![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Tadeusz Witold Szulc, znany również jako Tad Szulc (ur. 25 lipca 1926 w Warszawie, zm. 21 maja 2001 w Waszyngtonie) – amerykański dziennikarz polskiego pochodzenia
-- Frania W. ( talk) 00:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the Polish Wikipedia made a mistake — which the English Wikipedia has avoided — in placing a nationality in the lead. Probably the Poles found Szulc's "American" status too impressive to pass over in their lead. Since, however, Szulc's highest formal recognition was granted by the French (the Légion d'honneur), the Poles should instead have called him French. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
What I find interesting with Tad Szulc is that I believe he could turn out to be the secondary source I have been looking for, even if I do not agree with something he said, because, in the end, we both arrive at the same conclusion, and while my argumentation is rejected, his is accepted - because published in a book form:
I brought to the discussion three documents taken from Langavant's article on Chopin's French nationality: Chopin's baptism register with mention that his father was French; Chopin's 1837 French passport & article 10 of the 1804 Code Napoléon declaring that a child born outside of France from a French father is French.
These three pieces proving that Chopin is French are unwikipediable because of Wikipedia "rules & regulations" that demand from contributors that they use secondary, not primary, sources.
Let's drop the baptism register & the Code Napoléon, and look into the passport issue:
- where Tad Szulc writes that Chopin obtained a French passport after becoming a French citizen, I say that Chopin obtained a French passport because he was French (the famous Code).
Now, Tad Szulc & I are in disagreement only on that point, but we both agree that Chopin got a French passport because he was French: born French vs naturalised, but French nonetheless.
Accordingly, if we drop my questionable proofs & use Tad Szulc written & published affirmations, what are we left with?
-A French Chopin!
Tad Szulc own words in article at Paris section [4]:
Although Mr. Szulc is only guessing the reason why Chopin became French in order to avoid having to renew his Russian passport at the Russian Embassy in Paris, while I say that Chopin did not have to "become" French because he was born French, the fact is that we both agree that Chopin got a French passport. Mr. Szulc is a respected writer & his book a valid verifiable secondary source, in which he wrote: Four years later, Frédéric became a French citizen.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 04:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Going back to margin as on my screen the discussion is at almost one word per line...
Any Pole in the situation of Frédéric Chopin, i.e. born in Poland of French parents as is mentioned on Chopin's French paasport, any such Pole would have been treated exactly as Chopin was, issued a French passport. For the others, they would have had to renew their Russian passport or register with the French government as refugees, which is what Chopin's father was writing to him in his September 1834 letter.
As for Sean Lennon, I am not getting into his case as the case of Frédéric Chopin is taking much of my time and, when it's over, I shall sit to a cup of tea, if there is any left in the teapot, although I think that I will more likely have a glass of champagne.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 12:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
English translation in italics after each paragraph:
Nationalité de Chopin
2 ) En ce qui concerne la nationalité, celle-ci est accordée par l’état en fonction de deux considérations possibles :
Chopin's nationality:
2) In regards nationality, it is granted by the State according to two possible considerations:
Autrefois, dans le Code Napoléon de 1804. seule comptait l'acquisition par le sang, car le « jus soli » ne sera reconnu qu'à l'époque récente dans notre Droit ( 1945 ).
In the past, in the 1804
Code Napoléon, only that acquired by the blood, because "jus soli" will be recognized only in 1945 in our Right law (French Civil Code)
Lors d'un voyage de CHOPIN a Londres, celui-ci obtint, le 7 juillet 1837. un passeport délivré par les autorités françaises. On y lit qu'il a les « yeux gris-bleus » ( ce qui est pour le moins inattendu, si l'on songe au portrait du compositeur par DELACROIX ), et ce passeport porte la mention « issu de parents français ».
For a trip he was to undertake to London, CHOPIN obtained a passport delivered by the French authorities on 7 July 1837. One can read that he had "gray-blue eyes" (which is rather unexpected if we think of Delacroix’s portrait of the composer), and this passport bears the mention “born of French parents”.
Il a été prétendu que CHOPIN avait, par cette indication, tenté d'esquiver le contrôle de la Police sur le voyage d'un étranger, d'un émigré polonais suspect d'antipathie contre le Tsar.
It has been alleged that CHOPIN had, by that indication, attempted to avoid Police control on the trip journey to a foreign country, by a Polish émigré antipathetic suspected of antipathy to the Tsar.
En fait ce passeport décrit l'exact état de Droit.
In fact, this passport describes exactly the State of Right (state of the law) .
Le Code Civil confère à la condition masculine une force attractive, quant à la nationalité.
The Civil Code awards the masculine condition an attractive force as far as nationality is concerned.
art. 10 : « Tout enfant né d'un Français à l'étranger est Français ».
Article 10 : « Any child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French.. »
Or, l'acte de baptême de Frédéric-François CHOPIN ( qui fera toujours figurer les deux F dans sa signature ) mentionne qu'il est né du sieur Nicolas CHOPPEN ( sic ), Français ( « Gali », dans le texte rédigé en latin ).
