FRYDERYK CHOPIN

SUPPLEMENT
Performance Commentary
Source Commentary (abridged)
PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY

p. 31
Remarks on the musical text Bars 313-314 RH. It is not clear how one should understand the
4
curved lines joining the 4 crotchets e in bar 313 and the top note
V a r i a n t s furnished with some descriptor, e.g. Piano à 6 octaves , of the chord at the beginning of bar 314. Read literally, they ap-
were thus marked in the sources; where the descriptor is given in pear to be ties; yet this would be a purely theoretical, and need-
square brackets, this means that the variant appears in the sources but lessly complicated, notation. The editors propose 3 solutions:
without any descriptor. The remaining variants result from discrepan- 4
— striking each of the 5 notes e ;
cies between authentic sources or ambiguities in the text. st th
— striking the 1 and 5 of these notes, and so only at the be-
Minor authentic variants (single notes, embellishments, slurs, accents, ginning of bars;
pedal signs, etc.) which may be regarded as alternatives are placed in st rd th
— striking the 1 , 3 and 5 of these notes.
parentheses (). Editorial additions are placed in square brackets [].
Performers with no interest in source-related problems and who wish to Bar 314 An easier fingering:
rely on a single text without variants can be recommended the text
2 4 4 2
given on the main staves, taking account of all the markings placed in 1 1 2 1 1

parentheses and square brackets.

Indications concerning the division between the right and left hands,
marked with a broken line, come from the editors.
General problems relating to the interpretation of Chopin’s works will
be discussed in a separate volume entitled Introduction to the Na- 3 1 5 2 5 1 3
tional Edition, in the section ‘Issues related to performance’.
p. 32
Bar 339 Liszt probably had two slightly different dynamic con-
Abbreviations: RH – right hand, LH – left hand.
ceptions of this phrase ending:
— the climax of the cresc. at the beginning of bar 339;
— cresc. up to the last, accented crotchet a .
Hexameron p. 34
Bars 364-391 In the editors’ opinion, the playing of the fragment
marked as Tutti may be treated as optional. In favour of its in-
The numerous combinations of dotted rhythms and triplets in this work
clusion is the effective texture and original harmonic progression;
should be performed in a way that results from the vertical alignment of
against is the quite precise repetition of the structural-harmonic
the notes. In the clear majority of situations (bars 67-85, 87-95, 99, 103,
st pattern of the preceding segment (bars 332-363).
107, 108 (1 half), 111, 119, 139-145 (RH), 290-297, 302-306, 408-411),
this means that a semiquaver should be struck together with the last
note of a quaver triplet (in bars 223, 229-230 & 233 a demisemiquaver
together with the last note of a semiquaver triplet or sextuplet). Only
the last RH semiquaver in bar 108 and the LH semiquavers in bars ‘Boże, coś Polskę’
rd
139-144 should probably be struck after the 3 note of the triplet. See Harmonisation of an old version of the song
Source Commentary.
p. 49
Bar 13 LH. =
Liszt’s original fingering is marked in slightly larger digits in Roman
type 1 2 3 4 5 , as distinct from the editors’ fingering, written in smaller
digits in italics 1 2 3 4 5 .
p. 12
Bars 45 & 47 LH. It is difficult to determine whether Liszt in- Variations for flute and piano on a theme from
tended the motifs furnished with the names of instruments to be La Cenerentola by Rossini
performed in the solo version. In the editors’ opinion, both solu-
tions are possible. If the Vc. & Cb. motif in bar 47 is included, the When identifying this work, for example in concert programmes, the
tremolando in the main text must be omitted. editors recommend that the likely composers of the Variations both be
p. 18 named: Fryderyk Chopin and Józef Cichocki (see Source Comment-
Bars 139-145 Attention should be drawn to the different notation ary). If more detailed information is given about the work, one may add
rd
and execution of the rhythms in the right and left hands: that Chopin probably composed only the 3 variation.
rd
the RH semiquavers should be struck simultaneously with the 3
note of the LH triplets; the LH semiquavers, after that note. Two kinds of s t a c c a t o sign appear in the flute part: wedges and dots.
During the period of Chopin’s youth the signification of these signs was
p. 29
Bars 282-288 The different notation of the arpeggios in bars 282 not always different: the most commonly used sign was the wedge,
& 286 does not indicate a different execution. In the editors’ opin- whilst dots were used primarily with slurs. Therefore, when choosing
ion, all the arpeggios in bars 282-288 can be played in a continu- articulation, a performer of the Variations should be guided not by a lit-
ous way from the bass note in the LH to the melodic note, which, eral reading of the markings, but by a feel for the character of the motifs
depending on the context, can be played with the RH or LH. and phrases.

Jan Ekier
Paweł Kamiński

2
SOURCE COMMENTARY /ABRIDGED/

Initial remarks Sources

[M] No manuscript of the solo version has come down to us. The
symbol [M] designates the manuscript Stichvorlage; it is difficult
The present commentary sets out in abridged form the principles behind
to ascertain whether this was a joint autograph of the different
the editing of the musical text of the various works and discusses the
composers or the manuscript (autograph/copy) of Liszt, who co-
most important discrepancies between sources. A precise characterisa-
ordinated the project.
tion of the sources, their relations to one another, a justification of the
M orch Manuscript of the score of the arrangement for piano and orches-
choice of the basic sources, a detailed presentation of the differences
tra (Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna), a meticulous clean
appearing between them, and also reproductions of characteristic frag-
text with numerous cues written into the parts of the various instru-
ments of the different sources are all contained in a separately pub-
ments. In this arrangement, Hexameron was shortened consider-
lished Source Commentary.
ably by combining the third variation with the finale (according to
Abbreviations: RH – right hand, LH – left hand, Fl. – flute. The sign → indicates a rela-
the numbering of the solo version, bar 177 is followed by bar 392);
tionship between sources, and should be read as ‘and the source(s) based thereon’. Liszt moved the fourth variation to before the third and omitted
the next two. M orch was produced most probably from an original
working text of the orchestra part, which a copyist was supposed
to copy out, adding the piano part taken from Haslinger’s edition.
Contents of the volume However, when adding that part, the copyist did not take account
of the change in order and wrote 14 bars (2 pages of M orch ) of
The present Supplement contains works written partly, but not entirely, Pixis’s variation in the orchestral accompaniment to Herz’s varia-
by Chopin. The material in this volume can be divided into three groups: tion. After the error was noticed, for the rest of the work the staves
1. Variations on a theme of Bellini (Hexameron), the work of six com- assigned to the piano part were left empty. M orch has only auxili-
posers, including Chopin, who wrote one of the variations; this variation ary significance for establishing the text of the solo version.
is the only composition in this volume prepared by Chopin for print. IE First Italian edition, Jean Ricordi (N 10982 N; on the last page,
2. Various compositions in which Chopin’s authorship can be con- C 10982 N; on the 4 preceding pages, C 10982 C), Milan, Decem-
vincingly shown in relation to only some fragments (Mazurkas) or ber 1838, based most probably on [M]. It contains many errors
elements (harmonisations of Polish patriotic songs and of Polish and and inaccuracies.
French folk tunes). GE First German (Austrian) edition, Tobias Haslinger (T. H. 7700),
3. Variations on a theme of Rossini for flute and piano, a work most Vienna, February 1839, based on IE. In this edition, errors of pitch
probably written jointly by Chopin and the flautist Józef Cichowski. were corrected, accidentals were added (some even unnecessary)
Given the considerable uncertainty over the dating of some works, the and a degree of order was brought to the performance markings.
principle of chronological ordering that is adopted in other volumes of Certain alterations, most probably arbitrary, were also made,
the NE could only be applied in the Supplement to a limited extent. primarily to the rhythmic notation and graphic layout.
We do not include works in respect to the whole of which the attribution EE
o o
First English edition, Cramer & C . (N . 406), London, 1840, based
to Chopin is doubtful (e.g. the Waltz in E major) or autodidactic works on IE, incorporating some of the changes in pitch introduced in
(compositional exercises, canon, Fugue in A minor). Neither do we give GE. It also contains several different versions of unknown pro-
sketches. venance.
The purpose of this collection is to show crumbs of Chopin’s muse, be FE
ie
First French edition, E. Troupenas et C (T. 1066), Paris, 1841,
they only marginal or incidental, which went beyond the phase of frag- based on IE, incorporating pitch corrections made in GE and also
mentary sketches. other, probably authentic, changes.

