Op. 22, Polonaise

FE1 was based on [A] – see the characterisation of this edition in Andante spianato – and is the only edition based on a manuscript. The reprise of the main part of the Polonaise was certainly not written out in [A]. The evidence for it consists primarily in the double pagination of the plates for pages 9-10 which were also used to print pages 17-18. It results in bars 186-219 being in FE1 identical to bars 42-75 what would have been impossible were they separately written in [A]. As there is no reason to begin the abridged notation only just in b. 42, it is highly likely that the preceding section (b. 17-41) was not written out again in [A] either. The differences between these bars and b. 161-185 can be explained by the engraver's mistakes, difficulties in the interpretation of [A] or Chopin's inconsistent corrections.

In the Polonaise, the comparison of FE1 with GE1 and EE1 allows us to distinguish at least two or even three stages of Chopinesque proofreading:

1. The first stage covers all the changes whose traces are visible in FE1 and that were included both in EE1 and GE1. Theoretically, it could have been more than one proofreading session; however, on the basis of the existent sources and messages, it is impossible to determine it. As an example one could give the changes of rhythm in b. 145-146.
2. The second stage are the changes included in GE1 but not in EE1, of which the most significant are the following:

• added grace note in b. 56 and 161,
• changes at the beginning and at the end of the run in b. 57,
• correction of the last note of the run in b. 62,
• change of the 6th semiquaver in b. 130 from a¹ to b¹,
• dim. moved from b. 131 to 132,
• added  raising a¹ to a¹ in b. 223 and analog.

The situation in b. 200-201, in which GE feature the initial versions, although respective b. 56-57 already contain the corrected, final text, may indicate that Chopin introduced these changes slightly later, irrespective of the other corrections in this stage of proofreading. 

3. The existence of a third stage could be evidenced by elements of notation overlooked both in GE and EE, since such a coordinated oversight is highly unlikely. It concerns the  before a in b. 45 and, above all, the  mark in b. 142.

Another explanation of the above discrepancies between FE1 and GE could be the fact of Chopin applying the changes mentioned in points 2 and 3 to two copies, out of which one served for the preparation of the final version of FE1, while the other – less carefully marked (without changes in b. 45, 142, 200 and 201) – became the Stichvorlage for GE1. Such a solution, although more troublesome for the composer, was most probably applied in, e.g. the Sonata in B Minor, Op. 35 or in the Waltz in A Major, Op. 42.

The colliding alignment of the hands in FE1, inconsistent with the rhythmic values, came out in b. 57 and 199.

FE1 contains various mistakes and inaccuracies, mainly inaccurately written accidentals (generally most probably repeated after [A]), e.g. in b. 7, 36, 45, 57, 61-62, 73-75, 92, 97-100, 124, 132, 142, 149-150, 152, 155-156, 225, 232, 237, 263 or 267. A few places feature wrong rhythmic values – R.H. quaver at the beginning of b. 31, e¹-a¹ fourth as a crotchet in b. 76, R.H. semiquaver at the beginning of b. 95, demisemiquaver rest in b. 97, quaver at the beginning of b. 151.