PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY

Introductory remarks Concerto in E minor, op. 11

During Chopin’s lifetime his Piano Concertos were performed in four Attention should be drawn to the proper realisation of the authentic
versions: s l u r r i n g . Short slurs, characteristic for this period in Chopin’s oeuvre,
1. T h e v e r s i o n f o r o n e p i a n o . This editorial form, fundamental usually do not encompass whole phrases – the beginnings of the slurs
at the time, of compositions for the piano with an orchestra accompa- should be accentuated by delicate pressure, but the player should be
niment – solo piano in normal print, tutti and certain soli of orchestral warned against lifting the hand when the end of a slur occurs within
instruments in smaller print – was also a form of presenting the work in
a phrase.
salons and even in concert halls, as evidenced by author’s variants
In general, the realisation of individual g r a c e - n o t e s does not pose
applied “in execution without accompaniment”, occurring in Chopin’s
a problem: in the majority of cases, it is unessential whether the grace-
smaller concert works (op. 2, 14) and a handwritten annotation made
by the composer in a pupil’s copy of the Concerto in F minor op. 21, note is executed in an anticipatory manner or – in accordance with
containing also this type of a variant (a left hand harmonic accompani- classical rules – on the downbeat; it is only important that it be played
ment to the recitative in the second movement, bars 45-72). We cannot as quickly as possible and with distinct articulation. Situations in which
exclude the possibility that Chopin himself performed in public the ver- one of the above possibilities appears to be clearly closer to Chopin’s
sion for one piano of the Concerto in E minor. style are discussed below in commentaries to particular bars.
Orchestral parts supplemented the printed form of this version. It was poss-
ible to purchase a complete set for full orchestra or quintet parts only.
2. T h e v e r s i o n w i t h a s e c o n d p i a n o was used while playing at I. Allegro maestoso
home, during lessons (cf. quotations about the Concerto..., prior to the
musical text, the statement by W. von Lenz), and sometimes at public p. 16
Bar 140 and 148-149 The notation of the arpeggios in the form
concerts. However, piano reductions of the orchestra part in Chopin’s of separate wavy lines for each hand does not determine the
Concertos were not published until about 1860. Earlier, use was made manner of their realisation. They can be executed in a continuous
of handwritten reductions (extant reductions of the second and third way (1) or simultaneously in both hands (2). The editors recom-
movement of both Concertos were made by Chopin’s friends J. Fonta- mend arpeggiation only in L.H. (3), which grants the chords a more
na and A. Franchomme). Owing to the fact that the Concerto was not
decisive nature without losing the impression of an arpeggio.
published in this version during the composer’s lifetime, the National
Edition presents it in series B. 1 2 3
3. T h e v e r s i o n w i t h a s t r i n g q u a r t e t ( q u i n t e t ) was used both
during concerts and in salons. In 1829, Chopin wrote to T. Woyciechows-
ki: ”Every Friday Kessler holds small musical meetings [...] A fortnight
ago, there was Ries’ Concerto in a quartet” (see also quotations About the
Concerto..., prior to the musical text, letters from 31 August and 18 Sep-
tember 1830). This version was played from the parts of the string instru-
ments, which included the more important soli of the wind instruments. Bar 141 In the opinion of the editors, the moment of depressing
4. The composer intended the v e r s i o n w i t h t h e o r c h e s t r a to be the pedal can be shifted a crotchet later in order to avoid a long
the basic one. Upon several occasions, Chopin himself played in public sounding of the semitone d -e. Cf. authentic pedalling in bar 149.
this version of the Concerto in E minor. The score made up of the orig-
inal orchestral parts from the Parisian original edition of the Concerto Bar 153 R.H. The second crotchet in the bar can be performed
was never published. The first score, issued by Kistner in approximate- in three ways:
ly 1865, already contained slight changes. – as in the main text w i t h o u t t h e a r p e g g i o ;
2
– as in the main text w i t h t h e a r p e g g i o (c simultaneously
with the L.H. octave);
Notes on the musical text – in the version given in the variant.
p. 17
The variants marked as ossia were given this label by Chopin or were Bar 169 R.H. The interpretation of the fingering added by Chopin
added in his hand to pupils' copies; variants without this designation in one of the pupil’s copies poses certain difficulties. The most
are the result of discrepancies in the texts of authentic versions or an 32 32 32
inability to establish an unambiguous reading of the text.
Minor authentic alternatives (single notes, ornaments, slurs, accents, probable deciphering: seems to suggest
pedal indications, etc.) that can be regarded as variants are enclosed that Chopin had in mind a triple, simultaneous striking with two
in round brackets ( ), whilst editorial additions are written in square fingers. This type of exceptional expressive fingering appears
brackets [ ]. possibly also in Mazurka in A minor op. 59, no. 1, bar 25.
Pianists who are not interested in editorial questions, and want to base
their performance on a single text, unhampered by variants, are recom-
Bar 174 R.H. The trill composed of five notes sounds better; it
mended to use the music printed in the principal staves, including all
can be also played as a mordent.
the markings in brackets.
Chopin's original f i n g e r i n g is indicated in large bold-type numerals,
Bar 177 and 532 R.H. The fact that Chopin placed the marking
1 2 3 4 5 , in contrast to the editors' fingering which is written in small
staccato more or less in the middle of the chromatic scale prob-
italic numerals, 1 2 3 4 5 . Wherever authentic fingering is enclosed in
parentheses this means that it was not present in the primary sources, ably means that few of its first notes should be performed legato,
but added by Chopin to his pupils' copies. The dashed signs indicating and that the articulation should be gradually changed so that
the distribution of parts between the hands come from the editors. several last notes are played distinctly staccato.
A general discussion on the interpretation of Chopin's works is to be p. 18
contained in a separate volume: The Introduction to the National Edi- Bar 185 and 540 L.H. The last chord in these bars could be ex-
tion, in the section entitled Problems of Performance. ecuted in a differentiated form (three notes in bar 185, four notes
in bar 540) or in a form rendered uniform (three notes in both
Abbreviations: R.H. – right hand, L.H. – left hand. bars or four notes in both bars). See: Source Commentary.

3
Performance Commentary

p. 20 p. 31
Bars 227-229 and analogous L.H. In these bars, a particularly Bars 449-450 and 453-454 R.H. Chopin’s fingering is comfort-
beautiful effect is produced by the application of a “harmonic le- able only for larger hands. The solution proposed by the editors
gato” (fingers sustain components of the harmony): can be additionally facilitated by the left hand striking the lower
4 4 4 notes of the octaves on the second and third beat in bar 449 and
3
at the beginning of bar 450. Analogously in bars 453-454.
p. 33
227
2
Bars 478-480 Signs at the beginning of bar 479 and 480 de-
fine the earliest and last moment when, in the editors’ opinion,
the pedal depressed at the beginning of bar 478 can be changed
2 1 3 for the first time.
Such execution could be suggested by the marking legato , writ- p. 38
ten at the beginning of the section in E major (bar 222). The em- Bar 583 R.H. In the version given in the footnote (possibly mis-
ployment of this performing device, much liked by Chopin, in the taken – cf. main text and Source Commentary) the rhythm could
whole section (to bar 274) is indicated also by additional crotchet
stems in bar 234 and 250-251. be understood as: or for
Analogously in bars 578-580. 14
p. 21
Bar 250 R.H. The editors recommend the following solution of
the ossia version as:
17
the grace-notes:
p. 39
Bar 603 R.H. The way of aligning the triplet notes below the
Bar 253 R.H. The way, preserved in our edition, in which seven oc- quintuplet, found in the sources and recreated in our edition,
taves of the melody are arranged in relation to six quavers in the ac- may correspond to the execution intended by Chopin, in which
3 the second and third quaver of the lower note are sounded simul-
companiment suggests the following rhythmic division: . taneously with the third and fifth semiquaver of the quintuplet. In
7 the opinion of the editors, it is also possible to arpeggiate some
Nonetheless, other groupings, e. g. the septolet: of the two-note chords, which is technically easier for smaller
cannot be excluded (cf. Source Commentary).
In the opinion of the editors, the way in which the notes in both
hands were vertically aligned together with the marking stretto hands: or .
above the R.H. in the second half of the bar means that Chopin’s
intention was free R.H. r u b a t o against the background of the The latter solution is closest to precise rhythmic division (such
regular L.H., with a slight acceleration of the melody in octaves a division is suggested by the script used in a similar figuration
prior to the end of the bar. in Fantasia in A op. 13, bar 159). Cf. Source Commentary.

