of adolescence joined with the gravity of mature age. He remained delicate in body as in spirit. But that lack of muscular development allowed him to preserve a beauty, an exceptional physiognomy that had, so to speak, neither age nor sex. It was not the virile and bold air of a descendant of that lineage of ancient magnates, who knew nothing but drinking, hunting, and warring; it was not even the effeminate suavity of a pink-colored cherub. It was something like those ideal creatures that Medieval poetry used as ornaments for Christian temples. An angel beautiful in face, like a tall and sad woman, pure and slender in form like a young god of Olympus, and, to crown the whole, an expression at once tender and severe, chaste and passionate. This was the core of his being. Nothing was purer and more exalted at once than his thoughts, nothing was more tenacious, more exclusive, and more minutely devoted than his affections....But that being included nothing except what was identical to him....the rest did not exist for him except as a kind of painful dream, from which he attempted to withdraw by living among people. Always lost in his fantasies, reality displeased him....( ....) ..Externally, he was so affectionate, by virtue of his good education and natural grace, that he had the gift of pleasing even those who did not know him. His enchanting face predisposed them in his favor; the weakness of his constitution made him interesting in the eyes of women; the abundant and easy culture of his spirit, the sweet and flattering originality of his conversation captured the attention of educated men. As for those of a less fine temperament, they loved his exquisite courtesy and were all the more sensitive to it because they did not conceive, in their frank good-naturedness, how it was the exercise of a duty and how sympathy played no part in it....(...)...All forms of benevolence took on an unusual grace in him, and when he expressed his gratitude, he did so with a profound emotion that repaid friendship tenfold.......( from: "The Life of Chopin" by F. Liszt )

......The news we have regarding Chopin's loves is limited, the news regarding his sexual behavior almost non-existent. There were those who imagined that he arrived a virgin to his encounter with the highly experienced George Sand, there were those who spoke of homosexuality, at least for his adolescent period, unconscious or repressed. Certain expressions in the letters to Tytus Woychiechowski such as: " -If you permit, I kiss you on the mouth ", "- Give me your mouth ", " -You don't like being kissed. Today allow it" and similar, made more than one commentator jump. Bernard Gavoty, as an expert journalist who knows today's media, discussed the subject with apparent detachment, titling "Ambiguity" the paragraph he dedicated to Chopin's adolescent disturbances. "What conclusions can be drawn? That Chopin's sexuality was fragile?" he said halfway through his tirade. And at the end: "If Bialoblocki had been more prompt, if Tytus had been a little less so, if one of the two had responded to Chopin's literary effusions, perhaps he would have leaned towards the male side". He did not lean, thought Gavoty. Which, however, sealed the paragraph with an invaluable comment. "However, if Nicholas Chopin had checked his son's correspondence, he would probably have advised him to change the tone in his epistolary relationships with classmates". The letter to Tytus regarding the governess in Sanniki tells us that, in eighteen-year-old Chopin, there was a touch, more of healthy German goliardic spirit than of sexual fragility. And without making new and perhaps unexpected suppositions, we think we can affirm that there are no more mysteries in his sexual initiation than there are in his birth. At most, even here, some modest riddles. There is nothing to hint at (on this everyone agrees) regarding his love for Konstancja Gladkowska, soprano.....( excerpt from the book "Fryderyk Chopin: ritratto d'autore" by Piero Rattalino )

It seems to me that Gilda has provided some "tangible" references, so I have formed an idea about the matter. Thank you

Just a note for Thallo, who seems too involved to me and whose speech seems more in defense of the "category" than anything else (not that this is wrong or doesn't deserve attention, on the contrary... I am very open) ...

thallo wrote:

I tend to always be a possibilist

... so it may apply to everyone, I don't know, but "possibilism" often seems like an "excuse" to me.

Ettore wrote:

Unfortunately, I didn't hear Bollani's program; I would like to know if he made mention of anything in particular that led him to the conclusion he described.

...imagine that...

Chopin wrote:

Just a note for Thallo, who seems too involved to me and whose argument seems more in defense of the "category" than anything else (not that this is wrong or doesn't deserve attention, on the contrary... I am very open) ...

I think you haven't read my comments well. Or, rather, you haven't understood them. Like Gilda.

Not a bad thing.

So I will answer your first question: was Chopin gay? No. No one was ever "gay" before the 20th century.

thallo wrote:

So I will answer your first question: was Chopin gay? No. No one was ever "gay" before the 20th century.

Great!

In fact...

thallo wrote:

What could Chopin's homosexuality "serve us" for?

sicurely to make 5 minutes of TV spectacle in late-night programming