Editorial principles
Hexameron As the base text, we adopt IE, as based most probably on the manu-
script, taking account of the corrections made to GE, EE and FE.
This title was given in the second (Vienna) and subsequent editions of Alterations that may come from the composers but are not corrections
these variations on the march from Vincenzo Bellini’s opera I puritani of errors, including added performance markings, are given without
written by Ferenc Liszt and five other composer-virtuosos: Sigismond brackets where they appear concordantly in these three editions, and
Thalberg, Johann Peter Pixis, Henri Herz, Carl Czerny and Chopin. The in brackets where they appear in only one or two of these sources
work was conceived by Princess Cristina de Belgiojoso to adorn a char- (most often GE).
itable concert organised by her on 31 March 1837 in aid of poor Ital-
ians. However, the composition was not finished in time (see quota- The notation of d o t t e d r h y t h m s a g a i n s t t r i p l e t s is reproduced in
tions about Hexameron… before the musical text). It was completed in accordance with the first editions; in Chopin’s variation, and also in the
December 1837. Over subsequent years, it was issued by four publish- others (with a few exceptions – the last semiquaver of the RH in bar
ers in Milan, Vienna, London and Paris. 108 and the LH part in bars 139–144), it is in line with the notation
In the present volume, we give the basic version of the work, for solo used by Chopin throughout his oeuvre (see chapter devoted to this in
piano. The very first editions of this version show that from the outset Jan Ekier, Introduction to the Polish National Edition. Editorial Issues;
Liszt also planned an arrangement for piano and orchestra (see bars available at www.pwm.com.pl). In some later collected editions, the
rd
45, 47 and 364–391 and commentary to bars 408–416); however, he semiquavers were arbitrarily moved to after the 3 note of the triplets.
implemented this idea only in part, as can be seen from the extant manu-
script of the score, in which Hexameron was subjected to significant We clarify the notation of the tremolandos filling values smaller than
cuts. Liszt made cuts of similar scope also in the version for two pianos a minim, in accordance with the system in general use today. In the
published in the 1870s. In both these arrangements, Hexameron was
shortened considerably, with Chopin’s variation among the cuts; for this sources, they are written or even .
reason, we do not include them in our edition. We retain the way in which the various composers of the work are
Chopin’s variation is also included in the NE in the volume Various marked in the first editions, by means of full initials (at the beginning of
Works (A). a section) or the initial of first name and surname (at the end).

3
Source Commentary

Introduction Bar 101 LH. In GE the 2 nd , 4 th , 6 th and 8 th quavers are written

rd
exactly beneath the 3 quaver of the successive RH triplets. An
p. 10
Bars 2 - 3 LH. As the dotted minims IE erroneously has D -F. execution corresponding to such a notation is not impossible (cf.
similar rhythm in analogous phrase in bar 121), yet a number of
Bars 10-11 IE does not have any dynamic markings in bar 10 or other places of this type, in which, in GE, the alignment of differ-
the in bar 11 of the alternative version. ent voices has been altered – at times, unquestionably errone-
ously (cf. notes to bars 140–146, 292, 296 & 297) – bids us
p. 11 doubt the authenticity of this change.
Bar 19 In IE (→GE,EE,FE) the pedalling is written inaccurately:
the sign is given at the beginning of the bar, and does not nd 2 2
st
appear until before the 1 semiquaver. Cf. bars 16, 22 & 25. Bars 103 & 119 RH. On the 2 beat the semiquaver f -b is
th
moved in GE to above the 6 semiquaver of the LH. We retain
Bar 25 LH. The arpeggio appears only in IE (→FE). the notation of IE (→EE,FE). Cf. note to bar 101.
th
1 2 Bars 104 & 120 On the 4 beat the main text comes from IE
Bar 28 RH. As the last crotchet IE (→GE,EE) has the octave c -c ,
1 1 1 2 (→FE). The version given in the footnote appears in GE; its
and FE has the chord c -e -a -c . Both versions are most prob-
authenticity is not certain. In EE elements of the two versions
ably authentic.
were combined, with d given at the beginning of the LH group
3
and d at the end of the bar in the RH.
Bars 28-30 LH. We give the performance markings (slurs, wedges,
) according to FE, in which they are most accurate. Bars 106 & 122 RH. The first 4 notes of the passage on the 2
nd

p. 12 beat are notated in IE (→EE,FE) as semiquavers. We give the

Bar 45 LH. The cue of the timpani motif is given only in IE (→FE). more rational notation of GE.
st
Bars 46, 48 & analog. RH. In IE the tremolandos in the 1 half of Bar 106 LH. As the last note EE has just A .
the bar are not written in the usual short form, but written out note
st
by note. 12 notes fill both the 1 crotchet and also – erroneously Bars 107 & 108 RH. We notate the semiquavers of the bottom
nd st
– the 2 crotchet, which as part of the quaver triplet should voice that close the 1 half of the bars according to the notation
unquestionably contain only 8 notes of the tremolando. We adopt of IE (→EE,FE). In GE they were moved slightly to the right (be-
th th
the correct version of GE, EE & FE. tween the 5 and 6 semiquavers of the LH). Cf. note to bar 101.
In the sources, the accompaniment figuration on the last quaver of
nd 2 3
st nd
the 1 half of the bar and in the whole of the 2 half of the bar is Bar 108 RH. On the 2 beat GE erroneously has g -d in the top
2 3
written in demisemiquavers. This notation, although not entirely voice instead of g -e .
1
accurate (the 3 notes that fill the quaver ought to form a semi- RH. In all the sources the semiquaver b at the end of the bar is
quaver triplet), is not only unambiguous, but also better conveys written above the last semiquaver of the LH. In the editors’ opin-
the rhythmic proportions between these notes and the basic metric ion, this may correspond to the notation of the manuscript and
unit, that is, the crotchet (9 notes in a crotchet are rather demi- signify that the composer intended here a different rhythmic solu-
tion than in the middle of this and the previous bar.
semiquavers). For this reason, we leave the notation of the
sources unaltered. 1
Bar 111 LH. The note e at the beginning of the bar is written in
p. 13 th 3 IE (→GE, FE) as a minim with two stems, which in this context
Bar 56 RH. In the chord on the 4 quaver of the bar IE has a
3 undoubtedly signifies a minim in the bottom voice and a crotchet
instead of g . In the other editions, the error was corrected. in the top. We change this to a clear notation.
nd
LH. The semiquaver on the 2 beat is written in IE beneath the
Tema th
5 semiquaver of the RH sextuplet (even slightly in front of it). In
th
p. 14 GE it was moved to beneath the 6 semiquaver (cf. note to bar
Bars 78 & 94 RH. The slur appears only in FE. 101). In EE & FE it was placed in accordance with the nominal
th th
rhythmic division, between the 5 and 6 semiquavers.
nd
Bar 81 In the 2 half of the bar EE has the following version:
p. 17 st 1
Bar 112 LH. In the 1 chord of the bottom voice in GE only e is
1
tied, and in EE only d .
. We give the text of IE (→GE,FE). p. 18
Bar 121 GE does not have the .

2 me. Var.
Bars 84 & 88 RH. The dots extending the sound of the inner
st
minims in the 1 chord appear only in GE. Bar 128 LH. The arpeggio appears only in IE.

p. 15 st
Bar 90 LH. In the 1 chord written in small notes IE (→GE,EE, Bars 139-145 The different notation of the rhythms in the
1 1 1 2
FE) erroneously has g -b instead of b -d . RH and LH appears in all the sources.