Bar 255 and 257 In accordance with the sign added by Chopin in Bar 605 R.H. The first note of the arpeggio should be struck si-
the pupil’s copy, the grace-note in bar 255 should be struck to- multaneously with c in the L.H.
gether with the bass note. The grace-note in bar 257 can be
played similarly. Bar 607 and 609 R.H. The authentic graphic form of the grace-
p. 23 notes is uncertain (see: Source Commentary) so that we do not
Bar 284 Markings refer to whole chords, and thus to grace- know what a rhythmic value Chopin foresaw for them. According
notes and to quavers played with the fifth fingers of both hands. to the editors, it would be most suitable to execute the grace-
The dynamic proportion, however, should be chosen in such notes as semiquavers, but free realisations in longer values
a way so that the rhythm of the figuration is defined by quavers (even up to a crotchet) are also possible.
and not by grace-notes.
p. 26 Bar 611 R.H. The rhythmic solution of the third beat:
Bars 329-332 and 667-670 In the opinion of the editors, signs
3 3
occurring in the notation of the R.H. part mean that the whole
combination of the trill and tremolando could be performed not or .
only by means of semiquavers, but also freely, with a density
adapted to the accepted tempo of this fragment and the execu- The trill should be started from the main note.
84 3 2
1
tion skills of the player. The ending: Bar 614 R.H. The beginning of the trill as in bar 401 (f together
with B in the L.H.).
The L.H. trill (bars 331-332 and 669-670) should be started from
p. 40
the upper note. Bar 621 and following L.H. The editors recommend the following
p. 27 3
Bar 390 R.H. The turn should begin with the main note d . rhythmic solution for the trills: .
3
p. 28
Bar 401 R.H. The beginning of the trill: p. 41
1 Bar 654 The coordination mentioned in the footnote might prove
f simultaneously with d in the L.H.
necessary when the accompaniment is played – by the orchestra
Bars 404-406 R.H. The beginnings of trills – as in bar 401. In or the second piano–using a text other than the National Edition
order to render possible an unhampered execution of the trills (cf. Source Commentary).
the lower voice can be partially taken into L.H.: p. 42
5 5 Bars 661-662 R.H. Facilitation:
1 8
3
2
1
3
1 1 1
or

5 1 1 5 1 1
2 5 2 5
3 3 1 3 1
3 1
4 3 2
Analogously in next bars. 2

4
 Performance Commentary

II. Romance. Larghetto Bar 20 and analog. In accordance with the mark added by Cho-
pin in a pupil’s copy, the second grace-note in bar 20 should be
In this whole movement the R.H. a r p e g g i o s should be played so sounded together with the chord in the L.H. This pertains also to
that their lowest note is sounded simultaneously with a corresponding all analogous passages.
L.H. note. p. 54
Bars 60-63 and 288-291 The application of the variant and the
p. 43 1 taking into consideration of other slight differences in the mark-
Bar 14 R.H. It is best to sound grace-note b simultaneously with
a in the L.H. ing of both four bar sections (slurring, agogics) is left to the taste
of the performer. In the opinion of the editors, the phrasing could
Bar 23 R.H. Grace-note d
1
should be played simultaneously be emphasised in the following manner, which is not contrary to
the original script:
with B in the L.H.
p. 44
Bar 29 R.H. While deciding to opt for the ossia variant it is
2 3 3 5
necessary to accentuate the f note in the chord so as not to 60 5
2 2 2
obliterate melodic progression f -f -g .

Bar 33, 48, 66, 82 and 90 R.H. = 3 3 5

288 5
p. 46 1
Bar 54 R.H. The execution of grace-note g simultaneously with
1 p. 55
the third e-g in the L.H. is more in keeping with the style. Bars 91-92 The placing of the marking a tempo already in bar 91,
1 2 4 432 3
and thus half a bar earlier than in analogous bar 52 and 320, could
be an effect intentionally introduced by Chopin or an accidental
imprecision of the record. The decision is left to the performer.
Bar 55 R.H. Execution of the trill: .
1 1
Bars 96-97 R.H. In order not to undermine the rhythmic outline
Bars 58-61 R.H. The versions given above the main text, and of the theme it is best to perform the grace-notes in an anticipa-
marked with numbers 1-3, correspond to Chopin’s variants add- tory manner.
ed in three pupils’ copies of the Concerto. This fact compels the p. 56
Bar 129, 133, 137 and 141 R.H. The first semiquaver on the
performer to select a version which he finds most suitable both
second quaver of the bar could be taken into L.H.
musically and from the viewpoint of execution. The following re-
marks might prove useful for making the decision: Bar 139 The coordination mentioned in the footnote might prove
– the m a i n t e x t remains the basic and most certain version; necessary when the accompaniment is played – by the orchestra
– the way in which the notes in the variant are arranged in relation or the second piano – using a text other than the National Edition
to L.H. does not always have to strictly correspond to the syn- (cf. Source Commentary).
chronisation of both hands; this pertains predominantly to the re-
3 p. 59
peated notes c in variants 1 and 2, where the moment of begin- Bars 212-213 and 216-217 Chopin’s fingering of the first semi-
ning and ending those repetitions, their tempo and even number quaver triplet (inscribed in bar 216) could refer both to the right
could, in the editors’ opinion, be subjected to certain oscillations; and left hand. The performer can choose a solution more suita-
– the record in bar 61 (variant 1) could be regarded as incomplete ble for him.
(a sketch?, a scheme?, a beginning?); this is why it appears p. 62
permissible to replace it with the arpeggio given at the bottom of Bars 272-280 In the opinion of the editors, the markings a tempo
the page; in bar 272 and 280 have different meanings:
– the alternative placings of variant 3 (in bar 59 and 61) exclude – the first restores the tempo in an apparently indecisive manner,
just as indecisive as the theme itself, which appears in an unex-
each other; its performance in both these bars is thus u n a c -
pected E -major key, against the background of a second inver-
ceptable.
sion chord, dolcissimo and with a more delicate accompani-
p. 49 ment; the tempo in bars 272-279 should thus be slightly slower
Bar 98 R.H. It is best to begin the turn from the main note.
than the basic one;
Bars 101-103 The editors propose the following pedalling : – the second marking accompanies an already decisive ( !) return
of the theme in the basic E major key; therefore, the basic tempo of
the whole third movement of the Concerto returns in bar 280.
The acceptance of the above suggestions and the degree of the
eventual differentiation of the tempi are left to the performer.
p. 72
Bars 516-518 The rhythmic record of the final E-major scale seems
to be conventional. The editors recommend the following rhythmic
division, guaranteeing an even performance of the whole scale:
III. Rondo. Vivace 8

In the majority of situations – bar 40, 170-177 and analogous –

d o u b l e g r a c e - n o t e s should be started on the downbeat (accord-
ing to classical rules). Only grace-notes in bar 36 should be performed
in an anticipatory manner (before the fourth quaver of the bar). In bar
59 and 287 both ways of realising grace-notes appear to be possible.
p. 52
Bars 14-17 In the sources the sign placed in bar 14, gives no Bars 518-520 According to the editors, the whole ending (from
assurance when it is necessary to depress the pedal, executing the last chord in bar 518) could be included into the solo part.
only the solo part. The editors suggest to do it in the beginning of
bar 17. Similarly, it is not certain whether in bar 15 pertains Jan Ekier
also to the solo part, which starts in the following bar. Paweł Kamiński

5
SOURCE COMMENTARY /ABRIDGED/

1
Introductory comments of his pupils, Joseph Schiffmacher (private collections ) – a sug-
gestion made by J. J. Eigeldinger, Chopin: Pianist and Teacher
As Seen by his Pupils Cambridge 1988. Some of the annotations
The following commentary pertains to the piano part, encompassing,
contained therein (variants, certain corrections of errors and
apart from the solo part, also Chopin’s piano reduction of the orchestral
some of the fingering) were certainly, or with a great dose of
fragments. The commentary sets out in an abridged form the principles
probability, added by the composer, while others, i. a. most of
of editing the musical text and discusses the most important discrepan-
the fingering, were added in a different handwriting.
cies between the authentic sources; furthermore, it draws attention to piano
FEJ Copy of FE from the collection belonging to Chopin’s sister
departures from the authentic text which are most frequently encounter-
Ludwika Jędrzejewiczowa (the F. Chopin Society, Warsaw). It
ed in the collected editions of Chopin’s music compiled after his death.
contains corrections, possibly made by Chopin, of several most
A commentary concerning the whole orchestra part is added to the
glaring errors committed by the engraver.
score of the Concerto.
GE1 First German edition, Fr. Kistner (1020.1021.1022), Leipzig Septem-
A separately published Source Commentary contains a detailed de-
ber 1833, including the Concerto in the version for one piano and
scription of the sources, their filiation, justification of the choice of
orchestral parts. GE1 is most probably based on a proof copy of
primary sources, a thorough presentation of the differences between
FE, which does not take into consideration the final corrections
them and a reproduction of characteristic fragments.
made by Chopin. It contains traces of a very detailed revision by the
Abbreviations: R.H. – right hand, L.H. – left hand. The sign → symbolises a con-
publisher, in most cases carried out already in the course of printing,
nection between sources; it should be read “and... based on it”. as well as a number of errors. Some of the introduced changes (e. g.
first movement, bar 391, 393, 416, 453; third movement, bar 139)
have been heretofore regarded as authentic, since they occur in the
overwhelming majority of the later collected editions. Nonetheless,
Concerto in E minor Op. 11 the absence of a distinct confirmation of Chopin’s participation in
the proofreading of GE1 renders the authenticity of this edition
Sources extremely doubtful, as evidenced by the following arguments:
[A] There is no extant autograph of the score. – the correspondence between the publishers, Schlesinger in
Tut
A Autograph of the opening Tutti (first movement, bars 1-138) in Paris and Kistner in Leipzig, demonstrates that Chopin establish-
a version for one piano (private collection, photocopy in the Cho- ed direct contact only with the Parisian publisher, who then of-
Tut
pin Society in Warsaw). A was prepared as a supplement for fered the purchased compositions to his colleague in Leipzig; the
the basis of the first French edition. introduction of improvements in GE1 while bypassing the main
orch
MFr – manuscript of Auguste Franchomme containing the reduction Parisian contracting party would have been an unwise move for
of the orchestra part of the second and third movement of the a composer starting to issue his works in France;
Concerto (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris), most likely prepared – apart from changes which could be regarded as made by Cho-
upon the basis of [A]. In longer fragments, marked as Tutti, pin, GE1 contains also others, evidently mistaken, which cannot
played by the orchestra itself, Franchomme probably copied the be in any way ascribed to Chopin (e. g. first movement, bar 190,
original edition of Chopin’s piano reduction found in [A]. 632). There are copies of GE1 with a different price on the cover.
w
MFr Manuscript of Auguste Franchomme containing the piano reduc- GE2 Second German edition of the version for one piano (bearing an
tion of the wind instruments in the second and third movement of additional publishing number 2340) from 1858-1859, containing
the Concerto (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris), made – similarly to numerous further adjustments, including arbitrary changes and
MFr
orch
– probably upon the basis of [A]. It includes several direc- several errors. The editors of the National Edition are not aware
tives describing the instrumentation. of the existence of differentiated impressions of the orchestral
MFr = MFr
orch w
and MFr . The score emerging from the two Franc- material of GE.
homme manuscripts differs in numerous details from the score GE = GE1 and GE2.
piano orch
composed of parts in first French edition, testifying to changes GE , GE – the piano part and orchestral parts of GE (analogous-
piano orch
conducted in the course of the preparation of that edition. ly to FE , FE ).
o
FE First French edition, M. Schlesinger (M. S. 1409), Paris June EE First English edition of the version for one piano, Wessel & C
o o
1833, encompassing the Concerto in the version for one piano (W & C N 1086), London, April 1834, based most probably on
and orchestral parts. The opening fragment of the piano part in FE. According to information found on the cover, EE was “edited
Tut
FE is based on A , and in further sections probably on [A], and and with fingering by” Julian Fontana. Chopin did not participate
was corrected by Chopin at least twice. Nonetheless, it contains in the production of EE. The editors of the National Edition failed
multiple imprecision in the notation of the accidentals and the to locate a copy of the orchestral parts of EE; thus it is most
performance markings (slurs, accents, staccato markings) as likely that – as in the case of the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21 –
well as a number of errors. It is also characteristic that fragments the orchestral material was not printed in EE.
of the orchestra part, which can be recreated upon the basis of Mi Edition prepared by Chopin’s pupil Karol Mikuli (Kistner, Leipzig
the piano part (predominantly the so-called Tutti) differ in numer- 1879), including two authentic variants.
ous details from the version following from the orchestral parts.
There are copies of FE with different prices and other details of Editorial principles for the solo part
the cover, originating from impressions published by Brandus, We accept as our basis FE as the only indubitably authentic source,
the successor of Schlesinger. and take into consideration Chopin’s annotations in FED, FES and
FE
piano
, FE
orch
– the piano part and orchestral parts in FE; these sym- those annotations in FEH, whose graphological features and contents
bols are applied only in those cases when the use of ‛FE’ alone indicate with great probability Chopin’s handwriting (this restriction
could lead to vagueness. pertains especially to the fingering). We also cite variants found in Mi.
FED, FES, FEH – pupils’ copies of FE
piano
with annotations made by Inconsistent s l u r r i n g and other a r t i c u l a t i o n markings have been
put into order by keeping in mind obvious analogies and knowledge
Chopin, containing fingering, performance directives, variants
about Chopin’s habits, documented in other compositions, as well as
and corrections of printing errors:
typical alterations found in the original editions. In order not to over-
FED – copy from the collection belonging to Chopin’s pupil Ca-
burden the text, in obvious situations we do not apply brackets. In
mille Dubois (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris).
those cases where differentiation could correspond to Chopin’s inten-
FES – copy from the collection belonging to Chopin’s pupil Jane
tions we leave the source versions.
Stirling (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris).
FEH – copy possibly belonging to Chopin’s pupil Caroline Hart- 1
The editors of the National Edition wish warmly to thank Mr. Jan M. Huizing, Assen, for
mann, and part of a collection presumably completed by another making a photocopy of this source available.

