mUltimate Chopin

Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Verbal indications
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Verbal indications

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

Quatre Ma­zurkas in FC (→GE) & FE

Souvenir de la Pologne... in EE

4 Mazurkas suggested by the editors
..

In all sources the number of mazurkas in the opus is expressed in full word – Quatre Mazurkas, yet in the main text we provide a digit, understandable regardless of the language. What is more, it cannot be excluded that in the autograph (lost) Chopin wrote a digit, as he did in the preserved autographs of opuses 24 and 50, which the French publisher did not respect in opus 24, replacing the digit with a word.

In FC the title contains a mistake – Quatre Mazurka. The title having been expanded in EE was an arbitrary decision of the publisher – all opuses of Chopinesque Mazurkas were named like that.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

No dedication in FC (→GE)

Dedication in FE (→EE)
..

The absence of dedication in FC (→GE) suggests that Chopin decided to dedicate the Mazurkas to the Duchess of Württemberg already after having sent the copy to Leipzig; afterwards, he no longer dealt with the issue. The Duchess came to Paris the year the Mazurkas were published (1837), hence the decision concerning the dedication could have appeared relatively late in the publishing process. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Dedications

b. 1

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

in the anacrusis in FC (→GE)

in bar 1 in FE (→EE)
..

It is unclear how the difference in the placement of the initial  indication occurred. Perhaps it is just a difference in the interpretation of a mark written between the upbeat and the beginning of bar 1 – cf., e.g. the autograph of the Prelude in A, Op. 28 No. 7. In the main text we put the mark in accordance with the principal source, that is FC.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Centrally placed marks

b. 5-13

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

, ,  in FC (→GE)

No indications in FE (→EE)

in b. 5 in FES
..

The contrasting dynamic indications in bars 5, 9 and 13 were most probably added to FC by Chopin, as were many other markings (e.g. dynamic hairpins or accents). However, one has to emphasise that these marks, although their shape is the same as of some undoubtedly Chopinesque ones (e.g.  in the autograph of the Scherzo in B minor, Op. 31, bar 25,  in the autograph of the Etude in A, Op. 25 No. 1, bars 9 and 22,  in the autograph of the Etude in F minor, Op. 10 No. 9, bars 29 and 33 or in the later autograph of the Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61, bar 1), are also very similar to the Fontana ones. The fact that they could have been written in Chopin's hand is indicated by, e.g. their more delicate, as if pale notation – cf. the analogous markings in the Mazurka in B minor no. 2, written certainly by Fontana.
In bar 5  was added in FES, which, to a certain extent, confirms Chopin's intention to contrast the particular theme phrases, dynamically and probably also expressively.
See also bars 37-45. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FES , Authentic corrections of FC

b. 23

composition: Op. 30 No. 1, Mazurka in C minor

No indication in FE (→EE)

in FC (→GE)
..

The  indication could have been entered into FC by Chopin or overlooked by the engraver of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FC