SOURCE COMMENTARY /ABRIDGED/

Initial remarks name of the most sedate of the family of 3 triple-time dances that also
included the mazur and oberek (see Performance Commentaries to both
The present commentary concerns only the orchestra part (the solo part volumes of Mazurkas, 4 A IV and 25 B I). Chopin himself, in one of his
is discussed in the commentaries to the Fantasia in the versions for letters, defined this finale – in keeping with its character – as a m a z u r
one piano and with second piano). It sets out the principles behind the (see quotations about the Fantasia… before the musical text).
editing of the musical text and discusses the more important
discrepancies between sources; in addition, it signals the most crucial Sources
alterations made in the printed scores of the Fantasia (none of which was As Autograph sketch (Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, Geneva), containing
published during Chopin’s lifetime). the opening segment of the score (bars 1-20), a fragment of the
A precise characterisation of all the sources, their relations to one an- piano part with a sketch of the harmonic accompaniment (bars
other, a detailed presentation of the differences appearing between 34-35) and a sketch of the harmonic pattern of bars 39-44.
them, and also reproductions of characteristic fragments of the different [S], [P], [A] – no complete manuscript of the Fantasia has come down
sources are all contained in a separately published Source Commentary. to us. If we assume that Chopin wrote this work and prepared it
for print in a way not departing significantly from that applied in
The sign → indicates a relationship between sources, and should be read as ‘and the case of other works with orchestra, then we may posit the
the source(s) based thereon’. existence of at least three manuscripts:
[S] – autograph of the score, probably of a more or less working
character, although sufficiently complete for the separate instru-
mental parts to be prepared from it;
Chopin’s scores [P] – parts prepared from [S] and probably corrected and supple-
mented before being submitted to print; too few sources have
Editing the scores of Chopin’s works with orchestra (and also the Trio, survived to make it possible to establish the extent of the authen-
Op. 8), one encounters certain specific problems. In keeping with the ticity of these changes; in the Fantasia – in contrast to the Kra-
frequent practice of that period, only the separate parts of particular kowiak, Op. 14, published almost simultaneously – the postulate
instruments were published. Aware of this situation, Chopin probably of Aristide Farrenc, who ultimately failed to become the first
contented himself with scores of a partly working character, only writing Parisian publisher of these works, was essentially applied: ‘[the
any final touches (including more exact performance markings) into the composer] has […] only to mark the solos of wind instruments in
separate parts. It is almost certain that he entrusted both the preparing small notes in the orchestral parts of the quartet for his work to
of the parts and at least some of the routine supplementing of such be playable with double quartet and double bass’. ∗
things as performance markings to friends with some experience in such [A] – fair autograph of the piano part (version for one piano).
work (‘Nidecki […] has looked through and corrected the orchestral FE First French edition of the version for one piano, M. Schlesinger
parts’ ∗ ) or to professional copyists – a practice which can easily lead to (M.S.1574), Paris, April 1834, based on [A]. There are two differ-
