F RY D E RY K C H O P I N

Mazurka in F minor Op. 68 No. 4 (revised version)

a new reconstruction based on the autograph sketch

edited by
ADRIANO CASTALDINI

including semi-diplomatic transcription and commentary

Copyright © 2012 by Adriano Castaldini. All rights reserved

ISBN #: 978-1-4710-8195-8
 To my mother
tireless heart of my thinking
 DAL SEGNO (ONCE AGAIN) SENZA FINE

ADRIANO CASTALDINI

The story about Op. 68 No. 4 may possibly start with a dateless letter (probably January 1853) written by Julian Fontana to Ludwika
Jędrzejewiczowa.

Fontana and Chopin have known each other since high school in Warsaw. Fontana edits and spreads his friend’s music in Europe, Havana
and New York and he is his personal secretary during his stay in Paris from 1837 to 1844. Ludwika Jędrzejewiczowa is Chopin’s eldest sister.
She holds a catalogue of her brother’s works which will be an important historical source for the intricate issue concerning the dating of his
compositions.

In the letter, Fontana claims to have several unpublished compositions by Chopin, including seven mazurkas ready to be published as post-
humous. Mainly early works, some of which date back to the 1820s in Warsaw, that weren’t supposed to be published. Fontana has already
negotiated with Jędrzejewiczowa to get the full power to select the posthumous compositions, deal with the editors and manage the profits,
but his collection of unpublished works lacks a fundamental piece: a mazurka, autograph of which belongs to Auguste Franchomme.

Let’s take a step back. Chopin dies in October 1849. His last published work while alive is the Sonata Op. 65 for cello and piano. The publish-
ing year is 1847 (Brandus, Paris) and the dedication is «À son ami A. Franchomme». Auguste Franchomme is the most celebrated cellist at
that time, Professor at the Conservatory in Paris since 1846 and central figure for the musical life of the town. He is Chopin’s friend since the
Gran Duo concertant for cello and piano where he features as a coauthor (early 30s), and will be his handyman from Fontana’s departure to
Cuba in 1844 till the end.

Nevertheless after Chopin’s death, Fontana will get the exclusive rights for on the unpublished works (that will be obtained only in October
1853) and will succeed in it only after having discredited Franchomme in the eyes of Jędrzejewiczowa. In fact in the letter, after having asked
her information about Franchomme’s manuscript, Fontana mischievously writes about him:

«I confess to you Madam, that I have always considered him capable of causing embarrassment; he behaved kindly with Fryderyk because thanks
to him he had earned a position and gained a patronage; he has never inspired in me any sympathy at all»1.

Fontana’s persistence for that mazurka can be easily explained: Franchomme, Fontana and Jędrzejewiczowa are convinced it’s Chopin's very
last work, his last musical thought, and mid-800s editors’ fetish interest for famous artists’ “last thoughts” is fostered by the romantic public's
most fervent attitude to morbidly distort biographical details into pure hagiographic-inspiring traits. In the letter to Jędrzejewiczowa Fontana
is anxious and tries to speed up especially because Franchomme not only has Chopin’s manuscript but also his own fair copy of the score2, just
ready to be published (Plate_4).

Fontana got the upper hand: Chopin’s family grants him the exclusive rights, that at least would have avoided mystifications of the worst
editorial exploitations. In 1855 he edits Oeuvres Posthumes pour Piano de Fred. Chopin with J. Meissonnier Fils (Paris) and A. M. Schlesinger
(Berlin). The works are Fantaisie-Impromptu Op. 66, Four Mazurkas Op. 67, Four Mazurkas Op. 68, Two Waltzes Op. 69, Three Waltzes Op.
70, Three Polonaises Op. 71, Five pieces Op. 72, Rondo Op. 73 for two pianos. The mazurka under dispute becomes Op. 68 No. 4 and Schlesinger
also prepares a separate edition titled – needless to say – Dernière pensée musicale de Frédéric Chopin. Since then, Fontana’s “last mazurka”
enters de jure the complete Mazurkas series and consequently the pianists’ repertoire as well as records titles in the 20th century, establishing
its interpretive tradition.

Everything goes smoothly until 1952 when the musicologist Arthur Hedley takes the opportunity to examine the Chopin’s manuscript (at
that time in the hands of Franchomme’s descendants) and realizes that Franchomme and Fontana missed half of the stuff: the manuscript is a

1 G. Petrucci, Epistolario di Federico Chopin, Arnaldo Forni Editore, 1907.

2 F. Chopin, Mazurka in fa minore op. 68 n. 4, reconstructed by A. Franchomme, 1852. Chopin Museum of the Chopin Society, Warsaw, M/236.