1 re. Var. Bars 140-146 RH. In GE the octaves struck between the quavers
nd
of the LH triplets, e.g. the quavers in bars 140 & 144, the 2 and
th nd
p. 16 st 4 quavers in the 2 half of bars 141 & 145-146, are placed above
Bars 99-122 Throughout the 1 variation the dynamic signs – ,
the last note of the corresponding LH triplet. This engraver’s
, – and some other markings are written generally not at the
mannerism, which might suggest a faulty execution, is contrary
beginning of their scope, but later, most often after the lapse of to the correct notation of the other editions. Cf. note to bars 292,
a crotchet (e.g. leggero in bar 102 and in bar 103 are placed 296 & 297.
nd
on the 2 beat). This convention, by then falling out of use, is
p. 19
also encountered sporadically in works by the young Chopin. Bar 154 RH. In IE the bottom note of the chord is most probably
1
Wherever the intended scope of a particular marking raises no erroneously a .
doubts, we place it according to the principle applied today. LH. The arpeggio and appear only in IE.

4
 Source Commentary

Bar 157 The fingering was given only in GE. — missing in FE are the 2 nd RH arpeggio in bar 256 and the LH
arpeggios in bars 253 & 256.
Bar 158 In IE (→EE,FE) the pause applies to the last semiquaver.
It seems much more natural to place it above (below) the preced- Bar 252 LH. At the beginning of the bar IE has only D, which is
ing rest, as it is in GE. most probably a mistake.
p. 28
3 me. Var. Bar 253 RH. At the beginning of the 2 and 3
nd rd
beats EE has
3 2
only the top notes of the chords, e and e .
p. 20
Bars 159 & 185 I n IE (→GE,FE) the initials of the first names of
rd nd
Johann Peter Pixis, the composer of the 3 variation, are wrongly Bar 262 RH. As the 2 semiquaver IE (→FE) erroneously has g.
given as J.B.
th
Bar 263 RH. As the top note of the 6 chord IE erroneously has
th 1 2
Bar 164 RH. As the 4 semiquaver IE (→EE,FE) has b , which a .
is most probably wrong (cf. bar 397, in which all the editions
1
have g ). Bars 267-269 RH. In IE (→FE) the tremolandos are written as dot-
p. 21
Bar 175 In IE this bar numbers only 7 quavers (missing is one
nd
pair of semiquavers in the 2 half of the bar). We give the version ted minims joined by a demisemiquaver beam: . In
of GE, EE & FE.
EE it was changed to a semiquaver beam, which in this context
st
Bar 184 LH. IE does not have the ties sustaining the 1 chord. is more justified, but the rhythmic values left still do not fill the
1
We give the version of GE & FE. In EE only e and e are tied.
entire bar. The notation of GE, , although cor-
Bar 185 In the sources, the ending of this variation has only one
th
version: written after the 5 quaver of the bar is a repeat sign, rect, brings to this uniform figure unnecessary divisions that do
which is followed by Ritornello , beginning with a semiquaver not appear in [M].
th
rest on the 6 quaver. In this way the bar containing the return
th
from bar 185 to bar 166 is deprived of the 6 quaver, since the
th
repeat sign in bar 166 does not appear until before the 7 quaver.
6 me. Var.
We render this notation more accurate, although in practice its p. 30 rd 1
Bar 291 LH. As the 3 quaver IE has the sixth e-c . This is most
proper reading does not raise any doubts.
probably an error, since the accompaniment of the whole of
p. 22 Chopin’s variation is dominated by the principle of the repetition
Bar 193 In IE wedges are also given – probably by mistake – to
the motif c-f-e -e (in both hands). of a common note in successive two-note chords. We adopt the
1
g -c that appears in GE, EE & FE.
rd 1 1
Bar 194 LH. On the 3 beat IE has the chord a -c -f . The error rd
was corrected in all the other first editions. Bars 292, 296, 297 & analog. RH. On the 3 beat we reproduce
nd
the notation of IE (→EE,FE). In GE the 2 quaver is written
rd nd
4 me. Var. above the 3 quaver of the LH triplet, which in the 2 half of the

p. 23 bar implies the rhythm , identical to the rhythm that

Bar 206 LH. The articulation markings come from GE, EE & FE.
3 3
5 me. Var. appears in the theme of the cycle (and in the operatic original).
In this context, the use of two kinds of notation for the same
p. 26 rhythm has no justification and could not have corresponded to
Bars 238, 242, 246-247 & 249 The markings in parentheses ap-
pear only in GE. Chopin’s intentions.
p. 27
Bars 244-245 LH. In IE (→EE) the octave sign covers only every Bar 292 RH. The main text and the variant are two ways of inter-
th th
other quaver, beginning with the 4 in bar 244. This is most preting the unclear rhythmic notation of the 4 beat in IE. Two
2
probably a mistake, corrected in GE & FE. quavers fill it, but the second of these, f , is notated above the
last quaver of the LH, as a semiquaver. So either the correct
Bar 251 LH. At the beginning of the bar GE has E, and not D, as rhythmic values were misplaced or – as is more likely on account
the bottom note of the chord. This is a mistake or a routine revi- of the analogous rhythms in bars 296-297 & 305-306 – the align-
sion, since: ment of the notes is correct but the (incomplete) notation of the
— E means that the E major chord from the previous bar is rhythm is wrong. In the other first editions, the quaver values are
mechanically moved to E major; retained and the alignment of the notes is altered.
— D gives a more logical rhythm to the harmonic progression of
bars 251-256 – the chords change first every other bar (bars Bar 293 RH. was omitted in the sources before the last crotchet.
251-252 & 253-254) and then every bar (bars 255 & 256).
Bars 294-296 & 305-306 LH We add slurs in line with analogous
Bars 251, 253 & 255-256 The sources differ in the number and bars.
the placement of arpeggio signs. In relation to the version adopted
by us: Bars 299-300 LH. On the 4
th
beat IE (→EE,FE) has the rhythm
nd
— missing in IE are the RH arpeggios in bar 253 and the 2
arpeggio in bar 256; in bar 10 and in bar 11. The lack of musical justifica-
nd
— missing in GE are the RH arpeggios in bar 251, the 2 in bar tion for such a difference bids us infer an error. For the main
256 and the LH arpeggios in bars 253 & 256; there is an extra
text, we adopt a version in which, in bars 10-12, the rhythm
arpeggio at the beginning of bar 253;
— missing in EE are the RH arpeggios in bar 253 (see note to appears consistently together with a dynamic . GE has
nd
this bar), the 2 in bar 256 and all the LH arpeggios; in both bars.