numerous inaccuracies and inconsistencies, as well as serious errors, ent extant impressions of FE; Chopin contributed to the proof-
not always easy to identify. reading of both.
FEP Orchestral parts appended to FE, presumably based on [P]. The
NE editors had at their disposal only the parts of the woodwind
Fantasia on Polish Airs in A major, Op. 13 instruments.
GE First German edition of the version for one piano, F. Kistner
(1033.1034), Leipzig, July 1834, based on a proof of FE corrected
The themes of the Fantasia by Chopin. It is also likely that Chopin made some minor correc-
tions during print.
‘J u ż m i e s i ą c z e s z e d ł’ are the first words of the idyll Laura & Filon,
GEP Orchestral parts appended to GE (same firm, number 1034), most
widely known and loved in Chopin’s days ∗∗ (it was the favourite song of
probably based on a proof of FEP and revised. There is nothing
Chopin’s mother). Although the composer of the melody remains un-
to suggest Chopin’s direct participation in the preparation of GEP.
known, this is not a ‘folk product. Its musical structure, particularly its o
EE First English edition of the version for one piano, Wessel & C (W &
metre and rhythm (6/8 time), is wholly contrary to the properties of o o
C N 1083), London, April, 1834, probably based on a proof of
Polish melody’. ∗∗∗
GE1. During the printing process EE underwent editorial revision,
T h è m e d e C h a r l e s K u r p i ń s k i is a ‘fragment of Karol Kurpiński’s
but there is no evidence that Chopin helped to prepare it.
Elegy on the death of Tadeusz Kościuszko; it is not known whether this
is a harmonisation of a folk melody or an eminently successful stylisa- The NE editors were unable to find orchestral parts prepared by
o
tion’. ∗∗∗∗ Wessel & C , and so it may be assumed that – as with other Cho-
In Chopin’s times, the name ‘K u j a w i a k’ could denote simply a dance pin works with orchestra – the orchestral material was not printed
from the region of Kujawy; ∗∗∗∗∗ it should not be identified with the later by the English publisher.
SBH First edition of the score as part of an edition of the complete
works of Chopin (Erste kritisch durchgesehene Gesamtausgabe),
∗
From a letter sent by Chopin to his family, Vienna, 12 August 1829; he was referring Breitkopf & Härtel (C XII 3), Leipzig, 1880. Numerous revisions
to the Variations in B , Op. 2 or the Krakowiak, Op. 14. setting dynamic and articulation markings in order were made
∗∗
In his foreword to Dzieła Franciszka Karpińskiego [The works of Franciszek
Karpiński] (Warsaw, 1830), written in 1827, Kazimierz Brodziński writes: ‘who does here, and some errors were corrected.
not know by heart […] the most beautiful of his idylls, Laura & Filon, which in spite of SSi Edition of the score of the Fantasia prepared by K. Sikorski as
its length was at one time sung in almost every home’. part of an edition of the complete works of Chopin, Instytut Fry-
∗∗∗
Jadwiga Sobieska, ‘Problem cytatu u Chopina’ [Quotation in Chopin], Muzyka, deryka Chopina & Polskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne (PWM-3732),
1959, no. 4.
∗∗∗∗
Mieczysław Tomaszewski, Chopin. Człowiek, dzieło, rezonans [Chopin. The man, Warsaw-Kraków 1961. This was based on SBH, with a number of
his work and its resonance] (Poznań, 1998). arbitrary changes made.
∗∗∗∗∗
Oskar Kolberg wrote of the final theme of the Fantasia: ‘Chopin […] gave the inscrip-
tion Kujawiak because he heard it (in a folk version) in Kujawy at the Wodzińskis’
∗
(Korespondencja, vol. III (Wrocław and Poznań, 1969); comments on the work of From a letter sent by Aristide Farrenc to Friedrich Kistner in Leipzig, Paris, 4 May
Karasowski). 1832.