Now, the baptismal certificate of Frédéric-François Chopin (who will always show both F in his signature) mentions that he is born of Sire [Mr. ?] ("sieur" is either '"sire" or modern "Mr.") Nicolas CHOPPEN (sic), [a ?] French[man] (“Gali”, in the text redacted written in Latin. (FW's comment: a misspelling of "Galli" -from "Gallus"-, it should have two *l*)
« Je, susnommé Jozef MORAWSKI. vicaire de la Paroisse de Brochow, ai accompli la cérémonie du baptême sur un enfant ondoyé sous le double prénom de Frédéric-François, né le 22 février du sieur Nicolas CHOPPEN, Français, et de dame Justyna née KRYZANOWSKA, époux légitimes. Parrain et Marraine : le sieur Francis-zek GREMBECKI, du village de Cépliny et la gracieuse demoiselle Anna SKARBEK, comtesse de Zelazowa-Wola ».
« I, the above-mentioned above-named Jozef MORAWSKI, vicary vicar? curate? (FW's comment: "vicaire" in French translation, checking in dictionary, "vicaire" is the "curate of a parish") in the Parish of Brochow, have accomplished the baptism ceremony on a child baptised under the double first names of Frédéric-François, born on 22 February of to sire [Mr. ?] Nicolas CHOPPEN, French, and of to dame [Mrs. ?] (this was written at the beginning of the 19th century not in modern US) Justyna née KRYZANOWSKA, legitimate spouses. Godfather and Godmother: sire [Mr. ?] Franciszek GREMBECKI, from the village of Cépliny and gracious demoiselle [Miss ?] Anna SKARBEK, countess of Zelazowa Wola.” (FW's comment: I consider the question for having left sire dame demoiselle instead of putting the modern Mr. Mrs. Miss as having no significance vis-à-vis the problem we are trying to resolve.)
On observera que les actes de baptême des filles ne comportent pas cette mention de nationalité, que Nicolas a estimé par contre importante dans l'acte d'un garçon.
It must be observed that the daughters’ baptisms do not make mention of nationality, which Nicolas estimated regarded, on the other hand, [however, as ?] (my choice of words as good as yours) important in the certificate of a boy.
La nationalité de la mère importe peu, et ce d'autant plus que l'article 12 déclare :
- « L'étrangère qui a épousé un Français suivra la condition de son mari », de sorte que Justyna KRYZANOWSKA. par son mariage à Brochow, en 1806 avec Nicolas CHOPIN, changeait ipso facto de nationalité. Frédéric est donc bien issu de deux parents français.
The nationality of the mother has little importance, and this, more especially, since Article 12 declares :
The foreign woman who has married a Frenchman will follow her husband’s condition”, so that Justyna KRYZANOWSKA, by her marriage to Nicolas CHOPIN, in Brochow, in 1806, changed ipso facto of nationality. Frédéric is thus issued of [the issue of ?] = born of two French parents.
Mais, n'y avait-il pas lieu à double nationalité, du fait de la naissance de CHOPIN sur le territoire polonais ? Non, puisque, nous l'avons dit, le « jus soli » n'est pas reconnu à l'époque, et que, de surcroît, le Droit qui s'applique au Grand-Duché de Varsovie où résidait Nicolas, n'est autre que le Code civil français !
But, was not this a case of double nationality, by the fact that CHOPIN was born on Polish territory ? No, because, we said, that the "jus soli" was not recognised at the time, and that, the Right (Law) that was applied to the Duchy of Warsaw where Nicolas lived was none other than the French Civil Code.
En effet, conformément au Traité de Tilsitt du 7 juillet 1807, scellant pour un temps la paix entre ALEXANDRE de Russie et NAPOLEON 1er, la Prusse, démantelée, cédait le Grand-Duché de Varsovie à Frédéric-Auguste de Saxe.
Indeed, in conformity with the Treaty of Tilsitt of 7 July 1807, sealing for a time the peace between ALEXANDER of Russia and NAPOLEON I, Prussia, dismantled, ceded the Duchy of Warsaw to Frederick-August of Saxony.
De Dresde, NAPOLEON octroyait au Grand-Duché, le 22 juillet, un statut constitutionnel publié au Moniteur de l’empire du 6 août suivant, et surtout, il y introduisait le récent Code civil français !
From Dresden, on 22 July, NAPOLEON granted the Duchy a constitutional statute published in the Moniteur de l’empire the following 6 August, and moreover, he was inserting into it the recent French Civil Code!
Cet ensemble politico-juridique avait pour effet de faire renaître un embryon de Pologne, certes bien en-deçà des espoirs que les Polonais plaçaient en NAPOLEON, mais qui les conduisit à le soutenir de plus belle ( attitude illustrée par la mort du Maréchal PONIATOWSKI à la bataille de Leipzig ) et. d'autre part, de redonner aux Polonais une nationalité certes, mais fondée sur les dispositions du Code Napoléon.
