SOURCE COMMENTARY /ABRIDGED/

Initial remarks SS Edition of the score of the Polonaise prepared by K. Sikorski as

part of an edition of the complete works of Chopin, Instytut Fry-
The present commentary concerns solely the orchestra part (the solo deryka Chopina and PWM Edition (PWM-3821), Warsaw-Kraków
part is discussed in the commentaries to the Polonaise in the versions 1961. This was based on SBH, with the parts of the violas and
for one piano and with a second piano). It sets out the principles govern- double basses arbitrarily added in many places. We take no
ing the editing of the musical text and discusses the more important account of these additions and they are not notated (they are
discrepancies between sources, as well as signalling the most crucial described in detail in the commentary to SS).
changes introduced into the printed scores of the Polonaise (none of
which were published during Chopin’s lifetime). Editorial principles of the orchestra part
A precise characterisation of all the sources, their relations to one As the base text we adopt PFE, as the source which is closest to Cho-
another, a detailed presentation of the differences appearing between pin’s manuscript. We correct clear errors of pitch or rhythm.
them, and also reproductions of characteristic fragments of the different We set the dynamic and articulation markings in order:
sources are all contained in a separately published Source Commentary. — taking account of the legibility of individual parts and the overall
musical sense of the score, we unify markings within groups of instru-
Abbreviations: RH – right hand, LH – left hand. The sign → indicates a relation- ments and in analogous bars;
ship between sources, and should be read as ‘and the source(s) based thereon’. — in the Tutti, we take account of Chopin’s markings in the piano reduc-
tion, which is part of the authentic version for one piano.
We transpose the parts of the C clarinets and E horns, as appearing in
the original score, for B clarinets and F French horns, most commonly
used today.
Polonaise in E flat major, Op. 22
The p i a n o p a r t comes from volume 32 B VII (version for two pianos).
Sources We have omitted fingering and elements of notation deriving from the
[A] The autograph is not extant. It is difficult to state whether the score editors which have no effect on the relations between the sound of the
was written out in full by Chopin or whether – as in the Concerto in solo part and the orchestra (brackets, minor variants).
F minor, Op. 21 – the composer entrusted the notating, and possi-
bly also partly the editing, of the orchestral parts to someone else.
FE First French edition of the version for one piano, M. Schlesinger
(M.S.1926), Paris, July 1836. FE is based on [A] and was proof-
read by Chopin, probably twice.
Polonaise
PFE Orchestral parts appended to FE (same firm and number), most p. 14
Bars 5-6 The dynamic signs appearing in the sources at the
probably prepared from [A]. It seems highly unlikely that Chopin beginning of bar 5 raise doubts: the Vni and Vle have , whilst
contributed to their preparation.
o written in the Vc. and Cb is , which also appears in FE (→EE,
EE First English edition of the version for one piano, Wessel & C
o o GE). The remaining parts have no sign in PFE (→PGE), and the
(W & C N 1643), London, May 1836. EE is most probably based