2
 Source Commentary

Editorial principles for the orchestra part the Vle & Vni II, has no musical justification here and is probably
The NE text is based on GEP, the only complete source of the orches- the result of a misreading of [S] or [P], which may have contained
tral material, compared with FEP and the authentic version for one piano. some corrections.
We set in order the dynamic and articulation markings:
1
— taking account of the legibility of particular parts and the musical Bars 93-94 Vni II. GEP erroneously have e on the last quavers
1 st
sense of the work as a whole, we unify markings within groups of instru- of 93 and d on the 1 quaver of bar 94.
ments and in analogous bars;
— we correct possible inaccuracies in the slurring of the string parts Thème de Charles Kurpiński
taking account of the musical sense and phrasing of the whole work,
especially the solo piano part, and – to a certain extent – the potential p. 25
Bar 149 Fl. I., Ob. & Cl. I. FEP erroneously have .
concordance with practical bowing;
— due to the very small distances between the notes in GEP the scope p. 28
Bar 188 Vc. & Cb. In GEP the motif of 4 repeated notes is played
of the signs and must be established separately each time, by the double basses, and the minim by the cellos. This is almost
based on comparison with AI and on the musical context; diminuendo certainly a mistake – cf. analogous bar 182. Chopin employed
hairpins can also be read as accents (short or long). a similar procedure several times in other works, as well, e.g. in
We transpose the parts of the A clarinets and D trumpets that appear the Krakowiak, Op. 14, bars 60-63 and 398-401 (in the last place
in the original score to the pitch of B , most commonly used today; simi- the two parts were erroneously switched in the editions).
larly, the parts of the A horns are transposed to F.
p. 29 th
Bar 199 Fg. I. As the 4 quaver GEP erroneously have a. In FEP
T h e p i a n o p a r t comes from volume 32 B VII (version with second the text is correct.
piano). Omitted here are the fingering and elements of notation provided
by the editors which have no effect on the acoustic relations between Bar 200 Vc. & Cb. In GEP the slur – most probably by mistake –
the solo and orchestra parts (brackets, minor variants). nd
covers not the quaver motif in the 2 half of the bar, but the two
notes e. In SBH this sign was deemed a tie, and the notes e
were replaced by one note with the value of a dotted crotchet.
Air ‘Już miesiąc zeszedł’
p. 32 nd
p. 18 Bar 238 Vni II. In the 2 half of the bar GEP erroneously have
Bars 84-87 & 91-92 Cor. I. The version given in the main text
the rhythm .
comes from GEP. It does not give rise to any reservations of
a musical nature, although it may be difficult to play on French
horns tuned to F in a or dynamic (Chopin used horns in A). Kujawiak
For this reason – following the solution adopted in SSi – we pro- p. 33
pose the simplification given as a variant. Bar 248 Fg. I. In FEP the length of the rest from this bar to the
entry of the flutes in bar 309 was given as 16 instead of 61 bars.
p. 19 st In GEP the error was corrected.
Bar 90 Vc. In SBH the rhythmic values of both notes in the 1
half of the bar were altered, presumably to bring them into line p. 43 1 1
with the rhythm of the lowest notes of the piano part. It cannot be Bar 403 Cor. GEP have the minim b-b (sounding e-e ). This is
excluded that the quaver flag was mistakenly placed in GEP by most probably a mistake, since both the piano and all the other
c
1
instead of by b, which would make the version of SBH instruments of the orchestra play here just the notes a. It is most
correct. However, the version of GEP is also possible, and so we likely that at the stage of copying the parts from the score the
leave it unaltered. part of the horns was confused with that of the trumpets, which
has an identical notation in the preceding bars.
nd
Bar 91 Vni I & VIe. In the 2 half of the bar GEP have the two-
1 1
note chords b-g in the violins and b-e in the violas. The pres- Jan Ekier
ence of the extra notes, doubling the same notes in the parts of Paweł Kamiński

3
PERFORMANCE COMMENTARY

The orchestral parts may be borrowed from the Biblioteka Materiałów Fantasia on Polish Airs in A major, Op. 13
Orkiestrowych PWM, ul. Fredry 8, 00-097 Warszawa,
tel. 022-635-3550, fax 022-826-9780, p. 16
Bars 56-81 The rhythm of harmonic changes and the contour of
www.pwm.com.pl, e-mail: bmo@pwm.com.pl the accompaniment of the piano part, emphasised by authentic
slurring and pedalling, determine a different arrangement to the
bars than that which is notated – one in which the bar lines fall in
the middle of the printed bars (cf. comment on the themes of the
Fantasia in the Source Commentary):
Remarks on the musical text
Editorial additions are given in square brackets [ ].
etc.
L o n g a c c e n t s i g n s signify accents of a primarily expressive char-
acter, in which the accented part generally lasts slightly longer than
with a normal accent (with shorter rhythmic values, it sometimes covers
two or three notes) and the fall in the intensity of the sound is smoother. The editors recommend that performers hear the theme in this way.
General problems of the interpretation of Chopin’s works will be dis-
cussed in a separate volume entitled Wstęp do Wydania Narodowego p. 18
Bars 84-92 Cor. I. The version given in the footnote is a simpli-
[Introduction to the National Edition], in the section entitled ‘Zagadnienia fication proposed by the editors in the event of difficulty with
wykonawcze’ [Issues relating to performance]. obtaining a soft on such a high note.
Jan Ekier
Paweł Kamiński