This politico-juridico ensemble had for effect to give birth to an embryo of Poland, assuredly well within the hopes the Poles were placing in NAPOLEON, but which made them support him even more (an attitude illustrated by the death of Marshal PONIATOWSKI at the battle of Leipzig) and, on the other hand, indeed, gave the Poles a nationality, but founded on the dispositions of the Napoléon Code.
Full text at
http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin6.htm
Copyright © Benoit Musslin - DIAPH16 photo - Mons en Baroeul
-- Frania W. ( talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hope you excuse an accidental visitor for interfering into the dicussion. The analysis of the situation from French legal point of view seems correct, but is it relevant enough?
1. French legal system was not the only legal system under which Chopin's family lived. Would autorities of Congress Poland consider young Frederic a Frenchmen, i.e. a foreigner when he studied in Warsaw in 1820s? Why their legal point of view is not taken into the analysys? Was France the only country in Europe having some kind of law, or is French law somehow special?
2. Legal definition of nationality was defineently not the only one, or even not the most important for people of early 19th century Europe. There was no German state back then, yet somehow some people were defining themselves and were defined by others as Germans
3. So far you proved Chopin was probably considered egligible for French citizenship ("French") by French authorities of the era.
4. Yet this fact is definetly not the only one defining his nationality, and the question remains whether it is important enough to describe it as 'Polish-French' or similar
5. In other words the major problem here seems to be relevance, not factuality
I will put something to that effect, which, no doubt will be reverted by the "Polish-Pole only" Chopin Society as soon as it appears. The fact that something "is not currently the prevailing view in the world" has always puzzled me & brings to my mind the historical time of
Galileo & the
Inquisition. How wrong was he & how right they were!
I am also puzzled by the fact that Wikipedia has no problem recognising without the batting of an eye the nationality of other individuals born outside of France of a French father as having the nationality of the country of their birth and that of France, for instance:
or:
In the above two cases, what permits us to say that Alfred Cortot is "Franco-Swiss" and Marie Curie of "Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship"? Is anyone fighting tooth & nail to make Alfred Cortot only Swiss? In both cases, should not a "reference needed" be attached to such statements? Because we are taking for granted that Alfred Cortot was "Franco-Swiss" & the "subsequent French citizenship" of Mme Curie - not a single footnote to that effect.
To summarize, why such resistance recognising Chopin's French nationality when autommatically granted to others in similar circumstances? -
Alfred Cortot: the reality of the fact that permits Wikipedia to say that he was Franco-Swiss is that tiny little sentence in the Code Napoléon: "A child born outside of France of a French father is French."
Another splendid example:
What exactly, with no source - primary, secondary or tertiary - no explicative footnote, no mention of ever obtaining French citizenship and, aside from "the prevailing view in the world", allows Wikipedia to state that Guillaume Apollinaire was French?
-- Frania W. ( talk) 13:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Nationality is a curious concept. It is not synonymous with citizenship. The lead of the English Wikipedia article on Albert Einstein gives no nationality or citizenship. Einstein was German by birth; as a teen, he renounced German citizenship in order not to serve in the military. He became a Swiss citizen, and later lived again and worked in Germany. After Nazism came to power, he moved to the United States and eventually became an American citizen. He was of Jewish descent and, though nonobservant, came to feel an increasing kinship, the more the Jews were persecuted.
Einstein wrote in 1918: "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever."
Einstein also commented wryly: "If my theory of relativity proves to be correct, Germany will claim me a German, and France will claim me a citizen of the world. However, if it proves wrong, France will say I’m a German, and Germany will say that I’m a Jew." [6]
Einstein said: "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." [7]
Einstein is difficult to pin down to a nationality not only because he spent substantial periods in various countries, but because he felt no need for a nationality. If he had a spiritual homeland, it was physics, which knows no nationality.
Why might the same not be said of Chopin? His principal domain of activity was music. The difference, though, is that Chopin's music is perceived universally as a Polish music. He is, indeed, credited with having invented national music. According to the Wikipedia Chopin article:
Zdzisław Jachimecki notes that "Chopin at every step demonstrated his Polish spirit — in the hundreds of letters that he wrote in Polish, in his attitude to Paris' [Polish] émigrés, in his negative view of all that bore the official stamp of the powers that occupied Poland." Likewise Chopin composed music to accompany Polish texts but never musically illustrated a single French or German text, even though he numbered among his friends several great French and German poets.
According to Arthur Hedley, Chopin "found within himself and in the tragic story of Poland the chief sources of his inspiration. The theme of Poland's glories and sufferings was constantly before him, and he transmuted the primitive rhythms and melodies of his youth into enduring art forms."
In asserting his own Polishness, Chopin, according to Jachimecki, exerted "a tremendous influence [toward] the nationalization of the work of numerous later composers, who have often personally — like the Czech, Smetana and Norway's Grieg — confirmed this opinion..."