Dal segno (once again) senza fine I Copyright © 2012 by Adriano Castaldini
mere sketch3 (Plate_2) where nevertheless three distinctive sections can be traced out. Fontana’s edition includes the first two sections, while
completely lack the third one. This last section appears evidently fragmented, troubled by deletions and scratched by signs which should sug-
gest a somewhat sequential order of the bars scattered on the sheet, but, if you take a good look, even the other two sections have details which
are not easy to understand. Franchomme has to face missing accidentals, short forms, parts omitted by the author. And in this chaos he messes
up a thing or two (for example he lacks the dominant pedal on the first six downbeats during the return of the first section). So the absence of
the third section can’t be ascribed to a mere reading trouble. Perhaps Franchomme doesn’t want to risk questionable results, preferring once
again to bury the dinosaur, and to leave to posterity the nth “Unfinished”. Or perhaps Fontana receives only part of the a Franchomme's fair
copy from Jędrzejewiczowa (infact, in a letter dated Paris 18th June 1852, Chopin's pupil Jane Stirling mentions Franchomme’s two pages long
transcription, while we have preserved only a page).

Nevertheless Hedley’s discovery arrives just two years after the celebrations of the 100th anniversary of Chopin's death. Perhaps the view of
entire chapters of musicology to tear – when the Polskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne has just edited the five hundred pages volume Mazurki by
Janusz Miketta – leads him to promote a cautious circulation of his version in private mileux or – quietly – in some public exhibitions. But in
1955 Ludwik Bronarski decides instead to edit some new passages of the manuscript in the article La Dernière Mazurka de Chopin4. In 1958
Chopin Society in Warsaw thinks about purchasing the autograph, and in 1965 Jan Ekier edits a first organic reconstruction5 which however
doesn’t totally include the whole material of the third section. Four years later Wojciech Nowik overbids with an abstruse and musically bi-
zarre version6. So far, it’s a match for only the Polish. But in 1975 it’s Ronald Smith’s turn: he proposes a much more complete version7 than
the one by Ekier, though maintaining the same formal structure. In 1983, Milosz Magin takes care of bringing the matter back home, but his
version8 doesn't substantially differ from the one by Smith.

So far, nobody seems to question the fact that Op. 68 No.4 is actually the Chopin’s last musical thought. In his article, Nowik resumes the
sources traditionally assumed:
1. in his transcription, Franchomme writes: «Dernière Mazurka de Chopin composée à Chaillot», that is rue Chaillot 74 in Paris, where
Chopin had lived from June to August in 1849;
2. in the letter to Jędrzejewiczowa dated Paris 18th June 1852, Jane Stirling mentions Franchomme’s transcription of the «dernière Maz,
écrite à Chaillot»;
3. in his printed version, Fontana adds a footnote dated 1849: «Cette Mazurka est la dernière inspiration que Chopin ait jetée sur le papier, peu
de temps avant sa mort: – il était déjà trop malade pour l'essayer au piano.»;
4. in his list of the Chopin’s unpublished works9, Jędrzejewiczowa groups Op. 68 No. 4 and Op. 67 No. 2 as «Mazourki. dwa ostatnie»10, dat-
ing them 1848.

Come to think of it, none of these sources can be considered unquestionably reliable. In fact if all these four people are intimate with
Chopin, only Franchomme is physically in contact with his friend during the so precisely mentioned Chaillot period. Fontana, Stirling and
Jędrzejewiczowa (regardless of the slight dating mismatch) take Franchomme’s note for granted. But this contrasts with what Chopin writes
in the same period to his friend Wojciech Grzymała:

«I have not yet begun to play – I cannot compose»11 and

«I play less and less; I cannot write anything»12.