6
 Source Commentary

In several places the graphic form and manner of performing individual Bar 153 R.H. The arpeggio on the second beat is found in Mi;
g r a c e - n o t e s give rise to doubts. A comparison of their script in most probably, it was added by Chopin in one of the pupil’s copies,
autographs from this period in Chopin’s oeuvre proves that forms other which the editor of this edition examined. The version given in
than crossed quavers were applied only exceptionally. All problematic the variant also comes from Mi, where it was described as “exe-
places are discussed in commentaries to appropriate bars. cution according to Chopin”.
We try to retain the distinction between long and short accents char- p. 17
acteristic of Chopin. It is not always possible to meticulously recreate Bar 162 R.H. On the first beat both the pitches and the rhythmic
the composer’s intentions owing to the absence of an autograph and values of the notes give rise to doubts. FE has a version with an
visible imprecision in the first editions (this holds true also for the alloca-
tion of accents to the right or left hand). obvious r h y t h m i c error: . Presumably, this mis-
take was the outcome of cancellations in [A], making it difficult
for the engraver to properly decipher the text; the proof copy also
I. Allegro maestoso could have contained corrections. In all likelihood, they also
caused the error in the p i t c h r e c o r d (as indicated by Chopin’s
The reduction of the orchestra part correction in FED). GE includes a possibly arbitrary correction of
p. 13 Tut
Beginning In A there is no marking of the metronomic tempo. the rhythm: . We may merely surmise the origin of
Chopin added it in the proofs of FE (→GE,EE).
the EE version , although nothing indicates that it
Tut
Bars 13-15 R.H. We give the octave doubling according to A
piano piano orch orch could have corresponded to Chopin’s ultimate intention.
(→FE →GE ,EE). Here, FE (→GE ) has the first flute (bar
We give the only fully authentic version corrected by Chopin in
13), flutes in unison (bar 14) and the first bassoon (bars 14-15). FED both as regards rhythm (the deletion of the dot prolonging
Tut piano piano the first quaver) and melody (a change of the second and third
Bar 14 and 18 In accordance with A (→FE →GE ,EE) we 1 1 1 1
note from b -a to a -g ). This version is concurrent with the one
orch orch
give only the melodic voice. In FE (→GE ) there additionally in analogous bar 517, which does not produce any doubts.
occurs the harmonic background of the strings, as in bar 499 and
503. p. 18
Bar 168 and 523 R.H. GE contains the following, possibly ori-

Bar 25, 29 and 30 R.H. We give dotted rhythms on the last crot-
Tut piano piano ginal notation of the second beat:
chets according to A (→FE →GE ,EE). Here (Vni I),
orch orch
FE (→GE ) has equal quavers.
Bar 169 R.H. The fingering, discussed in the Performance Com-
Bar 33 L.H. We give the F -f octave at the beginning of the bar mentary, difficult to decipher and with an unclear meaning, is
according to A
Tut
(→FE
piano
→GE
piano
,EE). Here (Vc. and Cb.), added to FED.
orch orch
FE (→GE ) has: Bar 177 and 532 R.H. Some of the later collected editions arbitrarily
removed the slur encompassing this bar and shifted the staccato
Bars 39-40 R.H. The lowest note in the chords on the fifth and marking to the beginning of the bar. See: Performance Commentary.
Tut 2
sixth quaver in A is d . In the proofs of FE (→GE,EE) they were
2 1 Bar 185 and 540 L.H. In the sources, the chord on the last beat
changed – probably by Chopin – to c and b .
has three notes in bar 185 and four in bar 540. We should not
Tut 1 2 2 1 2 exclude the possibility that this is the result of an imprecise de-
Bar 42 R.H. In A the first two quavers are b -e -g and b -b .
1 2 ciphering of [A], and that Chopin intended both passages to have
The notes g and g were added – probably by Chopin – in the
an identical text. Some of the later collected editions introduced
proofs of FE (→GE,EE).
suitable changes by removing b from bar 540 or adding it in
p. 14 bar 185. Cf. Performance Commentary.
Bars 62-63 and 70-71 L.H. We give the accompaniment accord-
Tut piano piano orch orch
ing to A (→FE →GE ,EE). In FE (→GE ) the bass
Bar 190 R.H. In GE1 was mistakenly added before the eighth
line of the cellos begins with a crotchet upbeat in bar 62 and 70.
semiquaver.
p. 15
Bar 96 L.H. We give the note A as the fundamental bass note for p. 19 1 1
T ut piano orch Bar 195 L.H. In the first chord GE erroneously has e instead of g .
the whole bar in accordance with A (→FE ,EE). FE
orch
(→GE ) has B (Vc. and Cb.) throughout the first four quavers. Bars 197-200 and 556-557 R.H. In FE (→GE1,EE) the slurs are
piano
This is the version introduced also in GE . not broken above the rests. This is probably a remnant of the
Tut original version of phrasing those bars (with equal semiquavers).
Bars 123-125 L.H. In A there are no ties sustaining e. In FED the necessity of separating the first two notes from the
Tut remaining ones was confirmed by Chopin with pencilled marking.
Bar 134 R.H. In A the note a at the beginning of the bar has
the value of a dotted minim, and is probably not repeated on the Bars 197-198, 201-202 and analog. L.H. Some of the later col-
third crotchet (precise deciphering is impossible owing to the de- lected editions arbitrarily rendered uniform the versions of those
letions and erasing visible in this bar in the photocopy available 1 1
bars, adding ties sustaining c in bars 197-198 and f in bars
to the editors of the National Edition). In FE (→GE,EE) the note a 201-202, or removing them from bars 552-553 and 556-557.
occurs only on the third crotchet. The absence of a at the begin-
p. 20
ning of the bar is undoubtedly the result of a misunderstanding Bar 222 R.H. The main text comes from FE (→EE). The variant is
Tut
during the proofreading or deciphering of A . We give the ver- probably the original version occurring in GE.
sion linking the most certain elements of the sources. p. 21
Bar 234 L.H. The sources do not have G on the fifth quaver.
Tut
Bar 135 L.H. In A there is no lower E. A corresponding note is found, however, in all four analogous
places, and at least in two (bar 226 and 585) it was added at the
The solo part time of printing FE. In this situation, it is most likely that in the
p. 16
discussed bar Chopin left the uncorrected original version due to
Bar 149. R.H. The eight last notes in FE mistakenly have the inattention – the omission of one of several recurring fragments
value of semiquavers. while introducing corrections is one of his most frequent mistakes.

