Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt I

The piano part in ½A was prepared by Chopin extremely carefully as evidenced by the great variety and precision of performance markings as well as the numerous corrections (scratching and deletions). The corrections included both minor improvements of notation, e.g. moving b to the R.H. at the end of bar 3 as well as far reaching changes, e.g. expanding the 2nd part of the fioritura in bar 93. There is a relatively high number of corrections of slurring, as e.g. in bar 88 or 92-94. The composer would add minor improvements also later, in the proofreading of GE1 and FE.

In spite of a visible endeavour to make the notation legible, A contains a significant number of inaccuracies. The largest group is constituted by overlooked accidentals, e.g. in bars 93, 102-103, 107, 109-110, 128, 151-153, 241-242, 312. It is generally very characteristic for Chopin, particularly in the earlier pieces, yet, as a rule, it does not hamper the correct deciphering of the text. The majority of the inaccuracies was being gradually eliminated in the subsequent editions. Chopin would have indicated some of the additions himself, while proofreading FE1, and then FE1 and FE2, although it is difficult to issue a firmer statement in this respect due to routine revisions of the editors, particularly of GE and EE. Some of the unquestionable or very likely mistakes were not corrected in all editions, e.g. no naturals returning f in bars 105 and 107 and f³⁽²⁾ in bars 119-120 or flats returning e² in bar 85, b¹⁽²⁾ in bars 117-118 and a¹ in bar 139 and 287. 

Inaccuracies in slurring are also frequent:

• vague placement of the beginning or ending of a slur, e.g. in bars 8-9, 23-25, 72-73, 136, 150-151, 203-204, 290-291, 293;
• contrary notations in adjacent bars on different pages, e.g. in bars 57-58, 100-101, 115-116 (L.H. and R.H.), 166-167, 205-207, 216-217, 228-229, 252-253;
• other possible inaccuracies, e.g. in bars 20-21, 110, 161-162, 179-180, 227-228.

Other major mistakes:

• the last quavers in the L.H. in bar 220,
• a instead of f in bar 230,
• wrong rhythm in bar 320,
• c² instead of b¹ in bar 335.

Some elements of the solo piano part's notation (e. g. accidentals in the first movement, bars 316, 322 and 324), atypical of Chopin's handwriting and not included in GE1, could have been added much later on (ca 1865-1868) when ½A was used as the Stichvorlage to the first edition of the Concerto's score, and subsequently also for editing GE2.

It is difficult to determine when and why ½A was created. Let us begin with the question about the reason – what could have impelled Chopin to undertake such a significant work in spite of the undeniable existence of an earlier record within [SI] (cf. the characterization of Morch) or perhaps even of a separate autograph of the solo part – [AI]¹? The richness and variety of the Chopin invention suggest that the reason was most probably a cumulation of numerous and significant changes – due to the plans for the publication of the work, taking a concrete form, the resumed contact with its notation (perhaps already containing earlier corrections, inspired by performances of the Concerto) could have awoken such an artistic fever in Chopin that the introduced corrections impeded the use of the existing manuscripts as the Stichvorlage to the edition. At the same time, the changes must have concerned mostly the solo part, since the notation of the orchestral part could have been entrusted to the copyist. It also seems to be likely that the decision about the need for developing a new, up-to-date Stichvorlage was taken only after the confrontation of the existing material with a potential publisher, in this case Breitkopf, since ½A served as the Stichvorlage to GE1. It was related to the change of the Chopin modus operandi in publishing issues, which took place exactly at the time of planning and preparing the publication of the Concerto. While until mid-1835 Chopin always handed manuscripts to the French editor (most frequently to M. Schlesinger), and the German and English editions' Stichvorlagen were copies of the French edition, in the case of three consecutively published opuses – the Mazurkas, op. 24, which were released in XII 1835, the Concerto in F minor, op. 21 from III 1836 and the Nocturnes, op. 27 from V 1836 – it was Breitfkopf that administered Chopin's autograph and the French edition was based on the copies of the Leipzig edition². So how can we harmonise the described scenario with the preserved documentation of negotiations on the publication of the Concerto?

We are aware of five dates that are certainly or highly likely directly related to the publishing of op. 21:

1. 2 X 1834 – a letter of H. A. Probst, representing the Breitkopf & Härtel company in Paris at that time, to the Leipzig headquarters with a question whether they would be interested in printing the 2nd and 3rd Concertos of Chopin. The publisher expressed an interest in his answer (16 X 1834), but not in two concertos at the same time³.
2. 30 VI 1835 – a letter-offer⁴ of Chopin with a proposal of selling the rights to op. 22-28 within Germany to Breitkopf & Härtel⁵. The element concerning the Concerto is the last sentence of this document, of a post scriptum nature – "The Concerto for piano is op. 21." It seems that Chopin informs the publisher about the opus number of the Concerto, assigned relatively recently. Since on the title page of ½A written in Chopin's hand one can see this exact number, it suggests that the half-autograph was developed after this date or slightly earlier.
3. 3 VII 1835 – a receipt signed by Chopin confirming the sales of the rights to the Concerto in F minor (as well as to the Scherzo in B minor, op. 20, which had been published a few months earlier) in Germany and all other countries except France and England to the Breitkopf & Härtel company. This kind of transaction was generally related to provision of a Stichvorlage by the composer; however, it was not a rule without exceptions – e.g. a similar receipt for the Etudes, op. 25 was issued in February 1837, whereas the manuscript was ready only in July.
4. Last days of September 1835 – a short stay of Chopin in Leipzig. Although there is no proof of it, it seems to be very likely that Chopin took advantage of the opportunity to meet one or both Härtel brothers, who were running the publishing house releasing his works at that time.
5. March 1836 – release of GE1, prepared already on the basis of ½A.