3 F. Chopin, Mazurka in fa minore op. 68 n. 4, autograph sketch, 1849(?). Chopin Museum of the Chopin Society, Warsaw, M/235.
4 L. Bronarski, La Dernière Mazurka de Chopin, Schweizerische Musikzeitung / Revue musicale suisse, XCV, 1955.
5 F. Chopin, Mazurek f-moll ostatni, ed. Jan Ekier, Krakow, 1965.
6 W. Nowik, Próba rekonstrukcja Mazurka f-moll op. 68 nr. 4 Fryderyka Chopina, Rocznik Chopinowski, VIII, 1969.
7 F. Chopin, The Final Composition: Mazurka in F Minor Op. Posthumous. A Completely New Realization, ed. Ronald Smith, New York, 1975.
8 F. Chopin, Mazurka en fa mineur: La Dernière Oeuvre de Chopin, ed. Milosz Magin, Parigi, 1983.
9 Kompozycyje niewydane, Chopin Society, Warsaw, M/301.
10 «Mazourkas. two last».
11 June 18, 1849. Korespondencja, ed. Sydow, PIW, 1955.
12 July 10, 1849. Korespondencja, ed. Sydow, PIW, 1955.

Dal segno (once again) senza fine II

These doubts are raised by the musicologist Jeffrey Kallberg in an article13 from 1985, in which, on the round of a stylistic analysis of Op. 63
(the last mazurkas to be published by Chopin while alive), he supposes for Op. 68 No. 4 the backdating to the same years (1845-46) and the
possibility that it had been originally conceived as second item of Op. 63, then discarded in favour of the current Op. 63 No. 2, in F minor
as well. This hypothesis leads to a crossroad: we can believe that Op. 68 No. 4 is nothing more than a stranded project then abandoned by its
author – consequently we come to the conclusion that whatever attempt to reconstruct the mazurka is totally illogic, in line with restricting
the failed attempt as a mere musicological attraction; or we can believe that Op. 68 No. 4 is truly Chopin’s musical testament – which would
imply to consider the sudden worsening of the condition of his health as the only plausible obstruction to let him derive a finished mazurka
from its sketch. This second option still doesn’t reveal how reasonable it would be to venture a “director's cut”.

Even assuming that Chopin had intended to finished the piece, he could have:
1. used all the material in the manuscript, as we got it;
2. composed other material or modified the one already written;
3. recovered some of the bars among the outtakes;
4. removed some parts previously kept.
We could endlessly argue in favour of one option or another, adducing analytical justifications or quoting cryptic excerpts form the letters,
but we wouldn’t get any incontrovertible assurance. The truth is that we’ll never know what Chopin would have done with this sketch if he
had had the time or the will to sort something out of it.

Anyway, Fontana’s merit is to have knocked it – without thinking too much – into an interpretive sedimentation that today appears as an es-
sential reference for pianistic literature (something recalling – thanks to an inspired guess by Jim Samson – Gadamer’s Wirkungsgeschichte).

All we can do now is trying to put together the puzzle with the remaining pieces, trusting they are not few or in excess. Otherwise Fontana’s
mutilated edition would rightfully be among the possibilities, and we would be back to the beginning (once again…)

Diplomatic transcription

Plate_3 is a semi-diplomatic transcription of the autograph, namely a printed version that roughly respects the original position of the bars,
the aspect of the red pointers and the presence of textual notes. The various gaps left by the author are not reconstructed here, while the most
obvious details have been solved: simile marks, key signatures and accidentals (in brackets those not from Chopin). The author’s outtakes are
scored too, readable under the grey lines. Numbered staves (S1 to S14) and numbered bars (on Plate_3 only) help the comparison between
the sketch and the transcription.

Key signatures and accidentals

In the autograph, the indications «F mol» (S1) and «F dur» (S8, S11) take the place of the missing key signatures. In the off-screen of his
sketch, Chopin seems to follow free-hand the insights arising from his instinct to modulate, to easily change the sign on a creaky tonal surface.
So it occurs that all he has to do is to suggest a couple of accidentals to imply all the others in a whole phrase that compliantly slouches, as a
stringed puppet, hanging by the whimsical turns of a protean chromaticism. Nonetheless, no substantial doubt concerning key signatures or
accidentals comes out from the sketch.

Simile marks

In a1a, a17 and b13, Chopin uses stems-only as simile marks to repeat the previous beats in the L.H. In the six bars a1b/6b (S11, S13), the
same marks recall the L.H. of the first six bars (a1a/6a) adding a dominant pedal on the six downbeats. This joint is supported by the notes
g and f in a2b and a4b, referring respectively to the second beat in a2a and to the third one in a4a. In a3b, Chopin prefers to fully write the
variant of a3a-L.H.