7
Source Commentary

Bar 236 R.H. The wedges were added in FED. written mistakenly (this type of an error, consisting of placing ties
on the opposite side of the notes, in this case, to the right in-
1 2
Bar 238 R.H. In GE2 the tie sustaining d was removed (over- stead of the left of c in bar 313, occurs quite often in prints
looked?). from the period, e. g. in Scherzo in B minor op. 31, bars 265-
2
266 and in E, op. 54, bars 480-481). The version with c sus-
Bars 238-239 and 242-243 L.H. In GE bars 238-239 do not have tained in both passages is found in EE.
a tie sustaining B. In some of the later collected editions this
error was repeated also in bars 242-243. Bar 298 L.H. In FED the fingering number was written above note
1
b. It is quite possible, however, that it should be referred to d in
Bar 250 R.H. In FE the grace-notes have the form of small crot- the R.H.
chets. Since in this particular context such a form of the grace-
notes is unjustified, we recognise it as an engraver’s error (often Bar 308 L.H. The sixth semiquaver in FE is e. The indubitable
encountered, especially in the earlier impressions of FE). We mistake is evidenced by a comparison with analogous bar 292
give the form of crossed quavers, most frequently used by Cho- and similarly constructed adjoining bars. A handwritten correction
pin (similar changes were made in GE and EE). of e into c is visible in FEH; GE and EE also have the proper
version.
Bar 253 R.H. FE (→GE,EE) does not have any figure defining the
p. 25
rhythmic shape of the group of seven quavers. The arrangement Bar 317 R.H. In some of the later collected editions the semi-
2 2
of the notes in FE in relation to the left hand is not conclusive, quaver fifth from the end was arbitrarily changed from a to a .
3
since this edition contains quite frequent evident errors (e. g. bar R.H. The last semiquaver in GE is b . This is most probably an
4
519, second movement, bar 23, third movement, bar 475; cf. also error: d occurring in FE (→EE) creates together with the pre-
comments to Nocturne in B minor op. 9 no. 1, bar 73 and 75). ceding note an interval of a sixth, as in analogous bars 315-316,
See: Performance Commentary. and has not been changed in any of the pupils’ copies.

Bar 255 and 257 R.H. We give the grace-notes in the form of Bar 321 L.H. At the end of the bar GE and EE have – probably
uncrossed quavers, as in FE (→EE). Nonetheless, we cannot ex- mistakenly – the octave B-b (cf. previous bars).
clude the imprecision of the engraver of FE – cf. commentary to bar
p. 26 2
250, 577, 607 and 609. In GE both those and all other grace-notes Bar 326 R.H. The eighth semiquaver in FE is erroneously b .
have the form of crossed quavers. Cf. Performance Commentary.
Bars 329-332 and 667-670 R.H. Some of the later collected edi-
Bar 255 and 403 In FED Chopin marked a simultaneous striking tions arbitrarily changed the notation in these bars. In bars 329-
3
of the grace note with the bass note. 332 minims f , with the sign of a trill, were removed, and notes
p. 22 comprising the trill were added to the components of the tremo-
3 3 3 2 2
Bars 264-265 R.H. In FE (→GE,EE) the slur is uninterrupted. We lando – g to b , and f to the second a -b . Bars 667-670 were
take into consideration the correction of the phrasing added by changed analogously. Such a modified script mistakenly enjoins
Chopin in FED. that this figure be played in semiquavers. Cf. commentary to bars
667-670 and Performance Commentary.
Bar 275 In FE the sign is placed above the rest in L.H. on the
second quaver of the bar, so that it is not quite clear whether it The reduction of the orchestra part
refers to the chord at the beginning of the bar or the stroke com- p. 27 piano
mencing the semiquaver figurations. We accept the second pos- Bars 356-359 At the end of the bars GE has equal quavers
sibility, much more probable from the viewpoint both of the instead of a dotted rhythm. This version, probably mistaken, oc-
piano
sources and the music: curred initially also in FE , where, however, it was corrected
– a number of graphic aspects of the notation in FE links this by Chopin in the last phase of the proofreading.
sign with the beginning of the second beat; this is also the way 2
its location was understood in GE and EE; Bar 364 R.H. FE (→EE) mistakenly has g as the lower note of
– the beginning of a similar semiquaver figure in bar 277 is also the chord on the third quaver.
accented. piano
Bar 378 L.H. At the end of the bar FE (→EE) has the crotchet
p. 23 orch
Bars 281-282 The possibility of a mistaken placing of ritenuto in A. Chopin corrected this error in FED. FE and GE contain the
bar 281 in FE (→GE1,EE) is the result of the following premises: proper version.
– by accepting the natural assumption that ritenuto is to last until piano
Bar 385 R.H. At the beginning of the bar in GE there is no
risoluto in bar 283 (cf. bars 407-408) we would receive an almost 1 1
third c -e , ending the last phrase of the Tutti section.
one-and-a-half bar-long slowing down, the longest among those
marked by Chopin in this movement and unjustified after a barely The solo part
eight-bar prelude to the final figurate part of the exposition;
– the third crotchet in bar 281 and the second one in bar 282 are Bar 385 R.H. FE (→EE) has no prior to the last note. It was
graphically identical, which could have been the reason for the probably overlooked – this type of an omission of accidentals
engraver’s error. next to notes belonging to the key fixed in a given passage be-
longs to errors most frequently committed by Chopin. The sign
Bar 288 R.H. The fourth semiquaver in FE (→EE) is mistakenly was supplemented in FEH; GE also contains the correct version.
3 2 va
b (in GE1 it is b , since this edition overlooked the 8 sign oc-
curring in the notation of FE). A comparison with bar 304, as well Bar 390 R.H. The sources overlooked under the sign of the turn.
as 287 and 303 proves the error in the first editions. 1
Bar 391 R.H. The first note of the melody in FE (→EE) is g . The
2
Bar 290 R.H. The tenth semiquaver in FE is d . This obvious fact that this is not an error is testified by an additional, sweeping
3 1
mistake – cf. bar 289 and 305-306 – was corrected in FED. GE slur f -g (apart from the already printed one), added by Chopin in
and EE also contain the proper version. FED. At the time of printing GE1 (→GE2) this note was transferred
an octave higher. Since there are no arguments which would con-
p. 24
Bars 296-297 and 312-313 R.H. FE (→GE) first (bars 296-297) firm the authenticity of the changes made in GE, we do not take
2
has a tie sustaining c , and then (bar 313) a slur running from this version into consideration. The melodic interval joined with the
2 1
c to b . Owing to the identical musical and execution context of slur, and exceeding the span of an average hand, is an expres-
both those passages such a differentiation seems unjustified; sive device applied upon several occasions by Chopin (cf., e. g.
this is the reason why we accept that the slur in bar 313 was mov. II, bars 65-66, or Nocturne in B, op. 62 no. 1, bars 88-89).

8
 Source Commentary

Bar 393 R.H. The rhythm with a quaver at the beginning of the It should be emphasized that the striking of the octaves in bar 453 is
motif, given by us, occurs in FE (→EE). This version was reinforced by accents, which do not appear until the second beat.
changed in GE (at the time of printing GE1) into the one found in Taking into consideration the above arguments and the fact that
2
analogous bars (e. g. 385, 389), with the first e possessing the the authenticity of the changes made in GE remains unconfirmed
value of a semiquaver. Here, the occurrence of this frequently we give only the FE edition.
repeated motif in a slightly altered rhythmic form, as in the au- p. 33
thentic FE version, is justified by the further development of the Bars 477-478 L.H. The ties sustaining B and f have been pre-
phrase – cf. corresponding motif in bar 395. sumably added in the last proofs of FE (→EE) since they are
missing in GE.
p. 28
Bar 401 R.H. Prior to the first grace-note of the bar FEH contains
an added sign in the shape of a diagonal cross. It can be inter- Bar 486 In the sources, the solo part ends abruptly at the end of
1
preted as , raising f to f
1
at the beginning, and, it cannot ex- bar 485, because the entire bar 486, together with its first chord, is
cluded, at the end of the trill. However, we do not take these pos- recorded in FE (→GE,EE) by means of small notes due to the fact
sibilities into consideration in the form of variants since the mean- that it belongs to the orchestra part. Since this is certainly a mis-
ing of this sign is uncertain (Chopin used similar crosses to mark take, we add a natural ending to the figurations of the solo part.
those passages, which had been discussed during lessons – this
particular pupil’s copy and others contain numerous such signs). The reduction of the orchestra part
p. 34 piano
Bar 498 R.H. Prior to the first chord FE (→EE) has on the
Bar 402 R.H. The first eight notes in FE are probably mistakenly 1
level of b . This is certainly an error – cf. chords in bar 502 as
joined with a semiquaver beam. 1
well as in bar 13 and 17; an eventual b would not require any
orch 1
sort of a sign. FE (Ob., Cor., VIa) and GE contain b .
Bar 405 L.H. The third quaver in the sources does not have the piano 2
1 R.H. In the opening chord GE has an additional e . This note
note c . In situations of this sort it is very difficult to say whether piano
was removed, probably by Chopin, in the last proofs of FE
in Chopin’s manuscripts the note placed on a ledger line occurs
(→EE).
in a chord, and thus it is very likely that the engraver overlooked
the note in question (cf. bar 404 and 406).
The solo part
p. 29 p. 35
Bar 412 L.H. The fingering number in FED was added above the 3
Bar 530 R.H. FE (→EE) has no tie sustaining c , probably an
1 1
note f . It is also possible that it should be referred to g in the R.H. oversight.