That is why the world regards Chopin as Polish, and that is why he must be so described in the lead of the " Chopin" article. Citizenship and passports really have nothing to do with it. In his lifetime, there was no sovereign Poland on the map of Europe; yet Chopin was a Pole, first, last and always. Nihil novi ( talk) 01:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Met an edit conflict with the abov:
I would be the last person in the world to deny Chopin his "Polishness"; by the same token, I do not want his "Frenchness" to be denied.
Yes, many Poles lived in France at the time Chopin did but, unless they were also born of a French father, they had to register as political refugees. At one time in their life, they may also have returned to Poland and some of them may even have ended as "political refugees" in that part of the world [9]. So, I would not make light of Chopin's "French papers", which may have spared him such a tragic end. -- Frania W. ( talk) 04:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Assuming the criterion of civil codes in assigning nationality, and assuming that citizens of the Congress Kingdom of Poland traveled on Imperial Russian passports (is that accurate?), then why not compromise and call Chopin "French-Russian" (assuming that both countries recognized dual citizenship)? Nihil novi ( talk) 04:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that the discussion on the francization of Chopin is still in progress, unfortunately I don't see any new interesting argument(s). But well something interesting did emerge in the discussion (thanks Frania) and namely the fact that Maria Skłodowska is called Marie Curie on wikipedia. I propose to change that as soon as possible. In my opinion the francization doesn't make too much sense, I mean one can still understand that "Napoleone Buonaparte" became "Napoleon Bonaparte", but come on "Marie Curie" is a bit too much. Let's use correct names please, it will improve the accuracy of wikipedia. Dr. Loosmark 02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting that Marie Skłodowska-Curie comes up (I'd prefer her article use the name I just did but it seems that WP policy is against me on that one). She is described as "of Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship." I wonder if this might be the solution for Chopin. It is not quite factually correct (Chopin had French citizenship from birth) but might be a compromise position. Any thoughts? Varsovian ( talk) 08:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
(od) Nice try Nihil, but the Basque analogy doesn't apply to this case. Read up on Gorals, they also span different geographical areas. One can easily understand that a Goral born in Poland would be Polish, and one born in Ukraine or Slovakia wouldn't be Polish. If Ravels mother was of "Basque" descent, or later lived in Shanghai or Madrid, is of little importance. If I'm not mistaken, the Nazis tried to make Chopin "one of their own", by asserting that Nicholas Chopin was from Alsace-Lorraine (which by the way he was). Quit bouncing around other articles on Wikipedia and concerning yourself about what other Wikipedia articles are "holding off" on. Please see my new thread below and kindly state your opinion as to whether that will work or not. Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Had the Polish-born Mlle Justyna Krzyżanowska married someone other than the French, Sieur Nicolas Chopin, the Polish composer Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin would not have been born.
Put more simply: Justyna Krzyżanowska + Nicolas Chopin = Fryderyk Franciszek/Frédéric François Chopin
-- Frania W. ( talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we agree on the sentence suggested by
Dr. Dan & close this discussion? :
Please note that not putting "Polish-French" is a big concession on my part, but with the lead sentence containing the "Polish-French descent", this may be a way to reach a consensus.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Nihil novi, we are trying to reach consensus, not start the discussion all over again on a new tangent, as you are trying to lead us on the Basque path with Ravel. Consensus may not be a cup of tea to everyone's taste, but it is a drinkable cup of tea. What's wrong with "Polish-born". If it ruffles your feathers to the point that only "Polish" satisfies you, then "Polish only" will ruffle the feathers of those who know that Chopin was also "French". So far, you have not only refused to admit that Frédéric Chopin was (legally) French, but you have tried to demonstrate that Nicolas Chopin was not, had never been, or had somehow lost his French nationality through the maze of Poland's complicated political situation(s). We have come to the point where we must opt for a solution, hopefully reaching consensus on what the consensus should be. -- Frania W. ( talk) 12:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Cutting to the chase, other than it being suggested my me, what are the objections to this simplified solution? It's factual, not original research, and covers all of the bases and should suffice to not offend anyone's sensibilities. Focus on that, please, like a laser. Comments? Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
In the English language, "Polish born" means "born in Poland." It implies nothing else. "Polish born" doesn't even mean "born Polish," that would be "of Polish descent." The expression "Polish-born" doesn't imply that someone became less or more Polish later. It doesn't even imply that he or she necessarily is Polish, it simply means born in Poland. See http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/born If this silly talk about nothing continues, then the sentence should be cut to "Chopin was a composer and virtuoso pianist." The argument that Poland did not exist during Chopin's birth would be hotly contested. Just because a country is occupied by another power, the country doesn't cease to exist. At least not for a while.-- BsBsBs ( talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Could I just make the point that Encyclopaedia Britannica or any other source that describes him as "Polish-French" may simply be referring to his long residence in France and his having adopted French citizenship, rather than referring to any nationality he may have had at birth. Had Chopin spent his whole life in and around Warsaw except for occasional concertising abroad, I very much doubt anyone would ever call him "Polish-French" just because of his father's original citizenship. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Tadeusz Witold Szulc, znany również jako Tad Szulc (ur. 25 lipca 1926 w Warszawie, zm. 21 maja 2001 w Waszyngtonie) – amerykański dziennikarz polskiego pochodzenia
-- Frania W. ( talk) 00:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the Polish Wikipedia made a mistake — which the English Wikipedia has avoided — in placing a nationality in the lead. Probably the Poles found Szulc's "American" status too impressive to pass over in their lead. Since, however, Szulc's highest formal recognition was granted by the French (the Légion d'honneur), the Poles should instead have called him French. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
What I find interesting with Tad Szulc is that I believe he could turn out to be the secondary source I have been looking for, even if I do not agree with something he said, because, in the end, we both arrive at the same conclusion, and while my argumentation is rejected, his is accepted - because published in a book form:
I brought to the discussion three documents taken from Langavant's article on Chopin's French nationality: Chopin's baptism register with mention that his father was French; Chopin's 1837 French passport & article 10 of the 1804 Code Napoléon declaring that a child born outside of France from a French father is French.
