Rosen addresses the issue of why so much notice was taken
of Schumann's comment in the first place. Chopin was known to have general
contempt for most of his contemporaries. On being given a copy of Schumann's Kreisleriana, he commented favourably
only on the design of the cover page (which was, indeed, impressive).
Furthermore, this work was dedicated to Chopin. Is it coincidence that
Schumann's negative critique appeared only two to three years after Chopin had
reacted unfavourably to Kreisleriana,
completed in 1838? The answer is probably no.
Another issue addressed by Rosen is the notion that Chopin
was incapable of dealing with large forms. He argues that it might more
reasonably be maintained that " [Chopin] was the only musician of his
generation who felt invariably at ease with
[large forms] - each of the Ballades and Scherzi is, after all, as long
as, or longer than, an average movement of Beethoven."
This view is somewhat simplistic, however, as large forms carry implications of
not only length, but also complexity. The Ballades and Scherzi may be long, but
are rather simple in structure.
Thus far, a large sample of critical writings relating to
Chopin's sonata opus 35 has been surveyed. These writings, spanning a period of
over 150 years, have shown a definite trend of initial negative criticism
giving way to a greater understanding of Chopin's compositional style, and
hence a more positive reception. Before embarking on a survey of the various
extant analyses of the work, an overview of the history of the sonata cycle is
necessary, in order that Chopin's sonata can be placed in historical
perspective.
