Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

EE1 was based on FE, as indicated first of all by the overwhelming concordance of their texts. In particular, in EE1 included are:

• all Chopin's corrections to FE1, as listed in our description of this edition;
• numerous errors occurring in FE:

• omitted accidentals – naturals in b. 25, 95-96, 172, sharps in b. 34, 41 and 67, 226,
• rhythmical errors in b. 50, 199,
• misrendered ties to b in b. 199-202,
• a mistaken  (A) instead of  (A) in the trill's ending in b. 279.

However, it is not easy to determine which impression – FE1 or FE2 – was the actual basis for EE1:

• few common errors in FE1 and EE1, which were corrected in FE2 – e.g. an overlooked quaver flag in b. 31 or pitch errors in b. 91 and 100 – speak in favour of FE1 as a basis for EE1;
• a large majority of corrections to FE2 (ca. 30) were included in EE1, among them a few not so evident as regards the need for or a type of the introduced change, e.g. additions of a tie (slur?) below the grace note in b. 33, only one out of three omitted semiquaver beams in b. 50, dots prolonging the R.H. octaves in b. 62-64 or a slur in b. 186, between the R.H. grace notes (placed on the lower staff) and the L.H. crotchet. This points rather to FE2 as the basis for EE1.

We do not assess what is more improbable – three independently com­mitted identical errors or a few independently introduced similar doubtful or erroneous corrections. Instead, we accept that the basis for EE1 was [FE2p] – a proof copy of FE2 not including those few last corrections which are absent from EE1. The credibility of this filiation is supported by a letter from Ignaz Moscheles to the Parisian publisher of the Polonaise, M. Schlesinger, quoted by Jeffrey Kallberg*.

Moscheles writes: "London 2 Nov 1842 [...] You will recall that the 6 works by Chopin [ops. 44-49] that you brought to London and sold to Wessel [in January 1842] would be corrected by me in advance with the stipulation that W[essel] should give me 6 exemplars for each. You told me this demand was granted. When I thereupon recently asked W[essel] he told me impudently he was not liable to me for that, you had used my corrections, and only sent additional corrected proofs to the engraver.** Is it so?" Schlesinger's response is not known, but it seems improb­able that he would even have the opportunity to use Moscheles's correc­tion without his knowledge (and the letter shows that Moscheles knew nothing about it). So did Wessel actually lie ("impudently") to avoid paying for the correction? In the editors' opinion, the following scenario, taking into account the filiation we proposed, remains acceptably consistent with the statements in the quoted letter:

1. Schlesinger brought to London printed copies of Chopi­n's works which he planned to sell to Wessel for publication in England, including FE1 of the Polonaise. The deal came to fruition as evidenced by the relevant contract signed on 14th January 1842***. Moscheles was entrusted with correcting the original print, i.e. FE1.
2. Before Wessel began engraving the Polonaise, Schlesinger sent him a revised version of his edition, [FE2p]. Thus, proceeding to set EE1 Wessel's engraver was able to use [FE2p] as the basis and at the same time to introduce corrections marked by Moscheles in FE1. Inevitably, a significant number of these corrections – those pertaining to patent errors which any knowledgeable proofreader might have spotted – had already been implemented in [FE2p]. When Wessel found out about this, he assumed – presumably without delving too much into the matter – that Moscheles's corrections, for which he had promised to pay him, had benefited Schlesinger. So he felt cheated, which explains his later conduct towards Moscheles****. In fact, EE1 has introduced about twice as many corrections (most likely indicated by Moscheles) as [FE2p].
3. Meanwhile in Paris few further errors were detected in [FE2p] (e.g. when checking the implementation of the previous correction) which were also corrected before the publication of FE2.

Following corrections were introduced in EE1 independently of FE2:

•  signs were moved above the staff in b. 10;
• a tie to F₁ was omitted in b. 17 and analogous bars (problematic revision);
• missing or cautionary accidentals were added, e.g. in b. 11, 16, 26, 42, 94, 177, 236, 305, 313;
• a needlessly repeated  was omitted in b. 89;
• c⁽¹⁾ were changed to c⁽¹⁾ in b. 98 and similarly in b. 122; (erroneous revision);
• a  sign was shifted in b. 131;
• an extra R.H. slur was arbitrarily added in b. 144-145;
• omitted prolonging dots were added to the octave e-e¹ in b. 290.

Attention is caught by the absurd change in b. 314, where sharps raising e²-e³ to e²-e³ were added to the first R.H. chord (with E left unchanged in the bass).

Common mistakes have not been avoided either:

• A instead of A in b. 20,
• f²-f³ instead of f²-f³ at the end of b. 40,
• erroneous beams in b. 197, 225, 230,
• d instead of B in b. 201,
• omitted pedal markings in b. 221-223,
• an omitted L.H. slur in b. 239-240,
• an omitted slur in b. 258-260,
• an omitted arpeggio sign in b. 286 and 290,
• omitted staccato dots in b. 312,
• a triad instead of sixth in b. 320,
• an omitted tie to F in b. 321.

The dating takes account of the time of obligatory registration of the edi­tion at the Stationer's Hall (20 January 1842) and of the announcement published on the same day in the weekly The Musical World, in which the Polonaise is mentioned (along with five other pieces by Chopin, Op. 46-49) as being "in the press."
Thanks to the contents of the advertising page preceding the text of the Polonaise, it is possible to determine the publication date of the copy presented in our system, which is around 1844.*****

* J. Kallberg "Chopin at the Boundaries: Sex, History, and Musical Genre", Harvard University Press 1996, p. 211.
** The second fragment of this sentence reads in Kallberg's book "you had used my corrections, and he [Wessel] only sent additional corrected proofs to the engraver." This reading is incongruent with the original text of the letter, and conceals the essential information that Schlesinger sent to London a corrected version of FE. Therefore, for the sake of clarity we have amended the translation according to the German original quoted in: J. Kallberg, The Chopin Sources: Variants and Versions in Later Manuscripts and Printed Editions, University of Chicago 1982, p. 134.
(The inaccuracy in Kallberg's translation was pointed out by F. L. Viero in the online article For a Correct Recensio of Chopin's Polonaise Op. 44, p. 4. However, he fell short of recognizing the implications that the information about sending the corrected version of FE1 to London bears for the filiation of EE1.)
*** Kallberg, op. cit. 1996, p. 205.
**** Of course, Wessel, as an experienced editor, could also have been aware of the actual state of affairs and only have feigned outrage at Moscheles's "disloy­al­ty" to avoid the agreed payment.
***** Information after the Annotated Catalogue Online.