Op. 26 No 1, Polonaise in C♯ minor

 b. 85

It is not entirely clear whether according to Chopin's intention the Polonaise in C minor was supposed to be a two- or three-section piece. The fixed, most frequently encountered formal scheme of polonaise ­– A B (trio) A – orders a repetition of the first section (A), after a more or less contrasted second section (B). The da Capo generally was not written with notes in polonaises and sometimes even respective verbal indications were omitted. However, in the Polonaise in C minor Chopin wrote the word Fine (with which he would usually end his manuscripts) at the end of the second section, suggesting ending the piece in this place, hence skipping the return of the C minor section. However, the deviation from the typical scheme does not seem to be conclusive if we take into account all possible circumstances and particularly a possible error of the composer in A.

It was Gastone Belotti that first presented a hypothesis about the intended by Chopin two-section structure of the Polonaise in C minor (Le Polacche dell’op. 26 nella concezione autografa di Chopin, "Nuova Rivista Musicale Italiana" 7/1974; Le Polacche dell’op. 26 nel testo autentico di Chopin, "Studi Musicali" 2/1973 and Analiza porównawcza autografu Polonezów opus 26 Chopina "Rocznik Chopinowski" 10/1976), describing the recently discovered autograph of the Polonaises, Op. 26 (A). Belotti believes that the Polonaise in C minor does not have a genuine Trio and hence it consists of two sections which are supposed to be an introduction to the next polonaise. Belotti's hypothesis was developed by Zofia Chechlińska, who presented arguments for the two-section structure of the Polonaise (Chopin’s Polonaises composed in Warsaw. Between traditional and individual concept of the genre [in:] "Chopin and his Work in the Context of Culture", vol. 1, Kraków 2003). The aim of her arguments is to show that the historical context and certain formal arguments allow to consider Chopin notation to be reliable and authoritative:

• in the polonaises from the pre-Chopin era, one can encounter two-section pieces, although they are less frequent than the ones in the da Capo form – some examples feature, e.g., some of the pieces by Maria Szymanowska, Michał Kleofas Ogiński and others;
• the second section in the same or parallel key and a clear polonaise cadenza in the ending is characteristic for two-section polonaises. As the Polonaise in C minor meets this characteristics, Zofia Chechlińska claims that this is how Chopin refers to the tradition of the two-section polonaise in it;
• the use of a rare, atypical polonaise form can be considered a testimony to the composer's creative quest in the process of crystallisation of his individual polonaise style.

One could also add another observation here – in the Nocturnes, Op. 27, published at the same time as the Polonaises, Op. 26, Chopin juxtaposed the whole of two sections in the C minor and D major keys.

The arguments for the three-section structure also concern the historical context of the Polonaise in C minor, moreover, they are directed at questioning the full reliability of A as the transmission of Chopin's intention:

• in the aforementioned article, discussing the absence of da Capo indications in Chopin's three infantine polonaises (B major, WN 1, G minor, WN 2 and A major, WN 3), Prof. Chechlińska writes that "it is possible that the repetition of the first section was so universal that there was no need to indicate it". A similar conclusion concerns all 9 youth polonaises – "we can firmly assume that all Chopin polonaises from the Warsaw period featured a typical for a dance three-section form, with trio as the middle section." However, only two of them include the da Capo indication and only in the Polonaise in F minor, WN 12 its authenticity is unquestionable – it appears in a fair score intended for a gift;
• all the remaining Polonaises published by Chopin – Op. 3, 22, 26, 40, 44, 53 – feature a form based on a three-section scheme, in which the third section is a repetition of the first one, shortened or modified in another way (even the free form of the Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61 refers rather to a reprise three-section form than to a two-section scheme). It means that the two-section Polonaise in C minor would be unique in Chopin's entire output, an isolated attempt both in terms of the direction of modification of the base theme and of the moment of its introduction, as, without considering a possible introduction or coda, the first unquestionable deviation from the strict ABA scheme is to be found only in the Polonaise in C minor, Op. 40 No. 2, composed more than two years later;
• the list of visible corrections and uncorrected errors in A is long – see the characteristics of this autograph. If we add to it a similar list of improvements introduced in the proofreading of FE1, careless slurring and other traces of haste and absence of erasures, which Chopin would use in polished autographs, we are going to receive an image of a manuscript which in any case cannot be considered to be a fully reliable transmission of Chopin's final intention;
• Chopin's significant mistakes at the time of abbreviated marking of repeated fragments of the pieces are quite frequent. One can mention here the Mazurka in B minor, Op. 33 No. 4, in which the composer most probably erroneously marked with numbers a repetition of a too long section (24 bars more than he intended) or the Sonata in B minor, Op. 35, 4th mov., in which as a result of a similar mistake, two superfluous bars were printed. Unclear repetition signs, placed, e.g., only on one side of a repeated section, are frequent – cf. bars 13 and 54, not to mention the puzzle constituted by the notation of the form of the Mazurka in A major, WN 45 (see p. 8 of the Commentary to the volume of Mazurkas B in WN). Therefore, it cannot be excluded that Chopin routinely wrote in A the Fine indication at the end of the manuscript, which in this case was not supposed to mean the end of the piece. One can also speculate whether Chopin was not misled by the empty bars indicating the repetition of the first section of the D major part – while hastily reviewing the manuscript, he could have considered it to be an indication of the C minor section.

According to us, the presented arguments indicate a high likeliness of Chopin having erroneously indicated bar 85 in a way suggesting the end of the piece. Due to this fact, in the main text we suggest adding the Da Capo al Fine indication.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors of A, Differences in form

notation: Shorthand & other