These three pieces proving that Chopin is French are unwikipediable because of Wikipedia "rules & regulations" that demand from contributors that they use secondary, not primary, sources.
Let's drop the baptism register & the Code Napoléon, and look into the passport issue:
- where Tad Szulc writes that Chopin obtained a French passport after becoming a French citizen, I say that Chopin obtained a French passport because he was French (the famous Code).
Now, Tad Szulc & I are in disagreement only on that point, but we both agree that Chopin got a French passport because he was French: born French vs naturalised, but French nonetheless.
Accordingly, if we drop my questionable proofs & use Tad Szulc written & published affirmations, what are we left with?
-A French Chopin!
Tad Szulc own words in article at Paris section [4]:
Although Mr. Szulc is only guessing the reason why Chopin became French in order to avoid having to renew his Russian passport at the Russian Embassy in Paris, while I say that Chopin did not have to "become" French because he was born French, the fact is that we both agree that Chopin got a French passport. Mr. Szulc is a respected writer & his book a valid verifiable secondary source, in which he wrote: Four years later, Frédéric became a French citizen.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 04:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Going back to margin as on my screen the discussion is at almost one word per line...
Any Pole in the situation of Frédéric Chopin, i.e. born in Poland of French parents as is mentioned on Chopin's French paasport, any such Pole would have been treated exactly as Chopin was, issued a French passport. For the others, they would have had to renew their Russian passport or register with the French government as refugees, which is what Chopin's father was writing to him in his September 1834 letter.
As for Sean Lennon, I am not getting into his case as the case of Frédéric Chopin is taking much of my time and, when it's over, I shall sit to a cup of tea, if there is any left in the teapot, although I think that I will more likely have a glass of champagne.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 12:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
English translation in italics after each paragraph:
Nationalité de Chopin
2 ) En ce qui concerne la nationalité, celle-ci est accordée par l’état en fonction de deux considérations possibles :
Chopin's nationality:
2) In regards nationality, it is granted by the State according to two possible considerations:
Autrefois, dans le Code Napoléon de 1804. seule comptait l'acquisition par le sang, car le « jus soli » ne sera reconnu qu'à l'époque récente dans notre Droit ( 1945 ).
In the past, in the 1804
Code Napoléon, only that acquired by the blood, because "jus soli" will be recognized only in 1945 in our Right law (French Civil Code)
Lors d'un voyage de CHOPIN a Londres, celui-ci obtint, le 7 juillet 1837. un passeport délivré par les autorités françaises. On y lit qu'il a les « yeux gris-bleus » ( ce qui est pour le moins inattendu, si l'on songe au portrait du compositeur par DELACROIX ), et ce passeport porte la mention « issu de parents français ».
For a trip he was to undertake to London, CHOPIN obtained a passport delivered by the French authorities on 7 July 1837. One can read that he had "gray-blue eyes" (which is rather unexpected if we think of Delacroix’s portrait of the composer), and this passport bears the mention “born of French parents”.
Il a été prétendu que CHOPIN avait, par cette indication, tenté d'esquiver le contrôle de la Police sur le voyage d'un étranger, d'un émigré polonais suspect d'antipathie contre le Tsar.
It has been alleged that CHOPIN had, by that indication, attempted to avoid Police control on the trip journey to a foreign country, by a Polish émigré antipathetic suspected of antipathy to the Tsar.
En fait ce passeport décrit l'exact état de Droit.
In fact, this passport describes exactly the State of Right (state of the law) .
Le Code Civil confère à la condition masculine une force attractive, quant à la nationalité.
The Civil Code awards the masculine condition an attractive force as far as nationality is concerned.
art. 10 : « Tout enfant né d'un Français à l'étranger est Français ».
Article 10 : « Any child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French.. »
Or, l'acte de baptême de Frédéric-François CHOPIN ( qui fera toujours figurer les deux F dans sa signature ) mentionne qu'il est né du sieur Nicolas CHOPPEN ( sic ), Français ( « Gali », dans le texte rédigé en latin ).