woodwinds therefore begin the work without dynamic markings,
on a proof of FE that does not take account of Chopin’s final cor-
which attests carelessness in this respect.
rections; a number of revisions have been made to the text in
Given the crescendos that fill the subsequent six bars, as well as
this edition, in the preparation of which Chopin did not participate.
the possibility of misunderstanding due to the inclusion in the Vc.
After 1846 a second impression was issued, with minor alterations.
and Cb. parts of the cue of the French horn signal that opens the
As the NE editors did not discover the orchestral parts prepared
o Polonaise, we regard the in this part as probably erroneous.
by Wessel & C , it may be assumed that the orchestral material –
For this reason, we give for all the instruments that begin their
as in other Chopin works with orchestra – was not printed by the
parts in these bars.
English publisher.
GE First German edition of the version for one piano, Breitkopf & Cor. Added at the beginning of bar 5 in Sco (→SBH) is , after
Härtel (5709), Leipzig, August 1836, based on FE. This bears the fashion of additions in the parts of the Ob., Cl. and Fg.
evidence of revisions by the publisher, and also contains a num- Cor. In PFE (→PGE→Sco) the sign begins and ends be-
st
ber of errors. Chopin did not participate in its preparation. There neath the 1 note of bar 6, which gives it the appearance of an
exist copies differing in details on the cover (3 versions). accent. Regarding the placement and the size of this sign as
After 1852 a second edition was prepared, with minor alterations, erroneous, we move it to the second half of bar 5.
and after 1872 its corrected reissue.
PGE Orchestral parts appended to GE (same firm and number), most Bars 7-8 & 11-13 Vni & Vle. We give the signs and ,
probably based on PFE. Some of the errors in the base text were emphasising the phrasing, on the basis of FE (→EE,GE).
corrected here. There is nothing to suggest Chopin’s participa-
rd 2 2
tion in the preparation of PGE. Bar 12 Vni II. On the 3 beat, the sources give quavers f -a . As
th
Sco Manuscript of the score of the Polonaise (Österreichische National- a result, the chord played by the violins and violas on the 5 qua-
bibliothek, Vienna), prepared in the 1870s as a base text for its ver is not a triad, as is required by Chopin’s piano reduction of
2
first edition (Breitkopf & Härtel, 1880). The parts of the orchestral this place (lack of a ); cf. all other chords of bars 11-13.
2
instruments were copied from PGE and subjected to wholesale The note a was perhaps intended for the Vle – the erroneous
revision, primarily in respect to performance markings. writing of 3 ledger lines, instead of 4, is entirely probable. It is
SBH First edition of the score as part of an edition of the complete also possible that, in order to make the part of the violas easier,
2 2
works of Chopin (Erste kritisch durchgesehene Gesamtausgabe), this a was to have been swapped with the f of the second
Breitkopf & Härtel (C XII 6), Leipzig 1880. A number of revisions violins, but the change was only introduced in the violas.
th 2
were made here, setting the dynamic and articulation markings in Taking all this into account, on the 5 quaver we change the f to
2
order. a in the part of the Vni II.

