Talk:Tytus Woyciechowski

Konstancja Gładkowska
The "Tytus Woyciechowski" article currently suggests that Chopin composed a waltz (which he was sending to Woyciechowski) for Woyciechowski, his supposed lover. This is incorrect.

On 3 October 1829 Chopin wrote Tytus Woyciechowski: "... I already, perhaps unfortunately, have my ideal [in the original Polish, ideał – 'person of one's dreams', whether male or female, as the case may be], whom I faithfully serve, without having spoken with her for half a year – whom I dream of, in whose memory arose the adagio of my concerto, and who this morning inspired this little waltz of mine which I am sending you." This fragment of Chopin's letter immediately follows his mention of another attractive young lady, who was unable to replace Konstancja Gładkowska in his affections. Alan Walker writes in his Fryderyk Chopin: A Life and Times (2018): "... This language [of Chopin's, elsewhere] is fankly erotic and it is fair to ask... whether there might have been a passing homosexual affair between Tytus and Chopin. We are much inclined to doubt it... Tytus [Woyciechowski] was... a reluctant recipient of overt declarations of love, as Chopin's side of the correspondence confirms. It seems far more likely that Chopin wrote these and similar passages in an exalted frame of mind when... he... gave free rein to his adolescent fantasies....

If Chopin's 'confession' to Tytus in October 1829 is to be taken at face value, the image of Konstancja [Gładkowska] could rarely have been absent from his thoughts during his six-week tour of Vienna, Prague, and Dresden made earlier in the year. By the time he had returned to Warsaw, in September 1829, with such accolades as 'pianist of the front rank' bestowed on him by the Viennese press, his position had been transformed. Yet his newfound confidence did not extend to his private life and he could not summon up the courage to declare himself to Konstancja." Nihil novi (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I have deleted the dubious assertion that Chopin composed a waltz (which he was sending to Woyciechowski) for Woyciechowski, Nihil novi (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Nihil novi, thank you for opening a discussion here. I‘m glad that you by deleting the quote put a light on the fact, that the last sentences of this letter are at least as important and clear. By deleting the quote, you hinted that is was incomplete. Thank you for your support. Please follow the link to the online version of the letter, it leads to the Chopin Institutes online archive, and you will see that Gładkowska is not mentioned in the letter at all.


 * "„I already, perhaps unfortunately, have my ideal, whom I faithfully serve, […] about whom I dream, [...] who this morning inspired the little waltz I am sending to you. Take note of one passage marked with a +. No one knows anything about this but you. How sweet it would be for me to play it for you, my dearest Tytus. In the trio, the bass line should dominate up to the high E flat of the upper keyboard in the 5th bar, about which it is unnecessary to write to you, because you feel it. […] Forgive me for sending you the waltz, […] but upon my word I wanted to give you pleasure with it, because I love you madly.“ Frédéric Chopin to Tytus Woyciechowski, 3.10.1829"