5
Source Commentary

Bar 302 RH. The tie joining the grace note to the d 1 of the pen- Bar 373 RH. In IE the middle note of the chords in the 1 st half of
2
ultimate chord was most probably omitted. In a similar context in the bar is erroneously g , which was corrected in the other edi-
the ending of the Prelude in A , Op. 28 No. 17 (bar 89) Chopin tions.
1
avoided the pianistically awkward repetition, omitting the e on
th
the penultimate quaver. Bar 374 LH. As the 5 quaver FE erroneously has g.
th 1 1 nd
Bar 303 LH. As the 6 quaver IE erroneously has the fifth e -b . Bars 374-375 & 378-379 In the 2 half of each of these bars EE
has only the chord (with the value of a crotchet), without the
th
Bar 304 LH. In IE b is missing on the 8 quaver. subsequent quavers. This may be the original version.
The fingering of the RH in bars 378-379 comes from IE (→GE,
p. 31 th 1
Bar 306 LH. As the 9 quaver IE erroneously has the octave c - FE); the other digits appear only in GE & FE.
2
c .
2 2
Bar 388 RH. The sources do not have the raising a to a in the
th nd
Bar 307 RH. On the 7 quaver IE has the most probably errone- 2 chord. This is most probably due to oversight (cf. bar 390),
1
ous additional note e . since the progression of the chords in bars 388-389 develops
a pattern used 4 times in bars 380-387, in which the 3 top notes
st nd
Bar 313 LH. The fingering comes from FE. in the 1 and 2 chords form major triads a semitone apart.
4 3 3
Bars 313-314 RH. The four tied crotchets e appear in all the edi- Bar 390 RH. The sources do not have the raising c to c in the
nd
tions. For the possible interpretations of this unclear notation, 2 chord. This is most probably due to oversight (cf. bar 388),
see the Performance Commentary. since the whole progression of the chords in bars 380-391 is
based on a succession of (minor or major) sixths; in this context,
3 3
Bar 314 Liszt’s fingering is given by IE, GE & FE, but each edi- the augmented sixth c -a without the natural resolution to the
2 3
tion has a different set of digits: octave b -b sounds awkward.
— IE has all the LH digits and the first four of the RH;
rd th
— GE has only part of the RH fingering (from the 3 to 7 digit); Bar 391 RH. In GE & FE the last chord is also preceded by an
— FE has all the RH digits and the first four of the LH. arpeggio sign, which seems to be a mistake.
p. 35
Finale Bar 392 RH. We give the articulation markings according to FE
nd rd
& EE. In GE the 2 and 3 slurs cover only 3 semiquavers, and
p. 32 IE does not have staccato dots.
Bar 317 The marking appears only in FE.

Bars 317-331 The lack of a manuscript prevents us from ascer- Bar 395 RH. We give the articulation markings on the basis of FE
2 3
taining whether the use of two kinds of staccato sign was intend- (we omit the mistaken wedge above the octave b -b ). In GE &
ed here by Liszt and, if so, whether this differentiation was ac- FE the last chord is also preceded by an arpeggio sign, which
curately reproduced in the first editions. We retain the notation of seems to be a mistake.
the sources, leaving its interpretation to those performers who st
Bar 402 RH. In IE (→EE,FE) each of the notes of the 1 chord on
deem the perceived differences essential. nd 1 1 1
the 2 beat has a (d -g -b ), which in this context is wholly
3
Bar 324 RH. The note f in the chord on the 4
th
quaver appears unjustified. We give the undoubtedly correct version of GE – cf.
bar 403, and also bars 400-401 & 299-300.
only in FE.
p. 36
Bars 408-410 LH. The accents at the beginning of bars 408-409
Bar 339 The bracketed lines extending the scope of cresc. and
appear only in FE; the accents in bar 410 appear in GE, EE & FE.
the accent on a appear in IE (→FE). EE does not have cresc. at
all in bars 338-339, which is most probably due to oversight. GE Bars 408-416 The first editions give here a version intended for
has cresc. only in bar 338 and does not have the accent, which performance with orchestral accompaniment: beginning with the
may be a deliberate change (see Source Commentary). nd
2 quaver of bar 408 the RH plays parallel to the LH (2 octaves
p. 33 higher). In bars 408-411 the LH part is identical to that given in
Bar 354 RH. The main version and the version given in the foot- the main text; in bars 412-416, it is as follows:
note are written in the editions on a single stave:
Piano à 7 8ves

412

. This simplified and misleading notation

was certainly employed due to a lack of space on the densely .

printed page. As in other situations of this type, we give as the 414
main text a version that makes use of a broader compass.
Bars 414-416 LH. In IE (→GE,EE,FE) the ossia variant has the
Bars 355-357 RH. The octave sign was omitted in IE. We give form of chords written in small print alongside the octaves of the
the unquestionably correct version of the other editions. main text. We give the notation generally adopted in the NE.
p. 34
Bars 364-391 The marking of this fragment as Tutti appears in Bars 415-416 RH. The sound of the last chord is not certain:
all the first editions, whilst the remark instructing the pianist to there are no accidentals before it, and so we do not know whether
3
omit it in the solo version appears in IE (→GE,FE). Despite this to include the from before the a in the middle of the bar. In
remark, Liszt probably regarded the execution of the piano version the editors’ opinion, it is more likely that Liszt treated the melodic
of this segment as admissible, since in bars 374-375 and 378-379 line independently of the harmonic ground and did not notice that
3
he wrote fingering. As the orchestral version of the whole of the restoring a in the chord caused ambiguity as to the sound
Hexameron was not ultimately prepared by Liszt, one is all the of the last chord in the bar. This interpretation is supported by
more justified in treating this remark as optional. M orch , in which Fl., Ob., Cl. and Vni, doubling motifs of piano’s
2
RH, have always a here.
th 2 3
Bar 370 RH. As the 4 quaver IE (→GE) has e -e , which is most
p. 37
probably a mistake. Bars 417-418 & 420-421 LH. The accents appear only in FE.