2
p. 15 p. 21
Bars 32 & 176 Vle. PFE have here d 1. This obvious mistake was Bar 113 Vni II. Missing in PFE is the raising a to a. This
already corrected to b in PGE. obvious mistake was already corrected in PGE.
p. 17 1 1
Bar 57 Vni II. Missing in PFE (→PGE) is the raising e to e . Bars 121-122 Vc. & Cb. In PFE (→PGE) these parts are notated
together. In passages written on a single stave, the use of the
Bars 57-58 & 201-202 Vni & Vle. In both places, we give the slurs double basses in unison with the cellos is clearly marked on
which PFE (→PGE) have in bars 201-202. In bars 57-58, added each occasion verbally (Tutti) or graphically (notation with double
slurs also join the crotchets of bar 57 with the minims in bar 58. stems). In these bars, the notation is one-part, and so the remark
1 1 Vcello Solo that does not appear until bar 123 was probably
Bars 62 & 206 Vni. In SS the crotchets e and g are arbitrarily
mistakenly placed 2 bars too late. This conclusion is confirmed in
removed.
the course of the bass line of the piano part.
Bars 68 & 212 Vle. At the beginning of bar 68 PFE (→PGE) have Taking this into account, in the Cb. part we give rests in these
1
a quaver e . We give , after the fashion of the other three bars; this solution was also adopted in SS, whereas in Sco
analogous bars 30, 174 & 212. In Sco (→SBH) the note was left (→SBH) the double basses double the part of the cellos.
in bar 68, and the rest was changed to a note in bar 212. p. 24 1
Bar 150 Vni I. As the last quaver, PFE has b . This error was
p. 18 1
Bars 75-76 & 219-220 Archi. PFE (→PGE) have here very incon- already corrected to a in PGE.
sistent articulation markings. Presented below are all the versions
st
appearing in various parts (discounting minor inaccuracies): Bar 153 Cb. Read literally, the 1 note should be played pizzicato,
as the indication arco does not appear in the sources until the
Vni I, bar 75 , bar 219, no markings, last quaver of the bar. However, this is most probably an error:
— the pizzicato in bars 149 & 151 are notated in crotchets with
Vle, bar 219 , the indication pizz., doubtless to emphasise the distinctness of
the Cb. part in relation to the other strings (pizzicato obtains from
bar 133 and is written in crotchets throughout this passage);
Vc., Cb., bar 219 ,
— from the beginning of bar 153 the notation alters – the Cb. are
notated in quavers staccato (then also legato), just like the Vc.; if
other instances .
the previous way of playing still applied, the change of notation
For the sake of comparison, here are the chords in Chopin’s piano would be senseless.
p. 25 1
reduction in bars 75 & 219: . Bar 177 Vni II. PFE (→PGE) have here erroneously e , which
1
It is difficult to state how such a variety of notations came about, was corrected to f in Sco (→SBH).
but it was certainly due to carelessness in the preparation of the p. 28 rd 1
parts, as a differentiated performance by particular instruments Bar 216 Vni II. On the 3 beat PFE have erroneously f .
makes no sense in this context. The following arguments justify
the adoption in all the places of a notation with the use of accents Bar 221 Cb. PFE (→PGE) have in this bar a whole-bar rest, which
alone: is certainly an error.
— it is the only notation to appear more than once (in 4 of the 8
places); Bars 221-261 Vc. & Cb. As the only dynamic markings in this pas-
— it is not contrary to the other notations (accents appear in a l l sage, PFE (→PGE) have & in bar 225 and in bar 245.
places containing some kind of markings); We correct this unquestionable inaccuracy according to the mark-
— the lack of articulation markings suggests détaché, which is the ings written in the parts of the remaining string instruments.
most natural way of playing a polonaise rhythm in a dynamic.
p. 30 1
Bar 230 Vni I. At the beginning of the bar, PFE have a . The
p. 20 1
Bar 105 Vni, Vle, Vc. & Cb. PFE (→PGE) have here the following error was already corrected to g in PGE.
dynamic signs: Vni I , Vni II & Vle . The parts of the Vc. & Cb.
p. 36
have no markings. We unify the dynamics of the violins and vio- Bar 279 Timp. In Sco (→SBH) the marking tremolo was added.
las, giving , which is notated in a similar context in bar 25 & However, although admissible, this addition does not seem ne-
analog. We also add in the Cb. part – cf. Vc. In bars 91 & 108. cessary, and so we retain the version of PFE (→PGE).

Jan Ekier
Paweł Kamiński

3
PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY

The orchestral parts are available for borrowing at the Biblioteka General issues regarding the interpretation of Chopin’s works will be
Materiałów Orkiestrowych PWM, ul. Fredry 8, 00-097 Warszawa, discussed in a separate volume entitled Introduction to the National
tel. +4822-635-35-50, fax +4822-826-97-80, Edition, in the section Issues of performance.
www.pwm.com.pl, e-mail: [email protected]

Remarks on the musical text Polonaise in E flat major, Op. 22

p. 14
Editorial additions are written in square brackets [ ]. Bar 5 We draw attention to the incomplete and unclear dynamic
L o n g a c c e n t s denote accents of a primarily expressive character in markings in this bar (see Source Commentary). Our additions (giv-
which the accentuated part generally lasts somewhat longer than in en in brackets) give the most natural, though not the only, dyna-
a normal accent (with shorter rhythmic values, it sometimes covers two mic conception of this place. One may, for example, consider the
or three notes), and the drop in the intensity of sound is smoother. entry of the basses (Vc., Cb., possibly Fg.) or .

Jan Ekier
Paweł Kamiński