 * Would you agree, after having read the whole letter, that I put this important quote back into the article? Best, --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not think this quote proves anything one way or another. As WP is not based on primary sources such as this, it is necessary to find an opinion or opinions from reputable sources about what this quote may, or may not, imply. You are relying heavily on Frick's 'madly' which as I understand is not an unchallenged translation. The quote should not go into the article at this length or format, (or maybe also not in this translation) unless the meaning that Chip-chip-2020 wishes to impute to it can be appropriately justified on a WP:NPOV basis from secondary sources.--Smerus (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Smerus, you are right about Frick's translation, "madly", for Chopin's "szalenie". The Polish adverb simply means "very much", "terribly", or the like.
 * It's nothing like the "mad about the boy" associated with another pianist, Liberace.
 * The final sentence quoted by Chip-chip-2020 is incomprehensible, including the several words that he elides, expressing concern that Chopin's sending Woyciechowski the waltz might "make [Woyciechowski] angry at [Chopin]".
 * Nihil novi (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, loving someone terribly or very much or desperately is quite a statement, isn‘t it? Maybe that should be shown to the readers so that they can build their own opinion?--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Letter from Chopin
An editor is seeking to burden this article with a substantially WP:UNDUE extract, in a contestable translation, from a letter by Chopin which some  authorities feel (but others don't) shows that Chopin had homoerotic feelings towards TW. The letter may (or may not) show something about Chopin, but is no evidence of any feelings on TW's side. The article already refers to opinions that Chopin's correspondence may possibly show something of Chopin's erotic feelings, but there is no evidence that these were ever felt, or returned, by TW. The article is about TW, not about FC. I have thereore deleted these edits twice, and I now bring the matter to the talk page for discussion.--Smerus (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Another user has reverted two of your previous edits, which specifically addressed the topic mentioned above. In particular this bio article is about TW, for which there are no records of TW's correspondence to FC nor any documentation about TW's feelings. It is known that as an adult TW farmed his estate as a landed gentry, married and had several children. This WP:UNDUE excerpt has been used as coatrack material on FC's sexuality, already discussed at great length on WP:DRN and in an WP:RfC. It has been revert-warred into the article, with no explanation. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we should mention, and the readers should know that Chopin sent the waltz op. 70,3 to Woyciechowski together with the letter, in which he also gives more information about the interpretation.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Handwritten reply by Woyciechowski and Chopin Souvenirs owned by Woyciechowski
How about adding Woyciechowskis handwritten reply to Chopin’s dedication of the variations op.2? It‘s a rare document of Woyciechowski, since his letters to Chopin are said to have vanished.

He replied in his handwriting on the front page of the Variations „J’accepte avec plaisir“ („I accept with pleasure“). The autograph is at Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien and available online.

And Zofia Helman also gives more information about the personal souvenirs (memorabilia) in her new edition of Chopin’s letters. I think we should add this passage too, since there were important and special items like:


 * “a piano made by the Buchholtz company, on which Chopin played and composed, copies of his compositions (the piano Variations à quatre mains ending in a fugue, written on 17 pages, and a contredanse), Chopin's letters to Tytus Woyciechowski and a pen in the shape of a column, with a head and base in gold and a core in coloured mosaic. The base, decorated with T.W. initials, served at the same time as a seal. A card with Chopin's dedication lay in a special case.“ Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus, so I added it.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out that absence of response from other editors is not 'consensus' (see WP:DETCON). For what it is worth, imo the editing of this material by Mathsci is appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Question for administrator


--Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've answered this on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Chopin's correspondence
An editor is seeking consistently to add this article (imo) excessive citations, for sources which may not be considered reliable, relsting to corrspondence between Fredieric Chopin and Woychiechowski. The issue relates to some sentences in a letter from Chopin which contain references which can be costrued as homoerotic on Chopin's part, although the consensus of Chopin scholars is that this is, at best "not proven". Some of the above comments on this talk page relate to this. No evidence exists of any sort to suggest that Woychiechowski was homosexual at any time in his life. To stress Chopin's correspondnce with Woychiechowski in this article is WP:UNDUE and certainly not WP:NPOV. The issue of Chopin's homosexuality itself was addressed in an RfC at Frederic Chopin which editors are invited to consult. I should be glad of editors' opinions.--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Smerus, not ′excessive′ citations at all, just one vital quote, which even Walker quotes. There are different interpretations of their relationship, also different scholarly views, which means no concensus, as you can see in the sources you and your friends kept and keep deleting.      "I will go and wash. Don‘t kiss me now, because I haven‘t yet washed. You? Even if I were to rub myself with Byzantine oils, you still wouldn‘t kiss me, unless I compelled you to do so with magnetism. There is some sort of force in nature. Today you will dream that you‘re kissing me. I have to pay you back for the nasty dream you brought me last night."