6
 Source Commentary

Mazur in D major. Two versions The Mazurka is a heterogeneous work, in which elements close to the
style of Chopin’s mazurkas intertwine with less skilful phrases or
According to Oskar Kolberg, this Mazur was improvised by Chopin for pianistic devices. The most numerous reservations in this respect are
dancing towards the end of 1826.* Among the many that ‘then poured aroused by the quite heavy accompaniment of the first eight-bar unit
forth from beneath his hands, as from a horn of plenty, […] three could (especially the unexpected change of chord-span in bar 6) and in places
be written down the next day [in D major, B major and G major]’; the uncomfortable RH chords moving in parallel in bars 18-24.
last two were then lithographed in small impressions, and their authen- On the other hand, we also find deftly employed formal, melodic-
ticity is confirmed by the copies of Ludwika Jędrzejewicz and Józef rhythmic and textural devices encountered in other Chopin mazurkas:
Sikorski (see commentary to Mazurkas in B WN 7 and G WN 8). In the — bars 41-56 – cf. Fantasia, Op. 13, bars 246-269 (phrase repeated an
case of this particular Mazur, however, there is no evidence of this kind, octave higher) and bars 307-309 (contour of the LH),
since there is no extant manuscript or any other independent account — bars 49-56 – cf. Mazurka in C minor, Op. 41 No. 4, bars 97-100
enabling us to verify the circumstances surrounding its composition. (RH arrangement),
What is more, writing a few years later (3 December 1878) to the firm of — bar 32 – cf. Mazurka in F minor, Op. 6 No. 1, bar 24.
Breitkopf & Härtel, Kolberg himself dates it to the year 1828 or 1829.** Thus Chopin’s authorship of these fragments may be regarded as cer-
This letter also carries information on the second version of the Mazur: tain. One is also struck by a disproportion between, on the one hand,
Chopin apparently sent it to his sister Ludwika from Paris in 1832, and the considerable dimensions of the work and the polishing of certain
Kolberg copied it from that autograph ‘a couple of years later’. details (e.g. melodic and harmonic variants in the repeat of the main
Without undermining – despite this discrepancy of dating – the most section of the Mazurka, bars 78, 86, 89-90 & 95-96) and, on the other,
crucial points of Kolberg’s relation, the NE editors have decided to the above-mentioned awkwardness and triviality of some of the musical
place the Mazur in D not in the volume of Mazurkas, but in the present ideas, justified in Chopin at best in a short work improvised for dancing.
Supplement, on account of the arbitrary changes made by this eminent The assumption arises that we are dealing with a mazur written by
ethnographer to Chopin works that were published posthumously on someone from Chopin’s milieu, which he supplemented and corrected.*
A detailed differentiation between all the Chopin and foreign elements
the basis of texts he provided. Thanks to extant manuscripts, such
would require a more extensive study, but one may propose the follow-
extensive interference can be found, for example, in the Polonaise in
ing hypothetical scenario accounting for the stylistic peculiarities of this
B minor WN 10 and the Lento con gran espressione WN 37 (see
Mazurka as described above:
corresponding source commentaries). In this situation, the texts of both
— a person close to Chopin composes a mazurka comprising bars 1-40;
versions of the Mazur, being familiar solely from Kolberg’s sources,
it is likely that the form of that section familiar to us today already in-
cannot be regarded as wholly reliable.
cludes some corrections by Chopin;
— Chopin adds bars 41-56, of the character of a trio;
Sources
— a few new elements, written by Chopin, adding variety to the main
No autograph of the Mazur has come down to us.
section, are employed when that section is repeated, from bar 57.
[KC1] & [KC2] – two lost copies of Oskar Kolberg, prepared as Stich-
vorlagen for the first editions listed below.
Sources
EL First edition of the earlier version of the Mazur, M. Leitgeber
There is no extant manuscript of the Mazurka.
i spółka (M. L. 18), Poznań, 1875, entitled Trzy Mazury i Adagio PE First Polish edition, Joseph Kaufmann (J 171 K), Warsaw, 1869,
[Three mazurs and an adagio]; the mazur in question is the first based on an unknown manuscript. There exist copies with differ-
work in this collection. EL was based on [KC1]. ent covers.
EB First edition of the later version of the Mazur, Breitkopf & Härtel GC Copy made by an unknown copyist as the base text for the first
(C. XIII. 7.), Leipzig, January 1880, based on [KC2]. This version German edition (archive of the Schott publishing firm, Mainz).
was included in volume XIII (Posthumous Works) of the collected The manuscript contains two works, the Polonaise in G WN 35
edition prepared by Bargiel, Brahms, Franchomme, Liszt, Rein- and our Mazurka. The text of GC was based most probably on
ecke and Rudorff (‘Erste kritisch durchgesehene Gesammtaus- the base text for PE, in relation to which it displays minor dis-
gabe’), alongside the earlier version reprinted from EL. crepancies, above all in the performance markings. Numerous
engraver’s notes are visible.
Editorial principles GE First German edition, Les Fils de B. Schott (20030.), Mainz,
We give both versions: the earlier according to EL; the later according 1870. GE transmits the revised text of GC.
to EB.
Editorial principles
We give the text of PE, compared with GC, correcting obvious minor
Mazurka in C major errors and flaws, particularly in the notation of articulation signs – slurs
and dots.
Among the Chopin works published by the Warsaw firm of Joseph Kauf- p. 45
mann (Polonaises in G minor WN 4 and G WN 35, Waltz in E minor Bar 25 LH. At the beginning of the bar GC (→GE) erroneously
WN 29), this Mazurka raises the greatest doubts as to its authenticity. has c-a.
The publisher gave no information that would enable it to be linked to rd 1
Bar 34 RH. On the 3 beat GC (→GE) has only f in the bottom
some familiar episode from Chopin’s life, and one seeks in vain for any 1 1
voice. We give the d -f that appears in PE (cf. analogous bars 10,
reference to the subject in the composer’s correspondence or extant
66 & 90).
accounts of his life. The incipit is also absent from the list of ‘Unpub-
lished compositions’ compiled after Chopin’s death by his sister, Lud-
Bars 41-42 The RH slur and the term gaio appear only in GC
wika Jędrzejewicz.
(→GE).
The date of composition is most often given as 1833, which is the date
specified by Oskar Kolberg,*** and more seldom as 1825. But the NE p. 46
Bar 49 RH. In GC (→GE) the octave sign starts at the beginning
editors failed to unearth any information confirming those dates. of the bar. We give the unquestionably correct version of PE.
*
In a letter to Marceli Antoni Szulc (Cracow, 15 December 1874), Kolberg gives ‘in Bars 54 & 59 RH. At the beginning of the bar PE has the errone-
1826 or 7’. A more precise dating is made possible by a letter by Chopin himself, in
which, on 8 January 1827, he sends Jan Białobłocki one of his printed mazurkas. ous rhythm in the top voice. We give the correct text of GC
**
The year 1828 appears in the body of the letter, whilst 1829 is given in the list of (→GE).
Chopin works without opus number attached to the letter. In the editors’ opinion, the
*
stylistic criteria speak in favour of the earlier date, resulting from the first of the dis- See quotation about Chopin correcting someone else’s compositions… before the
cussed letters of Kolberg (1826). musical text and a fragment from a letter sent by Chopin to Jan Białobłocki (November
***
In the list of Chopin works without opus number attached to a letter to the firm of 1825): ‘Ludwika has done an excellent Mazur, the like of which Warsaw has not danced
Breitkopf & Härtel (3 December 1878). for a long time. It is her non plus ultra […]. – Lively, lovely, in a word for dancing […]’.

7
Source Commentary

Bars 55-56 RH. GC (→GE) does not have the tie sustaining c 3. Allegretto and Mazur
2 Harmonisations of Polish folk tunes
Bar 70 RH. Missing in the sources is the restoring c before the
last quaver.
None of the circumstances surrounding these notations are known. The
p. 47 nd 1 2 kind of paper used and certain characteristic features of Chopin’s nota-
Bar 75 RH. On the 2 beat PE has only the octave f -f , without
1
the note a . tion (e.g. the use of the term rubato and the misspelling of rittenuto )
point to the years 1832-1833 as the most likely date of the writing of
Bar 77 RH. As the semiquaver PE has the second c -d . This is
2 2
this autograph. Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, who was the first to draw at-
most probably due to oversight – cf. analogous bar 21. tention to these two compositions, after stating that ‘the size of these
two little works and especially their character do not incline one to re-
nd rd
Bar 92 RH. PE does not have the 2 and 3 crotchets of the gard them as original compositions’,* describes them as harmonisations
bottom voice. by Chopin of Polish folk tunes.
2
Bar 96 RH. In the last chord in GC (→GE) the note c was omitted. Sources
A Clean autograph with Chopin’s initials, undated, 1 page (private
collection, photocopy and transcription in the two articles listed
The ‘D browski’ Mazurka in the footnote). The notation is meticulous, without deletions
Harmonisation of the refrain and with numerous performance markings; there are visible traces
of minor corrections (the addition of notes in bars 5, 9 & 17).
Sources
A Album autograph with Chopin’s signature and the date ‘Carlsbad Editorial principles
2 Sept 1835’ (Muzeum Fryderyka Chopina, Warsaw), containing We give the text of A.
8 bars (1 line of text) without words, in an arrangement for piano. p. 50 1 nd
The notation is not very careful, presumably due to haste: in bars Bar 13 RH. The proposed addition of e in the 2 chord of bar 13
1 & 5 corrections (deletions) can be seen in the LH part, in bars is justified in that in 3 analogous bars (bars 5, 9 & 17) the cor-
2-3 repeated chords are marked in short by means of stems alone. responding note was most probably added by Chopin.
The melody of the anthem differs in many details from the official
version adopted today. The autograph carries a dedication as
humorous as it is mysterious: ‘from one ignoramus to another’; this Bourrée in G major and Bourrée in A major
may have been addressed to Konstanty Młokosiewicz,* the brother
of Anna, to whom Chopin dedicated the Mazurka in G WN 26. Harmonisations of French folk tunes

Editorial principles These are two tunes of dances that were popular in the Berry region at
We give the text of A. that time, noted down by Chopin most probably at the request of George
1 1
The third g -b that ends A attests the unquestionably fragmentary Sand. Furnished with the simplest accompaniment, suited to their char-
character of the notation; it obviously leads to a repeat of the whole of acter, they were most probably used subsequently by her to illustrate
the refrain, intended by Chopin. Hence we add the relevant repeat one of stagings she organised of her novel François le Champi.
signs and a proposition for the second version of bar 8, giving a natural
ending after the completion of the repeat. Sources
M Manuscript (one page) pasted into the music album of George
Sand (private collection, photocopy at the Muzeum Fryderyka
‘Boże, coś Polskę’ Chopina, Warsaw), including copies of several Chopin works
written in the owner’s hand (6 Preludes, Waltz in A minor, Op. 34
Harmonisation of an old version of the song No. 2, Mazurka in C, Op. 56 No. 2). Written at the top of the page
is the remark ‘bourrée notée par Chopin’, but that does not mean
This work was published in 1938 by Ludwik Bronarski (together with
this is a Chopin autograph, since both 16-bar dances are written
the Nocturne in C minor WN 62), who described it as ‘a short, but
highly expressive and vigorous work with the character of a patriotic in the hand of neither Chopin nor G. Sand. The writer was certain-
song’ and gave it the title Largo. In 1983, it was shown to be not an ly not a trained musician, as he/she made several glaring errors
original work by Chopin but a harmonisation of the hymn ‘Boże coś (e.g. in bars 1-2, 4-6 and 8 of Bourrée in A); mistakes cannot be
Polskę’.** The date given in the autograph does not allow us to estab- entirely ruled out also in several places in the melody. Pencil cor-
lish exactly when it was written, since we can indicate several years rections made to the accompaniment chords, possibly by Chopin,
during the period 1832–1849 in which Chopin was in Paris on 6 July. are visible in both works (Bourrée in G, bar 16 and in A, bar 11).
Moreover, the actual harmonisation could have been produced earlier –
we know when Chopin, as a pupil of the Lyceum, played the organ for Editorial principles
mass, this song was performed at the end of the service. We give the text of M, correcting obvious errors and inaccuracies.