Now, the baptismal certificate of Frédéric-François Chopin (who will always show both F in his signature) mentions that he is born of Sire [Mr. ?] ("sieur" is either '"sire" or modern "Mr.") Nicolas CHOPPEN (sic), [a ?] French[man] (“Gali”, in the text redacted written in Latin. (FW's comment: a misspelling of "Galli" -from "Gallus"-, it should have two *l*)
« Je, susnommé Jozef MORAWSKI. vicaire de la Paroisse de Brochow, ai accompli la cérémonie du baptême sur un enfant ondoyé sous le double prénom de Frédéric-François, né le 22 février du sieur Nicolas CHOPPEN, Français, et de dame Justyna née KRYZANOWSKA, époux légitimes. Parrain et Marraine : le sieur Francis-zek GREMBECKI, du village de Cépliny et la gracieuse demoiselle Anna SKARBEK, comtesse de Zelazowa-Wola ».
« I, the above-mentioned above-named Jozef MORAWSKI, vicary vicar? curate? (FW's comment: "vicaire" in French translation, checking in dictionary, "vicaire" is the "curate of a parish") in the Parish of Brochow, have accomplished the baptism ceremony on a child baptised under the double first names of Frédéric-François, born on 22 February of to sire [Mr. ?] Nicolas CHOPPEN, French, and of to dame [Mrs. ?] (this was written at the beginning of the 19th century not in modern US) Justyna née KRYZANOWSKA, legitimate spouses. Godfather and Godmother: sire [Mr. ?] Franciszek GREMBECKI, from the village of Cépliny and gracious demoiselle [Miss ?] Anna SKARBEK, countess of Zelazowa Wola.” (FW's comment: I consider the question for having left sire dame demoiselle instead of putting the modern Mr. Mrs. Miss as having no significance vis-à-vis the problem we are trying to resolve.)
On observera que les actes de baptême des filles ne comportent pas cette mention de nationalité, que Nicolas a estimé par contre importante dans l'acte d'un garçon.
It must be observed that the daughters’ baptisms do not make mention of nationality, which Nicolas estimated regarded, on the other hand, [however, as ?] (my choice of words as good as yours) important in the certificate of a boy.
La nationalité de la mère importe peu, et ce d'autant plus que l'article 12 déclare :
- « L'étrangère qui a épousé un Français suivra la condition de son mari », de sorte que Justyna KRYZANOWSKA. par son mariage à Brochow, en 1806 avec Nicolas CHOPIN, changeait ipso facto de nationalité. Frédéric est donc bien issu de deux parents français.
The nationality of the mother has little importance, and this, more especially, since Article 12 declares :
The foreign woman who has married a Frenchman will follow her husband’s condition”, so that Justyna KRYZANOWSKA, by her marriage to Nicolas CHOPIN, in Brochow, in 1806, changed ipso facto of nationality. Frédéric is thus issued of [the issue of ?] = born of two French parents.
Mais, n'y avait-il pas lieu à double nationalité, du fait de la naissance de CHOPIN sur le territoire polonais ? Non, puisque, nous l'avons dit, le « jus soli » n'est pas reconnu à l'époque, et que, de surcroît, le Droit qui s'applique au Grand-Duché de Varsovie où résidait Nicolas, n'est autre que le Code civil français !
But, was not this a case of double nationality, by the fact that CHOPIN was born on Polish territory ? No, because, we said, that the "jus soli" was not recognised at the time, and that, the Right (Law) that was applied to the Duchy of Warsaw where Nicolas lived was none other than the French Civil Code.
En effet, conformément au Traité de Tilsitt du 7 juillet 1807, scellant pour un temps la paix entre ALEXANDRE de Russie et NAPOLEON 1er, la Prusse, démantelée, cédait le Grand-Duché de Varsovie à Frédéric-Auguste de Saxe.
Indeed, in conformity with the Treaty of Tilsitt of 7 July 1807, sealing for a time the peace between ALEXANDER of Russia and NAPOLEON I, Prussia, dismantled, ceded the Duchy of Warsaw to Frederick-August of Saxony.
De Dresde, NAPOLEON octroyait au Grand-Duché, le 22 juillet, un statut constitutionnel publié au Moniteur de l’empire du 6 août suivant, et surtout, il y introduisait le récent Code civil français !
From Dresden, on 22 July, NAPOLEON granted the Duchy a constitutional statute published in the Moniteur de l’empire the following 6 August, and moreover, he was inserting into it the recent French Civil Code!
Cet ensemble politico-juridique avait pour effet de faire renaître un embryon de Pologne, certes bien en-deçà des espoirs que les Polonais plaçaient en NAPOLEON, mais qui les conduisit à le soutenir de plus belle ( attitude illustrée par la mort du Maréchal PONIATOWSKI à la bataille de Leipzig ) et. d'autre part, de redonner aux Polonais une nationalité certes, mais fondée sur les dispositions du Code Napoléon.
