Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

The autograph of the Scherzo, despite being the starting point for the publication of the piece, is partially of a provisional nature, which is proven by a relatively significant number of deletions and corrections. It is also free from erasures, which we encounter in more elaborate autographs. Moreover, the missing title page as well as title and dedication (the entry performed in pencil over the beginning of the piece most probably does not come from Chopin's time). In addition, a comparison with Fontana's copy (FC) based on A proves that A was not yet finished when Chopin gave it to Fontana to copy it, mainly in terms of performance indications, particularly the ones concerning dynamics and pedalling. There are fragments in which some groups of indications were entered into both manuscripts by Chopin; however, they differ at times, e.g.:

• dynamic indications in b. 114-117 and analog.,
• slurs in b. 274-276,
• pedalling in b. 346-357,
• slur, accents,  and  in b. 538-540.

There are also places in which the markings of A are absent in FC, yet it does not seem that they could have been ascribed to the copyist's inaccuracy, e.g. the  mark in b. 179 and 630. A question thus arises as to the chronology of the Chopinesque additions in both manuscripts. It seems logical that after preparing FC Chopin reviewed and completed it first: GE1, which is based on it, was most probably released earlier than FE, on the basis of the autograph, hence sending it to Leipzig could have been more urgent. Then he returned to A in order to complete it, even partially, which he, however, performed at random, probably due to haste and relying upon the proofreading of FE. However, some additions suggest that at least a part of them was being introduced into A and FC simultaneously, e.g. in b. 346-357. Eventually, it cannot be excluded that Chopin first performed quick corrections in A, which, due to some urgent reasons, was supposed to be handed to Schlesinger, and then he developed FC, much more carefully. Fortunately, this uncertainty does not have a general influence on the main text: there is no doubt that the accurate, Chopinesque performance indications of FC were not considered unnecessary afterwards, hence they have to be included. It is only discrepancies of other nature than presence or absence of an indication that have to be analysed individually. There are only a few of them; the most important ones are the differing dynamic indications in b. 114-117 and analog., hence it does not result in serious editorial issues.

Among the numerous corrections visible in A, many of them reveal earlier versions of some melodic, harmonic and rhythmic details as well as honing performance indications, e.g.:

• corrections of slurring, e.g. in b. 61-62, 309-311, 495-514, 561-562, 756-757,
• multiple corrections, revealing intense work on the shape of the quaver accompanying figure in b. 66,
• removal of the tie of d³ in b. 84-85,
• improvement of the shape of the accompaniment figures in b. 113-114 and 702,
• change of the note ending the passage in b. 125,
• replacement of  with  in b. 303 and 305,
• replacement of the chord with a single bass note in b. 307,
• refinement of the L.H. part notation in the C minor theme, b. 310-311,
• deletion of 4 pairs of dynamic hairpins in b. 334-349,
• improvement of the melodic figuration in b. 340 and 348,
• change of the normal font quavers into small ones in b. 395,
• change of the L.H. chords in b. 521-522,
• removal of the  marks in b. 736 and 744,
• replacement of two parallel indications, agogic and dynamic, with one in b. 748-749,
• deletions of indications in b. 756 and 764, difficult to completely decipher.

At the same time, Chopin controlled the chromatic notation, particularly in the fragments in a key distant from the one defined by the key signature. It is proven by deletions of superfluous accidentals (out of which a part should have been preserved as cautionary accidentals, according to the then standards), e.g. in b. 490-492, 494, 496. There are also enharmonic changes, e.g. in b. 63, 535 or 730.

The final form of A served as Stichvorlage for FE1, which is proven by the editorial number of that edition written on the 1st page of A and by numerous engraving signs performed in pencil, marking the division of the text into great staves and pages, compliant – with a few minor exceptions – with the one applied in FE. The correspondence on the work's publication allows us to take a closer look at the date of A. In a letter of 9 July 1837, the Parisian representative of the Breitkopf & Härtel company, H. A. Probst, informed the headquarters that he purchased three new pieces by Chopin, including the Scherzo, while Chopin signed the receipt confirming the handover of the manuscript (FC) and the receipt of fee (1000 francs for Op. 29-31) on 11 September. It is uncertain whether Chopin was ready with the manuscript of the Scherzo on 9 July, since the information about the purchase of the composition did not have to be related to the handover of the manuscript, which was generally confirmed only by the receipt of fee (it was not always the case, since Probst attached to the aforementioned letter the manuscript of the Etudes, Op. 25, which was paid already in February). It is also uncertain whether a mention from a June letter to Antoni Wodziński – 'I am writing and finishing a manuscript.' – refers to the Scherzo; it could have been the Etudes, Op. 25, whose finishing was delayed and must have been urgent at the time of writing that letter*. Anyway, the copy of A – written and corrected by Chopin – was ready on 11 September; therefore, the autograph must have been completed earlier (except for the aforementioned possible additional corrections and additions). As a result, the most likely date of A seems to be the period between July and September 1837.

A is not free from mistakes:

• missing octave signs in b. 9, 14-17 and 31-33 as well as 262,
• oversights of accidentals, typical of Chopin, e.g. in b. 209, 445, 493, 494, 499-500,
• missing ties of c² in b. 211-212, g-e¹ in b. 375-376, f-f¹ in b. 392-393,
• missing arpeggios in b. 557,
• overlooked naturals in the 1st chord in b. 706.

^* Probst's letter is quoted in: Jeffrey Kallberg Granice poznania Chopina: płeć, historia i gatunek muzyczny [Chopin at the Boundaries: Sex, History and Musical Genre], p. 238, Warsaw 2013. The receipts and Chopin's letters were discussed on the basis of: Zofia Helman, Zbigniew Skowron, Hanna Wróblewska Straus (ed.) Korespondencja Fryderyka Chopina [Correspondence of Fryderyk Chopin], Vol. II, part I, p. 686, 648, 657-658, Warsaw 2017.