Sources Bourrée in A major

A Clean autograph with Chopin’s initials and the date ‘Paris le 6
p. 52
Juillet’ (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris). All previous editions are Bars 1-2, 4-6 & 8 LH. As the bottom note of all the A major
based on A, the earliest issued by the Towarzystwo Wydawnicze chords M erroneously has G .
Muzyki Polskiej (TWMP 83), Warsaw, 1938.
Bar 8 I n M this bar is written in one version only, with a repeat
Editorial principles 2
sign before the last quaver c . This notation, although wholly
We give the text of A. understandable from a practical point of view, is rhythmically
imprecise; we correct this with a notation using 1 a & 2 a volta.
*
This assumption is put forward by Zofia Helman, Zbigniew Skowron and Hanna Wró-
blewska-Strauss, editors of Korespondencja Fryderyka Chopina, i, Warsaw, 2009.
** *
Alina Nowak-Romanowicz, ‘Przyczynek do dziejów pieśni „Boże coś Polskę”’ [Con- Jean-Jacques Eigeldinger, ‘Un autographe musicale inédit de Chopin’, Revue Musicale
tribution to the history of the song ‘God, Thou who Poland’], Ruch Muzyczny, 1983/7. Suisse, 1975/1–2. Eigeldinger gives a lengthier discussion (including arguments
See also Tadeusz A. Zieliński ‘Chopinowska Modlitwa Polaków’ [Chopin’s prayer for enabling the pieces to be dated) in the article ‘Deux timbres populaires polonais
the Poles], Ruch Muzyczny, 1992/4. Both articles give the musical and verbal text of harmonisés par Chopin. Répercussions chez Liszt et au-delà’, in Chopin’s Work. His
the earlier versions of the hymn. Inspirations and Creative Process in the light of the Sources, Warsaw, 2002.

8
 Source Commentary

RH. One may suspect a mistake in the notation of the crotchet a Chopin autograph. Kolberg may have come across an edition pro-
st
that ends the 1 8-bar period; the melody of all the other periods duced from that manuscript; this edition has not been found, but an
(in both dances) ends with the root of the tonic; the root also extant Gotthard edition may be its later impression.
appears in the last bar of each 4-bar unit. It is not impossible,
1
therefore, that in the place in question it should be a . Sources
[A] Lost autograph written into the album of Leopoldina Blahetka.
Bars 11 & 15 RH. The main text comes from M. In this version, [EM] Edition of the mazurka by Charles Mayer, entitled Souvenirs de
the melodic linking of bars 15-16 may be considered awkward. la Pologne, Pietro Mechetti, Vienna, 1840-1845 (information
Assuming that the writer may have made a mistake (writing a note based on Frederick Niecks’s biography Chopin as a Man and
a second too low, as in bars 1-2, 4-6 & 8), the editors propose Musician), no longer available.
2
a variant with e . ER Edition entitled Charles Mayer, Souvenir de Pologne, Mazurka,
S. Richault, Paris, 1849. This is presumably a reprint of [EM].
EE Edition entitled Charles Mayer, Souvenir de Pologne, Mazourka,
Mazurka in F sharp major o
Ewer & C , London, before 1854, almost identical to ER.
EG Edition entitled Mazurka pour Piano par F. Chopin, Oeuvre Post-
This composition is a sort of musical-editorial curiosity of the nine- hume, J. P. Gotthard, Vienna, 1873. This is probably a later im-
teenth century. Over the course of around thirty years, it was published pression or a reprint of an edition made by the same firm in the
at least five times, in three different keys (F , F and G), initially as the 1850s. The different versions of several passages that appear
Op. 112 of Charles Mayer, and then as a posthumous work of Chopin. only in EG may be printing errors. The Mazurka was published in
In 1877, Ernst Pauer discovered that the alleged mazurka by Chopin two versions, in F major and F major.
was identical to Mayer’s work,* but in 1949 it was still included – as EB Edition entitled Chopin’s Posthumous Mazurka Transcribed for
Chopin’s work – in a programme of concerts in Poland to mark the the Piano-Forte by Sir Julius Benedict, Duncan Davison & C ,
o

centenary of his death. This induced Janusz Miketta to devote a study London, 1876 (an arrangement for 4 hands was published
to the Mazurka in F ,** in which, after pointing out a range of inconsist- simultaneously). This ‘transcription’ of the Mazurka essentially
encies with the style of authentic Chopin mazurkas, he opined that involved no more than its transposition to G major; apart from
Chopin could not have written it. that, the text does not diverge from the remaining editions.
In the opinion of the editor-in-chief of the NE, however, the question is All these editions present the same work with 218 bars to be played.
not so clear cut, since the work is stylistically incoherent: alongside The differences are as follows:
fragments, the musical awkwardness of which practically rules Chopin
— key – in ER, EE & EG the work is notated in F major, the second
out as their composer, it also contains other passages that show suf-
version of EG gives most probably F major, whilst EB has G major;
ficient convergence with his authentic style that it is difficult to imagine
— performance markings – ER & EE have many more articulations
that they could have been written by anyone else (above all bars 182-
signs (dots, slurs);
196, and also bars 1-8 & 32-39). Oskar Kolberg was convinced that the
— details of texture, melody, harmony and rhythm – ER & EE generally
Mazurka in F was authentic: ‘it contains modulations and harmonic
have fuller chords than EG; in EB we find versions concordant either
combinations that only Fryderyk could have written […] I became
with ER & EE or with EG, and several versions different still;
acquainted with this composition in Vienna […] in 1857; it was widely
— notation of repeats – in ER & EE all the bars are written out; in EG &
claimed there (as the publisher himself asserted) that it came from the
EB conventional repeat signs are used.
album of the former pianist Leopoldina Blahetka, and no one dreamed
of considering it a forgery’.*** That Chopin could have offered Miss Bla-
Editorial principles
hetka an ‘album leaf’ is quite likely,**** but such an offering could not
As the base text, we adopt ER, as the earliest of the available sources.
have been as long as the Mazurka in F . Taking these observations
All the more important discrepancies in the text that appear in the
into account, the NE editor-in-chief reconstructed the piece; the work
remaining editions are included in the form of variants.
that resulted – [Allegretto] – is included in the volume Various Com-
In order to avoid unnecessary complication, all the sources are describ-
positions.*****
ed below as if they were notated in F major.
Given the present state of our knowledge, it is impossible to ascertain
how crumbs of Chopin’s music found their way into a composition by p. 53 rd
Bars 1, 5, 143 & 147 LH. On the 3 beat ER & EE do not have
Mayer or any other details of the editorial chaos described above. In 1 1
the lowering e to e .
the editors’ opinion, the most important stages in this story may have
been as follows: Bars 3, 7, 34, 38 & analog. LH. On the 3
rd
beat EG has a third
— c. 1830, Chopin writes a small ‘album leaf’ into the album of Leopold- and ER, EE & EB have a chord.
ina Blahetka;
— in unknown circumstances, Charles Mayer makes use of particular rd
Bar 4 & analog. RH. On the 3 beat EG & EB have a fifth and ER
fragments of this work (with only minor changes) in an extensive ar- & EE have a chord.
rangement that he publishes in the 1840s as his mazurka Souvenir de
la Pologne; Bars 9-11 & analog. At the beginning of bar 9 in the LH and bar 10
— in the 50s, someone, possibly aware of Chopin’s partial authorship, rd
in the RH EG has the rhythm , but on the 3 beat of bar 11 it
offers a Viennese publisher (most probably J. P. Gotthard) a manu-
script produced on the basis of Mayer’s arrangement, describing it as has . We give the concordant text of the remaining sources.
*
This information, after the Monthly Musical Record (July 1882), is given by Frederick Bar 13 & analog. RH. The chord at the beginning of the bar
1
Niecks: Frederick Chopin as a Man and Musician, London, 1902. appears in ER & EE; EG & EB have a .
**
‘O nieautentyczności Mazurka Fis-dur uchodzącego za utwór Fryderyka Chopina’ [On
the inauthenticity of a Mazurka in F sharp major purported to be a work by Fryderyk
Bars 19, 23 & analog. RH. The main text comes from ER & EE,
Chopin], Kwartalnik muzyczny, 28 (1949).
***
Letter to Maurycy Karasowski of 12 April 1885; F major was given as the work’s key. the variant from EB. Yet another version of the melody is given
nd 2
****
In a letter to Tytus Woyciechowski (Warsaw, 12 September 1829), Chopin wrote: ‘my by EG: as the semiquaver on the 2 beat it has a in bar 19 and
3
way of playing, which again was much to the liking of the ladies, and especially Miss a in bar 23.
Blahetka, the foremost lady pianist of Vienna, who must have thought highly of me […] LH. At the end of the bar EG has a third and ER, EE & EB have
as she gave me her composition as a farewell memento with her own signature.’
*****
The motivation behind this reconstruction and the methods employed are discussed
a chord.
in slightly greater length in the commentary to that volume. See also Jan Ekier, ‘The p. 54
Reconstruction of the Works of Chopin’, in Chopin’s Work. His Inspirations and Creative Bars 24-26 & analog. LH. The main text comes from ER & EE,
Process in the Light of the Sources, Warsaw, 2002. the variant from EG & EB.