Bar 415 Some of the later collected editions arbitrarily changed Bar 533 L.H., The source version has distinct, in this context
1 3 1 3 2 2
notes e and e to f and f on the first beat, and e to f on the 1 1
badly sounding parallel octaves e-e and g-g . Considering the
second beat. absence of arguments in favour of a differentiation of those bars
1 1
a comparison with analogous bar 178 indicates the possibility of
Bar 416 R.H. In GE the fifth e -b , which occurs in FE (→EE), was a mistaken exchange of the notes by the engraver of FE. Mis-
1 1
altered in the course of printing to the fourth e -a . It would be dif- takes of this type occurred in the first editions of Chopin’s works
ficult to assume that this change concurs with Chopin’s inten- (cf. commentary to Prelude in B minor op. 28 no. 16, bar 2).
1 1 1
tions, since e -b corresponds to b in the accompanying voice of
p. 36 1
the first violins. In face of the absence of arguments confirming Bar 548-549 L.H. In FE (→GE) there is no tie sustaining a . Cf.
the authenticity of changes in GE we do not take this version into bars 193-194. The tie was added in EE.
consideration.
p. 37 2
Bar 555 R.H. The last semiquaver in FE is mistakenly e .
Bars 416-423 and 440-447 R.H. In the sources, we encounter, p. 38
Bar 577 R.H. In FE the grace-note has the form of a small crot-
alongside the most frequent script (accepted by us for chet. As in bar 250 – see: commentary – we give it the form of
a crossed quaver.
all the figures) the following notation: , possibly original L.H. The main text comes from FE (→GE1,EE). The sound of the
fourth quaver, different than in all analogous bars (bar 226, 234,
or simplified for graphic purposes. This is the way in which the
250 and 585; cf. also bar 67, 73 and 89), could have been in-
second figure in bar 419 and 421, the second and third figure in
tended by Chopin, for example, in connection with a slightly diffe-
bar 423, and both figures in bars 442-443 are recorded.
rently delineated accompaniment line in the following bar. Since
p. 30 the engraver’s error cannot be excluded, we give the version
Bars 435-436 R.H. In GE2 both f are arbitrarily tied over bar line.
concurrent with the remaining bars in the variant.
1
Bar 436 R.H. In GE2 the note f was overlooked (removed?) in
the chord at the beginning of the bar. Bar 583 R.H. The possibility that the FE (→GE1,EE) version giv-
en at the bottom of the page could be mistaken is evidenced by
p. 31 the following arguments:
Bar 453 R.H. The first semiquaver in FE (→EE) is f alone, while
1
GE has the octave f -f . A comparison with analogous bar 449 – rhythmic – the record in the form of two groups of semiquavers
could seem to indicate the correctness of the GE version. The marked with the figures 7 suggests that each of those groups
differentiation of those bars is, however, justified by a link, differ- corresponded to a well-defined metric unit (crotchet); this sug-
ent in each of those passages, with the preceding figuration: gestion is confirmed by the rhythm of analogous bar 232;
1
– the upper g in the octave in bar 449 continues the line of a ,
1 – melodic – in this instance, septolets comprise a figurate variant
the penultimate semiquaver in bar 448; the notes c
1
and f ,
1 of the motif, which appears in its basic rhythmic form as many as
joint for the chords in both bars, make it possible to retain the
unchanged position of the hand; twelve times:
1
– in bar 453 the direct continuation of b from the previous bar is
The following script (Chopin used a similar one in Concerto in F
unnecessary, since this is a note joint for the chords in those
minor op. 21, third movement, bar 27) illustrates the close con-
bars; from the viewpoint of execution, the single f in bar 453 is
nection between the two forms of the motif:
connected in a natural manner with the preceding passage thanks
to the retained position of the first finger (making it possible to
avoid the impression of a parallel shift of both hands); the finger-
ing given by us is to be found in FEH.

9
Source Commentary

– the possibility that the engraver or Chopin himself overlooked – in the proofs of FE Chopin, wishing to avoid vagueness, re-
the rest; Chopin made few mistakes of this type (cf. commentary placed this slur with a longer one, encompassing three notes;
to Ballade in A op. 47, bar 138), especially if he introduced cor- – the engraver of FE added a longer slur, but did not remove the
rections, which is quite probable in the discussed passages owing shorter one (this type of “partial” corrections, in which elements to
to the dynamic and articulation changes in relation to bar 232. be removed were left behind, thus causing their doubling, occur-
On the other hand, we cannot entirely reject the possibility that the red in Chopin’s works in several instances, e. g. the shorter slurs
purpose of the mentioned eventual changes in [A] was to shift by in R.H. in the third movement, bars 180-181, or the erroneous
a quaver the moment of commencing the semiquaver figures; the notes in Scherzo in B minor op. 20, bar 135 and 292).
notation in the sources, although unusual, does not contain an
error. This version would comprise an original example of the Bar 620 R.H. The absence of an accidental before the fourth se-
Chopinesque rubato, a possibility favoured by the absence of miquaver in FE (→GE1,EE) is certainly an oversight – this type
corrections in pupil’s copies.
of figures, very frequent in Chopin’s works, which describe the
The overwhelming majority of the later collected editions has the
2 opening note in the manner of a turn, contain minor or major, but
GE2 version, with the opening b possessing the value of a crotchet.
never augmented seconds. We add as the most probable in
R.H. The ossia variant comes from Mi. The performance markings
this passage (cf., e. g. bar 220).
and fingering contained therein could have been added by the
editor of this edition, and the openning crotchet value is taken p. 40
Bar 632 R.H. GE mistakenly added before the sixth semiquaver.
2 1 3 5 4
2
2 2
from GE2: Bar 636 R.H. In FE (→GE1,EE) raising c to c is not found
egualmente until before the fourth quaver of the lower voice. Chopin made
p. 39 this type of an error upon several occasions (e. g. in Mazurka in
Bar 587 L. H. We give the main text according to FE (→GE,EE). A minor Dbop. 42B, bar 61 or Etude in F op. 10 no. 8, bar 43).
The variant in the footnote, analogous to bar 75 and 237, makes
1
it possible to avoid hidden parallel octaves of leading notes f -f Bar 639 R.H. The fourth quaver of the lower voice in GE is erro-
1
to g-g . The probability of an engraver’s error while deciphering 2
neously b .
the note with a distance of a third is considerable (cf., e. g. bar
290 and 308 in this movement and bar 73 and 108 in the second p. 41
Bar 654 L.H. At the beginning of the bar all the sources give f
movement). as the fundamental bass note (the octave F -f in the piano part
Bar 603 R.H. In some of the later collected editions the second and f in the cello part). Some of the later collected editions arbi-
and third note of the lower voice triplet are placed below the two trarily changed the bass to f. Chopin left the unchanged octave
last notes of the quintuplet, together creating octaves. This cer- with flats in all three pupil’s copies containing annotations added
tainly does not correspond to Chopin’s intentions; if the compos- in other places on this page.
er had such a performance in mind he would have probably writ-
Bar 658 L.H. Upon the basis of available sources it is impossible
ten the figure as . See: Performance Commentary. to ascertain whether Chopin decided to opt for one version of the
piano
first bass note, and if so then which one. FE (→GE,EE) con-
2
Bar 607 R.H. In FE the note a has the form of a small crotchet, tains e, which Chopin left unchanged in FED and FEH. Nonethe-
orch 1
albeit slightly larger than the one used in this edition for the less, in FE the cellos have e ; the flats before the first chord
2
grace-notes, and is placed above the minim d . This note is ab- were added by Chopin also in FES.
sent in GE, while EE contains the version given in our main text p. 42
as the most probable conjecture of the FE version (cf. bar 609). Bars 665-666 R.H. In those bars FED has the following fingering,
Owing to the fact that Chopin’s ultimate intention remains uncer- added probably by a pupil:
tain, we give the GE version, which could be authentic (original) 8 4 5 4
4 5 3 5 5
5 5 3
in the variant. In this type of a context we encounter two possibil-
ities in Chopin’s works, cf., e. g. Nocturne in G minor op. 37 no. 1,
bars 19-20 and 35-36.

Bar 607 and 609 R.H. In accordance with FE (→EE) we give Bars 667-670 R.H. For the combination of the trill and tremolan-
grace-notes with the value of a crotchet, possibly intended by do we accept the notation which occurs in the sources in bars
Chopin. A mistake made by the engraver is just as likely (see: 329-332. In the discussed bars this figure is recorded in FE as
commentary to bar 607 as well as to bar 250, 255, 257 and 577). 8
In GE the grace-note in bar 609 has the form of a crossed quaver.
follows: 1
Bar 614 L.H. The sixth quaver in EE is probably mistakenly e.
GE and EE basically recreated this script, correcting errors and
Bars 618-619 R.H. The absence of an autograph makes it diffi- 3 2
imprecision: in bar 667 c was changed to b and missing prolon-
cult to decipher the meaning of the two slurs (ties?) in FE (→GE,
gation dots were supplemented. Moreover, the tremolando in bar
EE) over the bar line (we give them in a footnote). In a similar
667 (GE) or in all the four bars (EE) was written out in semiquav-
melodic-rhythmic context, which appears upon numerous occa-
ers.
sions in works by Chopin, the downbeat note is always struck 2 3
(repeated) – cf., e. g. bars 220-221, 571-572, 606-609. This is Presumably, the above FE notation, in which the trill on f (f )
the reason why it seems highly probable that in this case too is doubled in the record of the tremolando, resulted from a sup-
1
Chopin’s intention was to repeat a at the beginning of bar 619. plementation of the original record (at the time of printing it),
For the main text we accept the version based on the following analogous to bars 329-332. The purpose of this change was
explanation, in our opinion the most likely one, of the meaning probably to render precise the manner in which both elements of
and origin of the slurs in the source version: this figure should be combined. We cannot exclude the possibility
1
– in [A] the slur joining both a was of a motif nature, and not a tie that the introduction of this specific “performance commentary”
(in Chopin’s manuscripts, the manner of writing makes it possible was suggested to Chopin by, e. g. his publisher. See also: com-
to easily distinguish ties from slurs, but in print the difference be- mentary to bars 329-332.
comes obliterated); this type of a misunderstanding, which can be
resolved thanks to the extant autograph, deformed the printed ver- Bar 669 and 670 L.H. Some of the later collected editions arbit-
1 2
sion of bars 36-37 and 98-99 in Mazurka in B minor op. 24 no. 4; rarily added minims b to both d .