13 J. Kallberg, Chopin’s Last Style, Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 38/2, 1985.

Dal segno (once again) senza fine III

 Order of sections

Three sections can be detected: [A] in F minor (lavender area in Plate_3); [B] starting in A-flat major (beige area); [C] in F major (white area).
[A] is the first to be played because it is located at the top of the sheet, and its tonality matches the indication «F mol Maz» (S1) that starts the
piece. [B] is the second to be played. It’s difficult to understand if this section was conceived before or after [C]. An early and slim idea of [C]
on S11/12 may have been written before [B] (S7/10), but c8b/10b fragment shifts up to S5/6 (compared with the other three fragments on
S6/7) and this indicates that [B] was already on S7 at the very moment [C] was expanded. Moreover, an abortive attempt to continue linearly
the composition on S5 begins with a motif that is very like b1. It would show that in spite of having been composed after [C], a [B] section had
been conceived since the very beginning. Anyway there are at least four more reasons that confirm [B] as the second section:
1. both a23a and its two variants a23b and a23c lead harmonically to [B];
2. F minor shares with A-flat major the same signature;
3. one might expect «F dur» to come only after a return of [A] following [B], and in fact a1a' and a1b seem to give evidente of it;
4. in a23a the indication «F dur», the «X» and the oblique stroke clearly point at c1, but instead of considering these signs as the priority of
[C] to [B], they can be justified for the risk of ambiguity between the two same indications «F dur» on S11 and S8 (this last one probably a
first abortive attempt for the F major section). [C] is then the third section to be played.

Reconstruction of a10/12

Bars a9/12 are a variant of the first theme in a1a/4a. The numbers written in a9/12 refer directly to the first four bars: the dot on the second
line in a9 is not a note but the bottom of the number «1» (probably written with a dry nib; Plate_1, fig. 1) and refers to a1a; in a10, number
«2» refers to a2a; in a11 (a narrow bar later obtained between a10 and a12) number «3» is implied, in fact it is still readable in a12, half-
erased by number «4». The presence of another «4» on the following empty bar confirms that Chopin had foreseen the space for these four
bars, as a variant of the first four, before their real fulfilment (the melodic variant written in a1a and a5a, with the stems pointed up, maybe
represents a first abortive attempt). The hardly visible «X» on the tie in a13 (fig. 2) matches the one in a5a, and indicates the point where
Chopin had predetermined the end of the variant and the beginning of a new phrase. Nevertheless, bars a10/12 lack some parts omitted by
the author for brevity: L.H. in a10 and a12, and R.H. in a11. All the reconstructions (including the present one) agree in copying L.H. in a2a
and a4a, and pasting it into a10 and a12. On a11 opinions differ: Nowik interprets Chopin’s omission (due to the narrow space of a11) as an
implied continuation of the variant started in a9; whereas Ekier simply copies a3a-R.H. as it is, obviously persuaded that the author would
have written the variant if only he had wanted. In favour of Ekier, the variant attempted in a1a and a5a is not present in a3a. In favour of
Nowik, the difference between the L.H. in a3a and a11 might similarly suggest a difference also for the R.H. (in spite of this, let’s notice that
L.H. in a3b is varied too, but it implies a real quote of a3a-R.H. anyway). Considering the two versions as equal, the present reconstruction
chooses Nowik’s variant for the main staff, and keeps Ekier’s as ossia.

Reconstruction of b1/8

Among the first eight bars in [B], only b3 and b7 are fully written. In b3, it’s not convincing that the two chords had been written only to
specify the scholastic subtraction, in the accompaniment, of the note that doubles the melody (cf. c15). One can’t seriously be persuaded that
the other bars have consequently to be completed with three note chords only. Chopin knows the rules, but he doesn’t hesitate to get rid of
them pursuing a way to harden or to rarefy the harmony (cf. L.H. between a15/16 and a17/18, or b11 and b13). It’s rather possible that the
first chord had to overwrite the notes c-e(-g?) still readable under the stem (fig. 3), while the second chord fills the third beat after the evident
deletion. Much more interesting is b7 that is fully written too. The staccato downbeat doesn’t imply here the shortened duration of the note
(certainly helped by the sustain pedal), but a suggestion about touch and phrasing. In fact the hemiola interrupts the hypothetical pattern
“note-chord-chord” of the previous bars (even though, agreeing with Smith, the staccato downbeat in b6 might indicate here an anticipa-
tion).