This politico-juridico ensemble had for effect to give birth to an embryo of Poland, assuredly well within the hopes the Poles were placing in NAPOLEON, but which made them support him even more (an attitude illustrated by the death of Marshal PONIATOWSKI at the battle of Leipzig) and, on the other hand, indeed, gave the Poles a nationality, but founded on the dispositions of the Napoléon Code.
Full text at
http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin6.htm
Copyright © Benoit Musslin - DIAPH16 photo - Mons en Baroeul
-- Frania W. ( talk) 00:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hope you excuse an accidental visitor for interfering into the dicussion. The analysis of the situation from French legal point of view seems correct, but is it relevant enough?
1. French legal system was not the only legal system under which Chopin's family lived. Would autorities of Congress Poland consider young Frederic a Frenchmen, i.e. a foreigner when he studied in Warsaw in 1820s? Why their legal point of view is not taken into the analysys? Was France the only country in Europe having some kind of law, or is French law somehow special?
2. Legal definition of nationality was defineently not the only one, or even not the most important for people of early 19th century Europe. There was no German state back then, yet somehow some people were defining themselves and were defined by others as Germans
3. So far you proved Chopin was probably considered egligible for French citizenship ("French") by French authorities of the era.
4. Yet this fact is definetly not the only one defining his nationality, and the question remains whether it is important enough to describe it as 'Polish-French' or similar
5. In other words the major problem here seems to be relevance, not factuality
I will put something to that effect, which, no doubt will be reverted by the "Polish-Pole only" Chopin Society as soon as it appears. The fact that something "is not currently the prevailing view in the world" has always puzzled me & brings to my mind the historical time of
Galileo & the
Inquisition. How wrong was he & how right they were!
I am also puzzled by the fact that Wikipedia has no problem recognising without the batting of an eye the nationality of other individuals born outside of France of a French father as having the nationality of the country of their birth and that of France, for instance:
or:
In the above two cases, what permits us to say that Alfred Cortot is "Franco-Swiss" and Marie Curie of "Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship"? Is anyone fighting tooth & nail to make Alfred Cortot only Swiss? In both cases, should not a "reference needed" be attached to such statements? Because we are taking for granted that Alfred Cortot was "Franco-Swiss" & the "subsequent French citizenship" of Mme Curie - not a single footnote to that effect.
To summarize, why such resistance recognising Chopin's French nationality when autommatically granted to others in similar circumstances? -
Alfred Cortot: the reality of the fact that permits Wikipedia to say that he was Franco-Swiss is that tiny little sentence in the Code Napoléon: "A child born outside of France of a French father is French."
Another splendid example:
What exactly, with no source - primary, secondary or tertiary - no explicative footnote, no mention of ever obtaining French citizenship and, aside from "the prevailing view in the world", allows Wikipedia to state that Guillaume Apollinaire was French?
-- Frania W. ( talk) 13:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Nationality is a curious concept. It is not synonymous with citizenship. The lead of the English Wikipedia article on Albert Einstein gives no nationality or citizenship. Einstein was German by birth; as a teen, he renounced German citizenship in order not to serve in the military. He became a Swiss citizen, and later lived again and worked in Germany. After Nazism came to power, he moved to the United States and eventually became an American citizen. He was of Jewish descent and, though nonobservant, came to feel an increasing kinship, the more the Jews were persecuted.
Einstein wrote in 1918: "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever."
Einstein also commented wryly: "If my theory of relativity proves to be correct, Germany will claim me a German, and France will claim me a citizen of the world. However, if it proves wrong, France will say I’m a German, and Germany will say that I’m a Jew." [6]
Einstein said: "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." [7]
Einstein is difficult to pin down to a nationality not only because he spent substantial periods in various countries, but because he felt no need for a nationality. If he had a spiritual homeland, it was physics, which knows no nationality.
Why might the same not be said of Chopin? His principal domain of activity was music. The difference, though, is that Chopin's music is perceived universally as a Polish music. He is, indeed, credited with having invented national music. According to the Wikipedia Chopin article:
Zdzisław Jachimecki notes that "Chopin at every step demonstrated his Polish spirit — in the hundreds of letters that he wrote in Polish, in his attitude to Paris' [Polish] émigrés, in his negative view of all that bore the official stamp of the powers that occupied Poland." Likewise Chopin composed music to accompany Polish texts but never musically illustrated a single French or German text, even though he numbered among his friends several great French and German poets.
According to Arthur Hedley, Chopin "found within himself and in the tragic story of Poland the chief sources of his inspiration. The theme of Poland's glories and sufferings was constantly before him, and he transmuted the primitive rhythms and melodies of his youth into enduring art forms."
In asserting his own Polishness, Chopin, according to Jachimecki, exerted "a tremendous influence [toward] the nationalization of the work of numerous later composers, who have often personally — like the Czech, Smetana and Norway's Grieg — confirmed this opinion..."