10
 Source Commentary

Bar 671 L.H. In GE the note c 2, which in FE (→EE) is printed Bar 43 R.H. None of the first editions has raising c 2 to c 2 on
2
smaller because it belongs to the orchestra part, mistakenly has the fourth third nor restoring c on the last quaver of the
a head of normal size; as a result, in the majority of the later col- second triplet. This is probably yet another Chopin’s oversight
lected editions it is included into the solo part. (cf. commentary to bar 39, 41) since there are no arguments in
favour of differentiating this passage in relation to analogous bar
39, 41 and 88, 90, and 92. A similar type of oversight – both the
II. Romance. Larghetto raising of the note and its subsequent cancellation – was commit-
ted by Chopin in Etude in F minor op. 25 no. 2, bar 56. In FEH
The reduction of the orchestra part was added before the fourth third, probably by Chopin himself or
p. 43 orch
due to his suggestion. Taking into consideration the above ar-
Bar 1 On the fourth beat MFr has equal quavers. This could guments, we introduce this correction into the main text.
be the original version, changed by Chopin in FE, or an error.
1
Bar 44 We give the note b on the last quaver according to FE
Bars 1-5 R.H. A slur above the whole phrase is to be found in (→EE). This note is missing in GE. Traces visible in GE indicate
orch orch orch
MFr as well as in the first violins part in FE (→GE ). The that it was removed in the course of printing, although it is pos-
piano piano
absence of a slur in FE (→GE ,EE) could be, therefore,
sible that we are dealing with some sort of incomplete graphic
accidental.
change (e. g. a transference of this note onto a lower staff). At
any rate, due to the fact that the authenticity of the changes
The solo part
made in GE remains generally unconfirmed, we do not give this
Bar 13 L.H. In the sources the first quaver in the upper voice is version.
1
the sixth g -e (our variant). It is most probable, however, that L.H. On the last quaver FE has mistakenly placed before c
1
1
Chopin intended the note e to be printed smaller, because it be- 1
instead of e .
longs only to the orchestra part (we move it onto the upper staff
in order to avoid vagueness). This hypothesis is supported by the Bar 45 R.H. The triplets on the sixth and seventh quaver of the
following arguments: 2 3
bar in FE begin with the seventh d -c . In FED and FES Chopin
– it is natural that the outline of the accompaniment is clearly de- corrected these obvious mistakes. GE and EE contain the proper
lineated from the first figure; the initiation of the upper voice line version.
1
on e delays and hampers the shaping of the characteristic, un-
dulating motif; p. 46
1
Bar 51 L.H. In some of the later collected editions the third quav-
– the version without e , accepted by us in the main text, appears 1
er was arbitrarily changed from f to d .
1

in analogous bar 54;

– upon several occasions the engraver granted certain notes an The reduction of the orchestra part
incorrect size in those passages where the solo part begins or piano
ends, e. g. first movement, bar 486 and 671. Bar 52 FE (→EE) and MFr did not record the moment of the
return to the tempo after rallentando in bar 51. Nonetheless, the
orch
Bar 14 R.H. In GE the grace-note is mistakenly d .
2 directive a tempo is found in the strings parts in FE (→GE).

Bar 16 and 57 R.H. In FE (→GE) there is no arpeggio sign be- Bar 53 We give the dotted rhythm in the lower voices on the
piano piano orch orch
fore the second chord. EE and some of the later collected edi- fourth beat according to FE (→GE ,EE). MFr and FE
orch
tions added a wavy line. It was certainly Chopin’s intention that (→GE ) contain (Vno II and Vc.) equal quavers. Cf. comment-
this chord be struck simultaneously with the use of the first finger ary to bar 1.
1 1
to play the third d -f , as testified by:
– the fact that in the proofs of FE Chopin removed the arpeggio The solo part
originally (mistakenly?) printed in bar 16; this edition contains 2
Bar 56 R.H. FE (→GE1,EE) have no tie sustaining g . This error
visible traces of such an operation; was corrected in FES.
– the number 1 added prior to this third in both bars in the last
proofs of FE (it is absent in GE). Bar 57 and 60 R.H. In FEH the arpeggio was added before first
A similar chord, also without an arpeggio and with the simultane- chord in both bars. Cf. bars 16 and 19.
ous sounding of the minor third on the black keys with the first
finger, marked by Chopin with bracket, occurs in Prélude in A Bars 58-61 R.H. In this fragment Chopin saw an opportunity for
op. 28 no. 7. a variant development of the basic version, as evidenced by
annotations added in all the extant pupil’s copies. We give them
Bar 21 R.H. Chopin added the staccato dots above the last two arranged according to the degree of certitude with which they
quavers in FED. can be deciphered and placed.
p. 44 Variant no. 1 comes from FEH. The character of the script does
Bar 29 R.H. The variant comes from FEH. The leading of the
not exclude Chopin’s handwriting, but the authenticity of the va-
melody within the wider chords, frequently with the span of
riant is confirmed primarily by stylistic features:
a ninth between extreme notes, belongs to characteristic com-
– a prolongation of the scale by an octave (bars 58-59) is en-
position-execution devices applied by Chopin (cf., e. g. Ballade
countered upon many occasions in the annotations made by
in G minor op. 23, bar 114 and 174, Prélude in F , op. 28 no. 13,
bars 30-32, Sonata in B minor op. 35, third movement, bars 19- Chopin in pupil’s copies, e. g. in Etude in F minor op. 25 no. 2,
20, Prélude in C minor op. 45, bar 79). bar 67 or Waltz in A op. 34 no. 1, bars 163-164 and 167-168;
3
– the repetition of one note (four c in bar 59) is one of Chopin’s
Bar 39 and 41 R.H. In FE (→GE1) there is no restoring e in
2 favourite melodic devices, cf., e. g. bar 29 in this movement of
the last third on the third beat. In FES it was added in bar 39. the Concerto and Concerto in F minor op. 21, II mov., bar 76, Al-
Chopin frequently made mistakes of this type in melodic lines led legro de Concert op. 46, bar 87, Nocturne in B minor op. 9
in thirds – cf., e. g. bar 88 and 90 in this movement as well as no. 1, bar 1, in E op. 9 no. 2, bar 18, in G minor op. 37 no. 1,
Mazurka in E op. 6 no. 3, bar 11, 13 and analogous. bar 16; the concurrence of this part of the variant with variant 2,
undoubtedly written by Chopin and originating from another copy,
p. 45 2
Bar 42 R.H. FE has prior to the tenth semiquaver (a ). This is significant.
obvious engraver’s error was corrected in FES, FEJ and FEH. Variant no. 2. was sketched – probably by Chopin – in FED.

11
Source Commentary

We situate the repeated notes c 3 in both variants in a place cor- While reading FE piano this version appears to be natural, and this
1
responding to their record – before a in the L.H. in FEH and be- is precisely how the passage was interpreted in GE (adding,
3
fore c on the fourth beat in FED. It is not certain, however, however, in the part of the violas) and EE. Possibly, this is also
whether this corresponds closely to the execution foreseen by the way it was played during lessons by Chopin’s pupils; hence
1
Chopin (cf. Performance Commentary). the absence of corrections in pupils’ copies might indicate c ;
piano 1
Variant no. 3 was added in FES carefully, but in someone else’s 2. In FE Chopin intended to restore c , while the sharpening
handwriting. Nevertheless, its authenticity is guaranteed by the of a, obvious in the face of sharps in the R.H., was overlooked.
1
cult with which J. Stirling, the owner of the copy, surrounded The undoubted c in the part of the violas speaks decidedly in
Chopin’s person and work, and the devotion with which she ga- favour of this version, because a chord note is more likely to be
thered the composer’s directives in her collection of first editions. used in this kind of orchestral accompaniment.
Basic doubts may be produced by the location of the variant : This possibility also seems indicated by the pedalling, since the
– this arpeggio, encompassing five quavers, is recorded on the release (or change) of the pedal prior to the fourth beat would
1
margin of the page, next to bars 59-62; it could be sensibly si- not be necessary in the version with c (cf. authentic pedalling in
tuated both above the sextuplet in bar 59 (as the arpeggio in A a similar harmonic context in Fantaisie in F minor op. 49, bar 18).
major) and after the chord in bar 61 (as the arpeggio in A minor);
the record of the variant without key signature or any accidentals The reduction of the orchestra part
p. 48 piano piano 2
permits both those possibilities; Bar 87 R.H. In FE (→GE ,EE) the minim c is placed mis-
– in the light of classical norms, the process of halting the devel- takenly on the second beat.
3
oping musical narrative in its climax on the paused minim c in
bar 59 creates a natural opportunity for the introduction of this The solo part
type of figure; this is the version we give above the main text; Bar 88 and 90 R.H. FE (→GE,EE) has no restoring c in the
2