Ad 1. We can be certain that ½A had not been developed before the first of these dates – nothing indicates that Chopin would arrange the handover of manuscripts of his compositions to Breitkopf already in 1834, whereas a preparation of ½A for Schlesinger in order to share it subsequently with Breitkopf seems to be completely unlikely.

Ad 2 and 3. The handover of ½A upon receiving the honorarium seems to be a natural and viable scenario. However, by assuming this date, we have to accept that substantial decision about the change of the existing manner of administering the manuscripts and about the need for developing a new score of the Concerto were taken independently of a perceptible relation to the historical documentation. The preparatory period for the publication of the Concerto by Breitkopf, quite long, almost nine month long, may also be puzzling.

Ad 4. According to source literature, Chopin's stay in Leipzig and his possible meeting with the German editor was indicated as a potential moment of starting a new practice of delivering manuscripts to Breitkopf⁶.
The delivery of ½A by Chopin himself during his stay in Leipzig at the end of September 1835 seems to fit well into the course of events known about the composer's life. The decision about the need for the preparation of a new handwritten Stichvorlage could have been taken in July upon or after signing the receipt – in the first case it was taken by Probst, who, due to his long-year experience in running a publishing house, was able to determine the uselessness of the former manuscript shown to him, whereas in the second case a suggestion for writing a new Stichvorlage came from the Leipzig headquarters. Therefore, after his July cure in Enghien, Chopin took care of organising an unexpected August trip to Karlsbad (to meet his parents), hence he could have also planned a visit to Leipzig and he tried to finish the work until that moment. Taking into account the volume of the manuscript, numerous corrections and, above all, intense social life during the trip, Chopin could have been forced to write hastily, which is visible in the notation of ½A (cf. the characterization of ½A in the 3rd mov. of the Concerto). A scenario in which the decision about writing ½A would have been taken only in Leipzig, together with agreeing a change of the edition based on the autograph, is also feasible. It moves the moment of creation of the discussed manuscript to Autumn 1835.

Ad 5. The release of the Concerto in III 1836 determines an approximate terminus ante quem of finishing ½A. Together with the parts, the composition required engraving 97 plates, which, with an efficiency of 2 plates per day⁷, would take 7 weeks. After adding time for the preparation of the layout, proofreading, revisions and print, one can assume that the Stichvorlage had to be in Leipzig at the beginning of January 1836 at the very latest.

To sum up the above considerations, one can state that ½A was created as the Stichvorlage to GE1 most probably in the second half of 1835.

¹ A possible existence of such an autograph follows from the fact of a public presentation of the Concerto. Performing concert pieces with score was a normal stage practice back then; in a letter to T. Woyciechowski from 12 IX 1829 Chopin confirmed it himself, by describing his Viennese performance of the Variations, op. 2: „pale, with a rouged-up companion to turn pages (who boasted to me that he turned pages for Moscheles, Hummel, Herz), I sat at […] the instrument”. While performing the Concerto in Warsaw, Chopin would have probably had an autograph of the solo part in front of him (NB. in the case of Variations the relevant autograph is preserved)._^→

² In subsequent three opuses, published in summer 1836 – the Polonaise in E major, op. 22, Ballade in G minor, op. 23 and Polonaises, op. 26 – Chopin returned to the former system, whereas from the Etudes, op. 25 on, he would generally deliver manuscripts both to Paris and Leipzig._^→

³ The letters are discussed by Jeffrey Kallberg in his article Chopin in the Marketplace, MLA Notes, VI 1983, p. 802-803.
The numeration of the concertos refers to the Concerto in F minor and a 3rd concerto, which was being developed but eventually did not come into being, respectively; the 3rd concerto was most probably supposed to be in A major, since the Allegro from this work, eventually released (in 1841) as a separate solo piece, Allegro de Concert, op. 46, is maintained in this key._^→

⁴ Zofia Helman, Zbigniew Skowron, Hanna Wróblewska-Strauss (ed.) Korespon­dencja Fryderyka Chopina, Warsaw 2017, Vol. 2, p. 459. The predicate was omitted in the Polish translation of the quoted sentence provided therein, which changed its meaning._^→

⁵ It includes a Sonata for 4 hands as op. 28, which, even if it had been finished, had not ever been published._^→

⁶ Kallberg writes about it in the article mentioned above (p. 807). The context suggests that the author meant delivery of some – undetermined – manuscripts at that time by Chopin. John Rink in his book Chopin: The Piano Concertos (Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 21) believes that the transition to delivering manuscripts to the German editor was "perhaps the result of discussions during Chopin's visit to Leipzig in Autumn 1835." He also suggests that "the partial autograph [...] could have been hand-delivered to Breitkopf by Chopin himself [...]."_^→

⁷ Estimate of the efficiency of the engraver's work on the basis of: Hans Lenneberg Music Publishing and Dissemination in the Early 19th Century, "The Journal of Musicology", Vol. 2, Issue No. 2 (Spring 1983), p. 177._^→