That is why the world regards Chopin as Polish, and that is why he must be so described in the lead of the " Chopin" article. Citizenship and passports really have nothing to do with it. In his lifetime, there was no sovereign Poland on the map of Europe; yet Chopin was a Pole, first, last and always. Nihil novi ( talk) 01:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Met an edit conflict with the abov:
I would be the last person in the world to deny Chopin his "Polishness"; by the same token, I do not want his "Frenchness" to be denied.
Yes, many Poles lived in France at the time Chopin did but, unless they were also born of a French father, they had to register as political refugees. At one time in their life, they may also have returned to Poland and some of them may even have ended as "political refugees" in that part of the world [9]. So, I would not make light of Chopin's "French papers", which may have spared him such a tragic end. -- Frania W. ( talk) 04:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Assuming the criterion of civil codes in assigning nationality, and assuming that citizens of the Congress Kingdom of Poland traveled on Imperial Russian passports (is that accurate?), then why not compromise and call Chopin "French-Russian" (assuming that both countries recognized dual citizenship)? Nihil novi ( talk) 04:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that the discussion on the francization of Chopin is still in progress, unfortunately I don't see any new interesting argument(s). But well something interesting did emerge in the discussion (thanks Frania) and namely the fact that Maria Skłodowska is called Marie Curie on wikipedia. I propose to change that as soon as possible. In my opinion the francization doesn't make too much sense, I mean one can still understand that "Napoleone Buonaparte" became "Napoleon Bonaparte", but come on "Marie Curie" is a bit too much. Let's use correct names please, it will improve the accuracy of wikipedia. Dr. Loosmark 02:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting that Marie Skłodowska-Curie comes up (I'd prefer her article use the name I just did but it seems that WP policy is against me on that one). She is described as "of Polish upbringing and subsequent French citizenship." I wonder if this might be the solution for Chopin. It is not quite factually correct (Chopin had French citizenship from birth) but might be a compromise position. Any thoughts? Varsovian ( talk) 08:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
(od) Nice try Nihil, but the Basque analogy doesn't apply to this case. Read up on Gorals, they also span different geographical areas. One can easily understand that a Goral born in Poland would be Polish, and one born in Ukraine or Slovakia wouldn't be Polish. If Ravels mother was of "Basque" descent, or later lived in Shanghai or Madrid, is of little importance. If I'm not mistaken, the Nazis tried to make Chopin "one of their own", by asserting that Nicholas Chopin was from Alsace-Lorraine (which by the way he was). Quit bouncing around other articles on Wikipedia and concerning yourself about what other Wikipedia articles are "holding off" on. Please see my new thread below and kindly state your opinion as to whether that will work or not. Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Had the Polish-born Mlle Justyna Krzyżanowska married someone other than the French, Sieur Nicolas Chopin, the Polish composer Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin would not have been born.
Put more simply: Justyna Krzyżanowska + Nicolas Chopin = Fryderyk Franciszek/Frédéric François Chopin
-- Frania W. ( talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we agree on the sentence suggested by
Dr. Dan & close this discussion? :
Please note that not putting "Polish-French" is a big concession on my part, but with the lead sentence containing the "Polish-French descent", this may be a way to reach a consensus.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Nihil novi, we are trying to reach consensus, not start the discussion all over again on a new tangent, as you are trying to lead us on the Basque path with Ravel. Consensus may not be a cup of tea to everyone's taste, but it is a drinkable cup of tea. What's wrong with "Polish-born". If it ruffles your feathers to the point that only "Polish" satisfies you, then "Polish only" will ruffle the feathers of those who know that Chopin was also "French". So far, you have not only refused to admit that Frédéric Chopin was (legally) French, but you have tried to demonstrate that Nicolas Chopin was not, had never been, or had somehow lost his French nationality through the maze of Poland's complicated political situation(s). We have come to the point where we must opt for a solution, hopefully reaching consensus on what the consensus should be. -- Frania W. ( talk) 12:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Cutting to the chase, other than it being suggested my me, what are the objections to this simplified solution? It's factual, not original research, and covers all of the bases and should suffice to not offend anyone's sensibilities. Focus on that, please, like a laser. Comments? Dr. Dan ( talk) 03:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
In the English language, "Polish born" means "born in Poland." It implies nothing else. "Polish born" doesn't even mean "born Polish," that would be "of Polish descent." The expression "Polish-born" doesn't imply that someone became less or more Polish later. It doesn't even imply that he or she necessarily is Polish, it simply means born in Poland. See http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/born If this silly talk about nothing continues, then the sentence should be cut to "Chopin was a composer and virtuoso pianist." The argument that Poland did not exist during Chopin's birth would be hotly contested. Just because a country is occupied by another power, the country doesn't cease to exist. At least not for a while.-- BsBsBs ( talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Could I just make the point that Encyclopaedia Britannica or any other source that describes him as "Polish-French" may simply be referring to his long residence in France and his having adopted French citizenship, rather than referring to any nationality he may have had at birth. Had Chopin spent his whole life in and around Warsaw except for occasional concertising abroad, I very much doubt anyone would ever call him "Polish-French" just because of his father's original citizenship. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)