– the texturally affiliated figuration, added in this passage in FEH, last third of the third beat. Moreover, FE does not have raising
and the perfect concurrence (as regards the used notes and even 2 2
a to a on the fourth beat.
the position of the hand) of the beginning of the arpeggio and the
preceding chord, as well as the end and the following chord in Bar 91 R.H. In this bar, Chopin’s fingering comes from FES, in
bar 62, speak in favour of situating the arpeggio in bar 61; we which the number 3 is additionally written above the tenth semi-
take this possibility into consideration in a footnote. quaver; this is probably a mistake. See: commentary to bar 116.
3
R.H. In FE the rhythmic division of the fourth beat is uncertain –
Bar 59 R.H. FE (→EE) has a slur between the notes c . Consi- the figure 5 is placed above the fourth semiquaver out of a group
3
dering the multiple repetition of c in Chopin’s variants added in of five. Either the correct number was written imprecisely (’5’ de-
this bar in FED and FEH, it seems improbable that Chopin did scribing the quintuplet should be situated above the third note) or
not wish at all to repeat this note in the basic version. Probably, the engraver mistakenly wrote ’5’ instead of the ’3’ which defines
3
therefore, this sign does not indicate the tying of c , but is only the three last semiquavers as a triplet. None of the pupil’s copies
supposed to emphasise the necessity of sustaining the minim. contains directives concerning the rhythm. For the purposes of the
We encounter this type of tenuto-slurs in several compositions by main text we accept the first possibility, based on the premise that
Chopin, e. g. Ballade in G minor op. 23, bars 87-88, Etude in A the FE notation albeit imprecise, is not mistaken. The version with
minor op. 25 no. 4, bar 30. In this particular case, we do not give the quintuplet, recorded precisely, is found in GE and EE.
it in order to avoid vagueness (cf. commentary to Waltz in E , The third penultimate semiquaver in FE (→EE) has mistakenly
op. 18, bar 12, 36, 44). the value of a crotchet – cf. analogous bar 42. GE omitted the
prolongation of this note.
The reduction of the orchestra part The ossia variant was added – most probably by Chopin – in
Bar 63 L.H. The variant comes from FEH. The harmonic transi- FEH. A similar pianistic device was applied by the composer in
tion in bars 63-64, performed on one piano, sounds smoother in Nocturne in D op. 27 no. 2, bar 38 (main text and variant).
this version. p. 49 4
Bar 94 R.H. The note e on the second quaver of the bar in FE
has the value of a semiquaver. The successive group of twenty
The solo part
notes, however, coincides precisely with the third and fourth L.H.
Bars 64-65 L.H. Some of the later collected editions arbitrarily added quaver. This manner of alignment of the quavers of the accom-
lower sixths on the fourth quavers – f in bar 64 and g in bar 65. paniment certainly corresponds to notation in [A] and proves that
4
Chopin intended e to be a quaver. We give this version as the
Bar 72 R.H. There is no above in sources. Chopin was very only one; it is also to be found in EE. In GE the rhythm is totally
4
imprecise in the notation of accidentals next to ornaments. mistaken – both tied e are semiquavers, and the third and
3 2
fourth L.H. quaver was arbitrarily shifted below a and g (GE1)
3 2
Bar 73 L.H. FE has mistakenly f on the second quaver. In FES or f and f (GE2).
Chopin corrected it to d (this version was introduced also in R.H. The rhythmic division of the fourth beat, given by us, is con-
GE). In FEH was added prior to the mistaken note, which is tained in FE (→EE). In GE1, the whole group of six notes was
a “routine” supplementation, made probably by a pupil, without mistakenly linked by a demisemiquaver beam. In GE2 this mis-
taking into consideration the structure of the accompaniment in take was erroneously revised by adding the number 6 and shift-
2
bars 71-76. An identical change was made also in EE. ing the last quaver in the L.H. below f . This completely arbit-
R.H. In FE (→GE1,EE) there is no tie between the grace-note rary version was accepted in the majority of the later collected
2
and the minim d . editions, as a rule changing the beam to a semiquaver one in
order to achieve rhythmic correctness.
piano
Bar 77 L.H. In FE there is only one before the seventh
quaver, at the level of b, so that it is unclear whether it pertains Bar 103 R.H. The second grace-note in the third figure in GE is
2 2
to the lower note of the third (giving a ) or to the upper one (giv- mistakenly b instead of g . This error was probably found also
1 1
ing c ). In the orchestral chord c is to be found (VIa) in both in FE, where, however, it was corrected in the last phase of proo-
MFr
orch orch
and FE . There emerge two possibilities: freading.
piano
1. FE does not contain a distinct error, but , raising a to a
(necessary), was merely placed somewhat too high; this leads to Both parts
1 p. 50 w
the version with c (the from the first half of the bar is bind- Bars 104-105 In MFr the marking a tempo is in bar 104, and in
1 piano o
ing), in which c of the violas is a passing note. FE (→EE) – in bar 105. GE has arbitrarily Tempo 1 in bar 104.

12
 Source Commentary

The solo part In GE the tie sustaining e 1 is absent in both those passages.
Bar 108 L.H. In FE (→GE1) the second note is d . In FED and This fact could indicate that Chopin did not add it until the last
FES Chopin corrected this obvious mistake. stage of proof-reading FE.
L.H. The numeral of fingering (1) is added below the seventh
Bar 67 L.H. The note a in the first quaver in FE (→GE,EE) has
semiquaver in FES in the handwriting of the pupil. This is certainly
mistakenly the value of a crotchet. Cf. bar 295.
a mistake – such fingering would be contrary to numerals written
undoubtedly by Chopin in bar 106. See: commentary to bar 116. p. 55
Bar 93 R.H. The majority of the later collected editions arbitrarily
2
2 added above f .
Bar 112 R.H. The sixth note in FE (→GE1,EE) is a . Chopin cor-
rected this mistake in FES.
The reduction of the orchestra part
2
Bar 113 L.H. The sixth note in FE (→GE,EE) is f , which in FES p. 56 orch
2 Bars 126-127 We give the concurrent FE (→EE) and MFr
Chopin changed to e . In the original version the transition from piano
2 2 version. GE has the following version, probably original and
f to e between the sixth and eighth semiquaver corresponded
1 1
to the transition f -e in the part of the second violins (the first
and second beat). In the FES version the piano part is treated recorded with errors:
2
more independently – the same note (e ) appears on the sixth,
eight and tenth semiquaver three times, as in analogous figures
in the previous two bars. The figurate background of the theme
thus becomes smoother and more uniform as regards sonority, The solo part
which in this context should be recognised as improvement. We Bar 139 L.H. In FE (→EE) and MFr
orch
g occurs as the first note
cannot totally exclude the possibility that this change is a correc- in the bass, while in FE
orch
the cello part has even a precautio-
tion of a note imprecisely written in [A]. This is the reason why nary before this note (after g occurring four bars earlier). In the
2
we accept e as the only text. pupils’ copies Chopin also did not introduce any changes. GE ar-
2
Some of the later collected editions left the original f on the bitrarily added before the discussed note, thus lowering g to g.
2 2
sixth semiquaver, and arbitrarily changed e to f on the eighth This unauthentic version was included in the decisive majority of
and tenth semiquaver. the later collected editions.
p. 51 p. 58
Bar 116 R.H. The second half of the bar in FES contains the Bars 167-168 L.H. GE does not have a tie sustaining e.
numerals 1 written in pencil by Chopin above the third semi-
quaver in each triplet. J. Stirling inked in the majority of Chopin’s The reduction of the orchestra part
pencilled fingering in this movement of the Concerto; in doing so, piano piano
Bar 177 Before the third quaver FE (→GE ,EE) has no
she did not avoid several errors (cf. commentaries to bar 91 and 1 1 orch
lowering d to d . Natural is in the second violins part in FE
108). In the discussed passage she mistakenly wrote only a single orch orch
2 (→GE ) and in MFr .
1 above the first e in the seventh triplet.
piano
Bar 187 R.H. FEpiano (→GE ,EE) has, obviously mistakenly,
only f as the first quaver (in FE and EE without ). We give the F-
III. Rondo. Vivace major chord, similarly to all analogous passages and in accord-
orch orch orch
ance with FE (→GE ) and MFr .
The reduction of the orchestra part
p. 52 piano piano The solo part
Bar 1 and 5 L.H. The third quaver in FE (→GE ) is B 1 -G in
bar 1 and A 1 -G in bar 5. The G 1 -G octave which occurs in both Bar 196 Here, FE contains a rhythmic error in both hands:
orch orch orch
MFr and FE (→GE ) proves that these are errors. . It is necessary either to add the overlooked prolongation
dots next to the second notes, or to remove the superfluous
The solo part quaver flags next to the first notes. The first of those corrections
Bar 20 The simultaneous sounding of the second grace-note with was introduced in EE, and the second – in GE. The latter possi-
the L.H. chord was marked by Chopin in FED. bility (our main text) appears to be more probable for moderating
the course of the music ( rallentando in the next bar). In an ana-
Bar 61 R.H. The main text comes from FE (→GE1,EE). We may logous context equal crotchets appear in bar 440. Nonetheless,
doubt whether the almost unnoticeable rhythmic variant occurring the absence of corrections in pupils’ copies speaks in favour of
here (in relation to analogous bars 60, 288 and 289) was in- a rhythm with a quaver at the beginning of the bar (our variant).
tended by Chopin. Similar types of imprecise notation took place
in Chopin’s works, cf., e. g. commentary to bar 377. This is the Bar 203 R.H. The grace-notes in FE erroneously sound c -d .
3 3

reason why we give as a variant the version concurrent with the

p. 60 3
remaining bars (it appears also in GE2). Bar 225 R.H. The sixth semiquaver in FE is a . This indubitable
mistake is evidenced by the following arguments:
2
Bar 62 and 290 L.H. GE does not have note d on the fourth beat – bars 224-225 are a sequential repetition of bars 220-221, and
in bar 62. The oversight on the part of the engraver of GE is evid- the discussed note is the last in the nine-semiquaver figure which
enced by a comparison with analogous bar 290, in which all the comprises a central motif of the figuration in those bars:
1 2
sources have the third b -d . In some of the later collected edi-
tions the mistaken version of bar 62 was applied also in bar 290.
1 ; this figure is repeated three more
Bars 66-67 and 294-295 L.H. In FE the notes e in the second
half of bar 66 and 294 have the value of quavers. Nonetheless, times in bars 228-230; both upon the first occasion (bar 221) and
1
the note in bar 294 is tied with e in the following bar; conse- in further repetitions (bars 228-230) the last two semiquavers of
quently, we add to it the necessary prolongation dot (a dot was this figure form an octave interval;
3
added also in EE). In order not to render both passages complic- – a repetition of a at the top of the passage in this bar would dis-
ated due to a differentiation, which in praxis is unheard, we sug- turb the regularity of motion also as regards execution, thus con-
1
gest that e be tied also in bars 66-67. stituting an unjustified complication.