9
Source Commentary

p. 61
Bar 28 & analog. EG has not a single rest in this bar. Bar 192 RH. As the 4 th note ER & EE erroneously have a 2.
1
Bar 30 & analog. RH. As the last semiquaver EG has f -d . Bar 194 RH. The main text (11 notes) comes from ER & EE, the
variant (12 notes) from EG & EB.
Bar 31 & analog. RH. The main text comes from ER & EE, the
variant from EG & EB. Bars 198-199, 204-206 & 210 RH. At the beginning of these bars
EG has the rhythm .
Bar 32 & analog. LH. The bottom F 1 appears in ER, EE & EB.
1 Bars 200, 204, 206 & 208 RH. At the beginning of the bar EB has
Bar 39 & analog. LH. Missing in EB is the c in the chord on the 1 1
nd d as the bottom note. We give the d that appears in ER, EE &
2 beat. EG.
p. 55 2 nd
Bar 70 RH. The note a in the chord on the 2 beat appears
Bar 209 RH. At the beginning of the bar in the top voice ER & EE
only in ER & EE. 1
have a minim g .
p. 56
Bar 76 & analog. LH. At the beginning of the bar ER & EE have nd
Bar 213 LH. The note F on the 2 beat appears in EG & EB.
only G , whilst EG & EB have the octave G -g .
1 st
Bar 215 LH. The notes c on the 1 beat appear in EG & EB.
Bars 76-77 & analog. RH. In bars 77 and 105-106 & analog. EG
has the rhythms and short slurs covering the two-note
motifs between rests. Variations for flute and piano on a theme from
nd
Bar 83 & analog. RH. As the 2 grace note EG has a , and not
1 La Cenerentola by Rossini
1
the b that appears in ER, EE & EB.
This work is known from the only manuscript, produced by an unknown
nd 1
Bar 84 RH. As the semiquaver (2 strike) EB has the chord e - person (see below, characterisation of M). Its unquestionable proven-
1 2
g -e . ance – Józef Nowakowski, a friend from Chopin’s schooldays, gave it
to Adam Münchheimer, one of the founder members of the Warsaw
1 1
Bars 85-86 RH. The bottom voice – the second e -f at the end Music Society – and mentions by Ferdynand Hoesick, who linked the
1
of bar 85 and d at the beginning of bar 86 – comes from ER & composing of the Variations with the persons of Chopin and the fluent
1
EE. The note d in bar 86 appears also in EB. amateur flautist Józef Cichocki (see quotations about the Flute Varia-
tions… before the musical text) determined its acknowledgement as
Bar 92 & analog. LH. At the beginning of the bar EG has B , most a work by Chopin. On the other hand, serious errors of harmony in the
probably by mistake. piano accompaniment raised doubts among musicologists: Jan Prosnak
devoted a separate study to the Variations,* in which he deemed only
Bar 94 & analog. RH. The main text comes from ER & EE, the the flute part undoubtedly Chopin’s.
variant from EG. In EB the two versions were combined, giving f- In the opinion of the NE editors, it is unlikely that Chopin could have
1 1 1
a-c -e -f . composed the whole of the Variations, since one would have to accept
p. 57 that he wrote a composition that was g o o d f o r f l u t e (flautists con-
nd 1 1
Bar 97 & analog. LH. On the 2 beat EG erroneously has c -e . sider it adroit and quite striking), and p o o r f o r p i a n o. A closer in-
nd 1 2
vestigation of both the manuscript and also the circumstances surround-
Bar 98 & analog. RH. As the 2 two-note chord EB has a -g , ing the composing of the work (unfortunately few in number and insuffi-
most probably by mistake. ciently documented) allowed the editor-in-chief to put forward a hypo-
thesis of Chopin’s p a r t i a l a u t h o r s h i p, the key elements of which
Bar 103 & analog. LH. At the beginning of the bar ER & EE have are presented below.**
only D , whilst EG & EB have the octave D -d . Arguments against Chopin’s full authorship
1 rd
— the lack of differentiation to the accompaniment of the major-mode
Bar 107 & analog. RH. The note f on the 3 beat appears only variations, in spite of harmonic clashes with the flute part,
in EB. — the lack of an introduction and finale, which appear in other Chopin
variation sets,
Bars 108-109 & analog. RH. The semiquaver groupings are mark- — the premature appearance of the minor-mode variation, contrary to
ed with the number 12 only in ER (in bar 109, erroneously 11) the logic of the formal development and never appearing in variation
and EB. sets that are unquestionably Chopin’s.
Arguments in favour of Chopin’s contribution to the
Bar 111 & analog. RH. The main text comes from ER, EE & EB, work’s composition
the variant from EG. — the provenance of the manuscript and Hoesick’s mentions,
— stylistic features of the minor-mode variation, displaying many
Bar 113 & analog. RH. The main text comes from ER & EE, the Chopinesque traits,
variant from EG. Yet another version appears in EB: — pencil corrections of errors in the manuscript, commensurate with
. the way in which Chopin made corrections in copies or lesson scores of
his works; in the manuscript of the Variations, they are present only in
the piano part of the minor-mode variation.
Bar 114 & analog. RH. At the beginning of the bar EG has the It follows from this that Chopin most probably composed the minore
1 1 1 variation, but at most made some limited contribution to the composing
chord d -f -b , most probably by mistake.
of the remaining fragments.
p. 59
Bar 147 RH. As the middle note of the last chord ER & EE have *
1 Jan Prosnak, ‘Wariacje fletowe Chopina’ [Chopin’s flute variations], Studia muzyko-
g , most probably by mistake. logiczne I, Cracow, 1953.
**
p. 60 The author of this hypothesis discusses it more precisely in Jan Ekier, ‘The Problem of
Bar 183 LH. Four-note chords appear in ER & EE, triads in EG & the Authorship of the Flute Variations Ascribed to Chopin’, in The Sources of Chopin’s
EB. Creative Style: Inspirations and Contexts, Warsaw, 2005.