 * Even the source you are constantly promoting the most, Zamoyski (which is a reissue of an old, non-scholarly book from 1979) writes that it can not be excluded they were a couple. No consensus means the different positions of the discourse, as well as it‘s discussed core, have to be shown well balanced in the article.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I regret this does not represent the situation accurately. This article is about Woychiechowski, not Chopin. Whether or not Chopin made a 'pass' in his letter to Woychiechowski, dwelling on the topic is WP:UNDUE in the WP article on the latter. There is absolutely no evidence of Woychiechowski's feelings on this issue or that the letter had any effect on his life and career whatsoever. The 'citations' given above are highly selective and most of them relate to newspaper article and radio shows which cannot be accredited as reputable secondary sources. Walker, Zamoyski and others quite correctyl sa(as one would expect of reputabel scholars) that possibilities cannot be ruled out. But WP does not deal in 'possibilities'; the fact reamins that there is no evidence of any homoertotic relationship between Chopin and Woychiechowski. The letter is disucssed with appropriate citations in the article Frédéric Chopin, where it may be held to be relevant. However there is no evidence that the letter provides any perspective on the life of Woychiechowski. There is therefore no reason to indulge in this WP:POINTy behaviour.--Smerus (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Fieari, there are many other quotes we could put into this article, which are cited in the sources above, and which also show directly or indirectly the relation between Chopin and Woyciechowski.
 * Improper RfC - An RfC shouldn't really be an invitation for everyone to jump in and join a long standing and multifaceted argument, it's a tool to nail down consensus on a single specific issue. I recommend closing this RfC, and if necessary, distilling it down to a single actionable closed-ended question, and trying again. But glancing at the discussion, the dispute at hand doesn't seem like a good fit for the RfC process.  A question of "should this article have citations?" is moot-- of course it should.  "Is this {one specific reference} a useful reference for this article?" is too narrow for the dispute you're having, as you seem to be arguing about dozens of citations. Maybe a WP:3o would fit your needs better? Fieari (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Due to being busy I have been putting off discussing the RfC. I removed the RfC template and took out "RfC" from the heading. Please start a new section with a new RfC. It should start with a simple question and your signature, with no mention of the history or anything else. The question might have a diff of text being added with a question like "Should this article include the text quoted in [diff]?". There might be a following ===Background=== section with a link to the Chopin RfC and any other prior discussions. Don't mention editors. Then ===Survey=== and ===Discussion=== sections. Your view and supporting arguments would be first under Survey. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"I say to the piano what I often would have told you."

"As always, even now, I carry your letters with me. How blissful it will it be for me, having gone beyond the city walls in May, thinking about my approaching journey, to pull out a letter of yours and assure myself sincerely that you love me, or at least to gaze at the hand and the writing of him, whom only I am able to love!"

"I tell you sincerely that it is pleasant to recall all of this. Your fields left in me some sort of longing; that birch under the windows just will not leave my memory. That crossbow! How romantic it all was! I remember that crossbow, with which you really wore me out - for all my sins."

"I'm glad that the secret is submerged in my heart, that in me is the end of what is for you the beginning. And be glad that you have in me an abyss into which you can cast everything without fear - as if into a second self - because your spirit has long lain there at the very bottom. I keep your letters like a ribbon from a mistress. I have the ribbon; write to me, Ill write you caressing words again in a week."

"Give me a kiss, dearest lover. Im certain that you still love me, and I fear you always, like some tyrant over me. I don't know why, but I fear you. Upon my word, only you have power over me, you and.….. no one else."

2-3 of these quotes could be sufficient. The one about Poturzyn would fit perfectly, since it describes actions of Woyciechowski, the one with the letters proves that there were letters from Woyciechowski. Some of the sources I provided above are from scholars (f.e. pizà, brug), and articles in quality-media are not per se unreliable, especially when they contain relevant quotes by scholars, like the one from the spokesman of the Chopin Institute in Warsaw. Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Just something to consider: Already F. Niecks (1902) seems to have been aware of the importance of this relationship - at his time, of course, it was not possible to speak it out loud. Still, his words are very telling, and of course the quotes he picked too:


 * „Did we not know the writer and the person addressed, one might imagine that the two next extracts were written by a lover to his mistress or vice versa.

November 14th, 1829.—You, my dearest one, do not require my  portrait. Believe me I am always with you, and shall not forget you till the end of my life.

May 15th, 1830.—You have no idea how much I love you! If I  only could prove it to you! What would I not give if I could once again right heartily embrace you!”
 * Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Smerus, Fieari, so I‘ll put in 2-3 quotes as nobody disagrees.Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Abort and launch a well-definied RfC please. This content is nonsense, and no resolution will come from a diffuse yet strangely insistent discussion thread such as this one. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)