WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

The Polonaise was included into a joint collection of Chopin's posthumous works, ordered and edited by the composer's years-long friend and copyist of a number of his works, Julian Fontana. The edition appeared in July 1855 at the same time in Paris and Berlin. Two versions were accessible: an entire version in one volume or books with particular pieces or groups of them. The French and German editions differ only in a few details, therefore, they will be characterised altogether here. We discuss the differences between them and the issue of their mutual relation in the characteristics of GEF.

FEF was based – certainly via the lost Fontana's copy (perhaps not the only one) – on [AI]. It is proven by a high concordance of the texts of both sources (if we do not take into account the performance markings, generally completed by Fontana) and particularly by their common errors (see the characteristics of [AI]). It is highly unlikely that while preparing the base text, Fontana had at his disposal another manuscript of the Polonaise, which would be developed enough to include much more performance indications. We may consider the following as potential sources of additional authentic elements of EF: 

• possible Chopin corrections in [AI], made already after the completion of JC, yet before the copy made by Fontana. Such corrections may be suspected particularly in those places where EF differs from JC and is compatible with PE, e.g., in bars 24 (the rhythmic value of the 1st chord in the L.H.) or 59 (f¹ instead of the chord in the upper voice in the R.H. on the 4th quaver of the bar). Moreover, some of performance indications of EF, displaying a clear concordance with PE, could have been added in [AI]: accents in bars 1-3, dynamic hairpins in bar 19, the  sign in bar 27, slurs in the R.H. in bar 58, slur in the L.H. in bar 67, range of crescendo-diminuendo in bars 83-87. In the Polonaise in F minor WN 12, the analysis of sources indicates a high probability of such type of later corrections in the preserved draft autograph. 
• personal contacts of Fontana with Chopin, of which he wrote himself in the afterword to FEF: "not only did I hear the author performing almost all the works included in this collection on a number of occasions, but [...] also performed them in his presence, preserving them in my memory in such a form as was created by him ever since [...]."

EFs are very carefully prepared, as far as the text proofing is concerned, they are almost devoid of typical engraver's errors, such as, erroneous notes, missing accidentals, and other omissions. 

It is certain that Fontana introduced some changes into the pieces from Chopin's posthumous output he edited, first of all, by adding performance markings and writing entirely all repetitions, yet sometimes he even did not hesitate to interfere with the issues related to the pitch and rhythm. The evaluation of the range of those changes and their possible authenticity is a complex and at the same time delicate issue (it is discussed in a broader context by Jan Ekier in: Julian Fontana as Editor of "Œuvres posthumes" of Chopin: Issues in Publishing Posthumous Works by Fryderyk Chopin, Chopin Studies 7, Warsaw, 2000).  

First of all, we consider Fontana's revisions to be indications which were rarely used by Chopin, e.g.,  in bars 52-53 and analog. or a longer sequence of slur over triplets in bars 64-66 and analog. Moreover, writing bar 24 in two versions (1a and 2a volta) is almost certainly an arbitrary change introduced by Fontana. Last but not least, we should qualify within the same category the changes introduced in the latest proofing of FEF and not considered in GEF, e.g., in bars 26-30 and 54 and 90.

There are impressions that differ in details of the cover or others which are not related to the musical text. The presented copy comes from the earliest impression of the Polonaise published separately. 

The repetition of the main part of the Polonaise (bars 1-51) written in notes, in the remaining sources – JC and PE – marked as Da Capo, includes a minor number of differences in relation to the first appearance of this fragment at the beginning of the piece. We indicate those differences in the musical text in the remarks at the bottom of the page. In order to differentiate between original bars and their repetitions, we introduce the (r) symbol to mark the latter. Therefore, e.g., bar 19(r) means repetition of bar 19, hence in the notation of EF bar 103+19=122.