13
Source Commentary

p. 63
In this passage in FEH we find a correction, which, however, Bar 280 and 281 L.H. In both bars in FE (→GE1) the third qua
3 3 1
pertains to the seventh semiquaver (a change of a to g ). In the ver is the sixth g -e . EE has this sixth only in bar 281, and in bar
1
light of the above cited argumentation this change should be re- 280 it contains, probably mistakenly, the chord e-g -e . In GE2
garded as mistaken. this chord was arbitrarily introduced in both bars. We give the
1
L.H. In some of the later collected editions d was arbitrarily sixths occurring in FE as undoubtedly intended by Chopin, who
1
changed to f in the chord on the second beat. in this way referred to the outline of the accompaniment deli-
neated in the preceding eight bars.
Bar 228 R.H. Some of the later collected editions arbitrarily add-
1 2 1 1
ed to the g -g octave the note b , tied to b in the previous bar Bar 283 L.H. We give the accompaniment found in FE (→GE1,
(analogously to bars 223-224). With all certainty Chopin inten- EE). In GE2 and the majority of the later collected editions the
tionally did not sustain this note, since in bar 227, due to the le- lower note of the second quaver was arbitrarily changed from f
gato in the upper voice, it is much more comfortable to play the to a. Some of the remaining later collected editions arbitrarily
1 1
second a -b with the first finger also on the fourth quaver, which changed the lower note of the fourth eighth from a to f .
1
makes it impossible to sustain b . (A different arrangement of the
black keys in the upper voice melody is the reason why this diffi- Bars 288-289 R.H. In some of the later collected editions the
culty does not appear in bars 223-224). last two notes in each of these bars were arbitrarily given the
value of semiquavers (analogously to bars 60-61). A different
Bar 230 R.H. The last semiquaver in FE (→GE1) is mistakenly a .
3
slurring of these pairs of bars entitles us to presuppose that also
See: commentary to bar 225. the rhythmic differences are not accidental. Chopin probably
1
L.H. At the beginning of the bar GE has erroneously only e . treated these passages independently, and subtly differentiated
them – cf. Performance Commentary to bars 60-63 and 288-291.
3
Bar 233 and 235 R.H. FE (→GE1,EE) has c on the second p. 65
quaver of those bars. Chopin did not introduce any changes also Bar 358 R.H. In FE (→GE1,EE) the use of the first finger is
3 3
in the pupils’ copies. In GE2 naturals lowering c to c were ar- marked above the fourth semiquaver. This indubitable mistake
bitrarily added before the discussed notes. Presumably, the re- was corrected by Chopin in FED.
3 2
viser regarded such close proximity between c and c in the p. 66 2
last triplet of the lower voice to be improbable. Nonetheless, this Bars 373-374 R.H. In FE (→EE) there is no tie sustaining d over
type of a close juxtaposition occurs in several of Chopin’s works, the bar line. This is probably an oversight, since in an analogous
1
e. g. in Etude in E op. 10 no. 3, bars 54-55. The absence of one passage in bars 377-378 g is sustained. GE has ties in both places.
3 3
of the indispensable naturals lowering d to d (in bar 239) in p. 67
Bar 377 L.H. On the second quaver of the bar FE (→GE,EE) has
an already obvious situation in analogous bar 237 and 239 in
two equal semiquavers. This is probably an error, since no argu-
GE1 (and FE) additionally confirmed the conviction of the reviser
3 ments speak in favour of differentiating this bar in relation to
of GE2 about the necessity of adding prior to c .
3 analogous bar 373 (we cannot exclude the possibility that a simil-
The unauthentic version with c was included in the decisive ma-
ar mistake occurred in bar 61 – cf. commentary). Dotted rhythm
jority of the later collected editions. orch orch
in the orchestra part occurs in the first violins in FE (→GE )
orch
1 and in the cellos in GE ; it is also contained – in both parts – in
Bar 237 L.H. The fourth b-e on the second quaver occurs in all orch
MFr . In this situation, equal semiquavers in the cello part in
the sources. The majority of the later collected editions arbitrarily orch
1 1 FE should be recognized as a repetition of the erroneous script
added to it c . The absence of c could by justified by the logic of the piano part. It should be added that when such rhythms ap-
1
of linking the chords in bars 236-237: b-e in chords in bar 236 pear against the triplets background, both their forms could, in
1
changes to b-e in bar 237. Chopin’s script, denote the same execution – the second of the
semiquavers or a demisemiquaver simultaneously with the third
Bars 250-251 L.H. In GE and the majority of the later collected note in the triplet, see: e. g. Ballade in F minor op. 52, bars 217-
editions the second and third figure were exchanged so that the -220, 223 and 225.
fourth quaver in bar 250 has a semiquaver triplet, and the
second quaver in bar 251 – two semiquavers. Originally, this mis- Bars 384-385 R.H. In FE (→GE1) is not tied sustaining the oct-
take occurred also in FE, where, however, Chopin corrected it in 2 3
ave e -e . The ties were supplemented in EE and GE2, which
the last stage of the proofs. The FE version is confirmed by the seems to be justified by the presence of ties in similar L.H. motifs
fingering added by Chopin in FED. in bars 380-381 and 382-383.

Bar 254 and 258 The marking in bar 254 occurs in FE (→EE). 2 3
Bar 385 R.H. The octave b -b at the end of the bar, recorded to-
It is absent in GE, and some of the later collected editions based gether with the first two quavers of the following bar by using an
on it arbitrarily added in both bars. va
8 sign, occurs in FE (→GE1,EE). In GE2 it was replaced by the
1 2
octave b -b , possibly due to an error made while changing the
va
Bars 256-257 The 8 sign above the second R.H. figure (start- notation into a version without the transposition sign. This unau-
ing with the fourth quaver in bar 256) was added in FEH, pos- thentic version was accepted in the decisive majority of the later
sibly by Chopin. It seems much more probable that its author collected editions. The original version is more comfortable from
intended it to pertain to both hands’ parts, which we take into the viewpoint of execution.
consideration in the ossia variant.
Bars 392-394, 396-398 and 400-401 L.H. In the second half of
p. 62 1 1
Bar 263 and 267 R.H. In the second half of both those bars in bar 393 FE has a slur (tie?) running from d or f , but lacks its
1 1
FE there is no lowering g to g . This is most probably a mis- end in bar 394 (on the next page). In this manner, the meaning of
1 1 1
take made by Chopin – g in bar 263 stems naturally from the the sign is unclear: it could be a slur d -e or a tie sustaining
1
preceding G-major scale (here EE and GE added ), and it is f . GE1 accepted the first possibility, and EE – both possibilities
1
confirmed by g in a similar passage in bar 265. This whole sec- (slurs and ties both in this passage and in bars 397-398). We al-
tion (bars 263-267) in GE lacks several other indispensable acci- so cannot exclude the possibility that the tie was placed in this
dentals, which proves that in this respect Chopin did not check bar by mistake, e. g. instead of the tie sustaining f in bars 392-
this fragment very carefully. 393 (cf. the sign in bars 400-401). Taking into consideration the
above doubts, and in order not to complicate the text by unes-
Bar 279 R.H. In some of the later collected editions the second sential variants based on surmises, we do not give this sign (this
2 1
quaver of the triplet was arbitrarily changed from d to b . is the version in GE2).

14
 Source Commentary

p. 71
In some of the later collected editions ties sustaining f 1 in those Bar 482 R.H. Before the sixth semiquaver FE mistakenly has
bars were rendered uniform, from the addition of ties in all five instead of . This error is corrected in FEJ.
passages to their total removal.
1
Bar 488 R.H. The fourth semiquaver in FE (→GE1,EE) is a . In
p. 69
Bars 442-443 L.H. Some of the later collected editions mistakenly GE2 and the majority of the later collected editions it was arbit-
1
included into the solo part the tied quaver B at the beginning of rarily changed to a . This type of an anticipation of harmony by
bar 443. In all the sources this note is printed small, since it be- means of notes of the figuration is characteristic for Chopin’s
longs only to the orchestra part. works, cf., e. g. bar 279 in this movement of the Concerto or Bal-
lade in G minor op. 23, bar 63. In the harmonically similar bar
3
Bar 450 R.H. In FE the second quaver (e ) was printed at the 492 the preceding figuration creates a different melodic context,
1
proper height, but without a ledger line going through the note. In so that a occurring there does not constitute an argument in fa-
GE and EE this became the reason for its mistaken deciphering vour of an eventual mistaken placing of in the discussed bar.
3
as d (the error in EE was subsequently corrected in the course
of printing). In FEJ the missing line was added, probably by Cho- Jan Ekier
pin. Paweł Kamiński

15