10
 Source Commentary

Attempted reconstruction of the circumstances of the We take account of pencil corrections in the minor-mode variation most
work’s composing probably made by Chopin, and also of tempo indications for this vari-
nd
The idea of writing the Variations probably arose spontaneously follow- ation and repeats of the 2 part of the theme also made in pencil,
ing a performance of La Cenerentola at the National Theatre in Warsaw though not by Chopin.
(the premiere took place on 29 August 1829). The bravura aria ‘Non più We make minor retouches, on the basis of comparison with analogous
mesta’ that closes the opera begins with a phrase of the flute, and then fragments, to articulation markings in the flute part, which are quite
in the vocal part makes abundant use of variational figurate technique. numerous, but not always precise.
For an ardent flautist such as Józef Cichocki, this could have naturally As the metre, we adopt for all the variations the written in M in the
brought to mind the idea of developing the catchy theme in a set of flute part (the piano part has ).
several variations with the flute to the fore. As soon as the opportunity
arose, perhaps even that very same evening, Cichocki put his idea to
Chopin, who sketched the theme from memory together with an accom- Thema
paniment (it shows a few minor differences from Rossini’s original; the p. 62 1 1
most important of these is the version of bars 7-8). Virtuoso variations Bars 2, 6 & analog. RH. M has here twice b-d -a in bar 2 &
1 1
were to be written by Cichocki, making use of his familiarity with the analog. and b-d -f in bar 6 & analog. Both these awkwardly
flute and possibly drawing on improvised melodic ideas and general sounding versions are presumably the result of misreadings of
hints from Chopin, who himself composed and notated a tuneful, lyrical Chopin’s sketch.
minor-mode variation.* The piano part of the figurate variations was to
be modelled on the accompaniment of the theme, but this was wrongly Bars 3-4 & 7-8 Fl. In the operatic original, the melody has the
done by Cichocki as a literal repeat. On completing the Variations, when following form (given here in the octave corresponding to the
Cichocki showed Chopin the manuscript, the latter took a close look theme of the Variations):
only at ‘his’ variation, in which he found and corrected a number of
errors; he did not check the others, as they were not his, and he also ,
overlooked a probable error in the order of the variations. 3

Sources
.
M Manuscript entitled [erroneous original spelling] Variationi sopra
7
il Thema della Opera Cenerenlota per Flauto con accompagne-
mento del Piano par Fr. Chopin (Warszawskie Towarzystwo
Muzyczne). It is not certain who produced M: arguing against the Bar 7 & analog. LH. At the beginning of the bar M has only e.
natural hypothesis that it was Józef Cichocki are several clear This is most probably due to oversight, and so we give the
errors of pitch in the flute part; the person writing the work out octave E-e that appears in the analogous bar 15.
could have been a professional copyist. The part of the flute (two
Bars 8-9 Fl. M has a short sign at the end of bar 8 and at
pages) and the piano (one page) are written separately, which
makes it difficult to check their concordance, resulting in a num- the beginning of bar 9. In the editors’ opinion, either the sign in
bar 8 is a reversed accent (cf. note to bars 17-19) or was
ber of errors. In the piano part, only the theme and the minor-
mode variation (marked as the second) were written out; the written according to the convention occasionally used at that
heading above the accompaniment of the theme – Thema, Var. time (including by the young Chopin) of placing dynamic signs at
1, 3 & 4 – means that the writer intended this text to be used the beginning of a bar.
both in the theme and in all the major-mode variations.
M is the only source for the Variations; the earliest of the editions Bars 8-16 I n M the signs for the repetition of this segment are
based on it appeared in 1959 (Complete works, xvi, Cracow, written in pencil in the flute part. In the piano part, the repeat is
PWM), edited by Ludwik Bronarski. marked by means of a verbal remark (added in pencil, in Polish).
See Performance Commentary.
Editorial principles
We give the text of M, altering those elements which in light of the
arguments outlined above are assumed to result from a misunderstand-
Var. 1
ing of Chopin’s instructions: p. 63
Bars 17-19 Fl. M has the following notation:
— we alter variations II and III, taking as a model the arrangement
6 6
employed in all the variation sets unquestionably by Chopin;
— in the accompaniment of the theme and the major-mode variations, .
17
we correct undoubted errors that give rise to awkwardness in the
arrangement of chords and the voice-leading; The interpretation of the dynamic signs here causes some prob-
— preserving the rhythmic structure and the utmost simplicity, we alter lems. The signs < written beneath the stave may be interpreted
those fragments of the accompaniment of the major-mode variations (in as short crescendos; in the editors’ opinion, however, this is mu-
M mechanically repeated according to the theme) in which there occur sically unconvincing. The solution given in the musical text seems
harmonic clashes with the flute part (bars 19, 23-24, 31-32, 34-36, 39- more natural in every respect; it is also likely in respect to the
40, 46-48, 67, 71-72, 79-80); similar, and in places identical, changes sources, since this kind of change in direction to signs happened
were made in most situations already in the edition of the Complete to both copyists and engravers of Chopin’s works.
Works (see above, characterisation of M).
nd
Bars 18, 22 & 30 Fl. We give the first note of the 2 half of the
2 2
bar as in M: a in bar 18 and b in bars 22 & 30. Although a mis-
*
In those times, the joint composing of sets of variations was nothing unusual, as is
take by the writer in one of these two places cannot be excluded
attested by Hexameron, which opens this volume. In a letter to Jan Matuszyński (bar 30 is not written out), it is difficult to state which of the ver-
(Vienna, 26-29 December 1830), Chopin writes: ‘I was just returning from Slavik’s sions would be correct. The differentiation of the versions is per-
(a famous violinist whom I have befriended […]), where I fell upon the idea, upon re- haps suggested by the difference in the performance markings.
turning home, of pining across the piano and weeping out the adagio to the Variations
on a theme of Beethoven that we are writing together […]’. It is significant that in both
cases Chopin wrote or was setting about writing an ‘adagio’, and so a slow, contrast- Bars 20, 23-24 & analog. Fl. We retain the differences in staccato
ing variation (the variations on a theme of Beethoven, if they were finished at all, markings that are visible in M. In this variation, however, they
have not come down to us). may be accidental (cf. consistent markings in the theme).

11
Source Commentary

Var. 3 Fl. On the 4 th quaver M has e2, most probably by mistake, creating
a melodic phrase that is rather unnatural in this context and also
p. 65 2
Bar 48 In M the marking Più lento is only added in the piano parallel fifths with the bass line. We alter it to g ; a similar change
part (in pencil, but not in Chopin’s hand). was also made in the edition of the Complete Works (see above,
characterisation of M).
nd
Bar 50 RH. In the chord on the 2 beat Chopin altered in M the
1
1
middle note from d to b. Bar 63 RH. In M the note d in the last chord was added in pen-
cil (by Chopin).
2
Bar 55 RH. The double grace note before the minim f is melod-
ically justified only as a beginning of a trill. For this reason we Var. 4
add the most probably omitted sign, and a termination of the
p. 66
trill, natural in this context. Bar 70 Fl. At the beginning of the bar M erroneously has b in-
2
3
stead of the thematic c (cf. analogous bar 66).
Bar 59 LH. In M Chopin corrected the last octave from D -d to
nd
B 1 -B. Bar 74 Fl. At the beginning of the 2 half of the bar M errone-
3 2
ously has d instead of the thematic b (cf. analogous bar 76).
1 1
Bar 60 RH. The minim third d -f in the chord at the beginning of
1 1
the bar was corrected by Chopin in M to the third e -g . Jan Ekier, Paweł Kamiński

12