Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

It is generally assumed that FE1 was based on a lost copy by Fontana, [FC], what can be deduced from Chopin's letters to Fontana written in the summer and autumn of 1841, mostly dedicated to the editorial matters of Opp. 44-46:

• on 23 August, Chopin writes: "I am suggesting him [Mechetti] a new manuscript (a kind of polonaise, but it is more a fantasia);" on 18 September: "[...] get ready to copy that Polonaise;" on 1 October: "[...] do not give Leon [Léo] my Polonaise yet (although you have already copied it), because tomorrow I will send you a letter to Mechetti [...]".
• In a letter of 6 October, we can read the following: "I am sending you the Prelude [Op. 45], in bigger font for Schl[esinger], in smaller for Mechetti. Cut similarly the manuscript of my Polonaise, fold it [...] similarly to that Prelude, [...] seal it in the envelope I am sending you and give to Leo's hands, asking him to send it by mail, because Mechetti is waiting for it." Therefore, it seems that Fontana received two autographs of the Prelude, out of which one was to be given to Schlesinger and the other sent to Vienna along with an autograph of the Polonaise. According to the previously quoted letters, Fontana was also supposed to copy the Polonaise; since the autograph was to be sent to Vienna, [FC] must have been dedicated for the Parisian publisher.
• The request concerning the Allegro de Concert, Op. 46 (letter of 18 October) confirms the above supposition – "[...] Copy the Allegro maestoso I am sending you today [...]. Yours [i.e. the copy] will stay in Paris."

Another argument confirming the existence of [FC] of the Polonaise are the preserved copies (prepared by Fontana) of other pieces published in the 2nd half of 1841, both prior to Op. 44 (Tarantella, Op. 43) and after (Allegro de Concert, Op. 46, Nocturnes, Op. 48 and Fantaisie, Op. 49).

The quite significant number of differences between FE1 and GE1 may be explained by additions performed by Chopin in [A] after the completion of [FC], oversights and other mistakes of the copyist and engravers, not to mention the Chopinesque proofreading of FE1 we discuss below. The possibility of such a scenario is confirmed by Chopin's correspondence, who came to Paris for a few days by the end of September and was able to supplement [A], reckoning with the need to urgently send it to Vien­na*. Nevertheless, leaving aside the conclusions drawn from the corres­pondence, the obvious explanation for such significant discrepancies is the existence of independent bases for these editions, namely two autographs.
Such a solution was proposed by Franco Luigi Viero in his edition of the Polonaise**, postulating as a basis for FE1 a second, hastily written auto­graph of Chopin (lost, like the other manuscripts of Op. 44). The relation­ship between the two autographs would be similar to the one presented by the surviving autographs of the Polonaises, Op. 40 (the earlier one only as a photocopy) – different sets of performance mark­ings and numerous other minor differences, no pedaling in the later autograph. Here are examples of differences between FE1 and GE1, which the two-autograph hypothesis explains more naturally than others:

• almost no pedal markings in the outer sections of the Polonaise in FE1;
• notation of the separated R.H. voice in b. 13-15, 35-40 and analog. – the undoubtedly wrong notation of FE would be easy to explain in an edition based on an autograph, but not on Fontana's copy, who would not duplicate that Chopinesque manner of writing the note stems always at the right side of heads;
• a number of minor differences which, assuming the existence of [A] and [FC], could have arisen as a result of not-so-probable corrections of insignificant details or multiple inaccuracies or omissions in analogous situations:
• accent and dot in GE1 – accent and slur in FE1 in b. 25,
•  in GE1 –  in FE1 in b. 52, 78 and 285,
• triplet slur only in FE1 in b. 108, 
• various sets of staccato dots in b. 111-112,
• different arrangement of beams and slurs in b. 125-126,
• different placing of a  sign in b. 184-185,
• lack of  in FE1 in b. 261,  in b. 267 and  in b. 268.

If one accepts this hypothesis, it would still be necessary to explain what happened to [FC] mentioned in the letters. There are two options:

• There was no copy at all. The fragment of Chopin's letter of 1st October quoted above – "although you have already copied it [the Polonaise]" – could possibly be understood as "although you have surely copied it already". In other words, Chopin may have only assumed that Fontana had already dealt with the copying of the work, but he did not see the finished [FC] when he was in Paris a few days earlier. However, why Fontana should omit the Polonaise from the entire group of works (Op. 43-49) can only be speculated. Therefore, the following second option seems more likely.
• A copy was made, but after [A] had been sent to Vienna, it became unavailable or unusable – lost, burned, flooded or soiled – which forced Chopin to write down the Polonaise again by himself.

In an online article 11 years later***, Viero, the author of this hypothe­sis, abandoned it in favour of another, according to which the basis for FE1 was, however, [FC], and the differences in relation to GE1, including the pedalling of the extreme parts of the Polonaise, result from an arbi­trary revision of the latter. According to the editors, this is the least likely scenario, which we discuss in more detail in the characteristics of GE1.

The comments on individual bars are generally formulated in keeping with the first discussed filiation, i.e. assuming the existence of [FC] as the basis for FE and subsequent changes to [A], which is the basis for GE.

FE1 was corrected by Chopin, who introduced a number of significant changes, e.g.:

• c added to the four R.H. chords in b. 18, 44, 277 and 300,
• lowering by a third the last quaver in b. 94, 96, 118 and 120,
• delayed resolution of the seventh in b. 143 and 163,
• changes in b. 217-220, covering, e.g. doubling the motif in the tenor voice in an interval of sixth (upwards).

Despite the proofreading many errors remained uncorrected, e.g.:

• Terzverschreibung in b. 8, wrong notes in b. 15, 91, 100,
• missing naturals before the penultimate R.H. octave in (d³-d⁴) in b. 16,
• rhythmic errors in b. 29, 31, 50, 61-62,
• a missing  raising C to C in b. 34, d¹ to d¹ in b. 151, g¹ to g¹ in b. 226,
• missing naturals raising g^1,2,3 to g^1,2,3 in b. 58-59, lowering g⁽¹⁾ to g⁽¹⁾ in b. 95-96, c⁽¹⁾ to c⁽¹⁾ in b. 97,
• a missing  restoring b¹ in b. 172,
• misrendered ties to b in b. 199-202,
• a mistaken  instead of  in the trill's ending in b. 279,
• a misplaced accent in b. 284.

The copy presented in mUltimate Chopin, the only known from this impression, is defect – two pages are missing, covering b. 105-168. Therefore, in those bars, we assume – perforce – FE1 to be compliant with FE2.

^* Chopin's letter from Paris to George Sand in Nohant, 25 September 1841: "Here I am in the rue Tronchet; I did not get tired by getting here. It is eleven o'clock in the morning."
Chopin's letter from Nohant to Fontana in Paris, 1 October 1841: "Yesterday, on Thursday, I arrived here."
It means that Chopin stayed in Paris from 25 to 28 September (the journey took about 2 days, as described in detail by George Sand in a letter to Eugène Dela­croix) and could have performed additions to [A]. Possible corrections in [FC] could wait, not to mention the possibility of introducing changes in the proof­read­ing of FE.
(Letter by G. Sand to E. Delacroix from 23 Aug 1841, in: Correspondance, ed. G. Lubin, vol. V, Paris 1969, p. 405. Quoted in the paper by F. L. Viero, p. 12 – see below.)
** F. F. Chopin Polacche, ed. Franco Luigi Viero, Edizioni de Cygno, Corsico (Milan) 2002.
*** F. L. Viero For a Correct Recensio of Chopin's Polonaise Op. 44, accessed 29-05-2023.