R.H. in b4 offers another interesting detail: the half-note c'' seems to be a dotted note, but just under the dot, g' occupies the third beat of the
bar. All the previous reconstructions agree to consider c'' just a half-note. In spite of this I tend to believe that the g' is the higher note of the
chord on the third beat with the effect of a melodic overlap (in several compositions by Chopin the accompaniment contributes to the melody
as perceived, cf. Mazurka Op. 56 No. 3, bar 73, f on the upbeat, and Polonaise Op. 26 No. 1, bar 8, g#' on the third beat).
In b5-L.H. F is almost certainly an error. All reconstructions (including the present one) agree in using G instead.

Dal segno (once again) senza fine IV

In short, several versions for the L.H. in b1/8 can be assumed. The present reconstruction suggests a main version and two ossias alternated
between [B] and [B']. In the last one (bars 118/123 in the reconstruction) the L.H. is realized quite arbitrarily, perhaps more similar to the
nocturne’s style than to the mazurka’s one, but this is justified by the peculiar arpeggio in a23c (bar 118) that ends [A] and introduces [B].

Details in b9/16

In b8/9, a tie between the two notes g'' must surely be added, similarly to b10/11 and b12/13.

In b14/15 and in b15/16a only the two ties in R.H. are for sure, whereas the tie in b14/15-L.H. is deleted to confirm the precise intention of
the author to separate the two notes e♭(fig. 4), then the other tie in b15-L.H. may only concern b16a and not the variant b16b.

In this last bar all the previous reconstructions register a mordent on the third quaver, but I think it is simply a deletion (fig. 5).

In b10 and b12, the two groups of quavers in R.H. most likely overwrite the crotchets b' and a'. It’s clear that a chromatic progression of
crotchets starting from b10 was the first idea (mainly in b12, it can be noticed the deletion of a' on the second beat, and the attempt to hide
the same note on the third beat under the quaver d''; fig. 6). Nevertheless there’s a chance – even though it’s rather unlikely – of keeping both
quavers and crotchets, so I insert this option as ossia in the present reconstruction.

Details in [C]

In c3-L.H. almost all the previous reconstructions consider c as a dotted note (similarly to b♭ in R.H.), and only Nowik keeps the half-note
as it is in the autograph. The deleted stain on the right is not a dot, but probably the base note of an original c-g-c' chord (fig. 7). Anyway, the
present reconstruction keeps the half-note as well, adding a crotchet rest on the third beat.

Nowik is again the only one who inserts e' in the first chord in c9a, and in fact Chopin reintroduces e' on the left of the deletion (fig. 8), maybe
as a second thought.

In c11, L.H. is omitted and most likely is a copy of c3. Probably the dotted half-note b♭ has to be added too.

In c15, most of the reconstructions agree in grouping the notes d' c' a' as a quaver triplet followed by the crotchet e'. This is definitely a stretch:
in the autograph only the first five quavers seem to be beamed, but it's simply a badly drawn beam, as in b12-L.H. (c' can not be a crotchet) or
in a15 (R.H. is obviously identical with a17). In fact, in c15 the autograph shows clearly that a' is vertically aligned to the chord on the third
beat.

In c16a, a little stain under the last quaver could be the note f '. Anyway, it is more likely that f ' is in synch with the chord on the third beat.

Order of fragments in [C]

Meticulously following the pointers drawn by Chopin in [C] area (red lines in the transcription), the order of the fragments seems to be forced
(as indicated by the numbering of the bars in Plate_3). For convenience, we can group the pointers into four subsets:
1. the first implies the two straight lines which place c5/6 rightly between the first two fragments on S6/7; and the big curve (traced again and
again) that redirects to S13/14;
2. the second is an ideal big sinuous line which starts from fragment c11/12, collects c13/14 (hinting the first beat of c15), and wedges itself
exactly where the first subset ends up;
3. the third routes c7 to the fragment on S5/6 as a variant of c9a/10a during the repetition of [C] (the repetition is confirmed by the «X» on
the double barline after c16a, which refers to the «X» on c1);
4. the fourth concerns only the short line from c15 down to c16b (toward the left in the manuscript, toward the right in Plate_3) indicating
c16b as a second ending in place of c16a.
Only R.H. bar over c16a is left over from this sequence, clearly conceived as a second ending of the early idea of [C] confined to S11/12.

Dal segno (once again) senza fine V

 Sectional repetitions and formal patterns

It’s not clear if a23b/c and b16b are ossias or different endings of relating sectional returns. In a23c, the annotation «3ci» is the short form
for “trzeci”, which in Polish means “third”. Chopin might have noted «3ci» to specify that a23c doesn’t immediately follow a23b. In this case,
since that [A] returns after both [B] and [C], we would get the form [ABA'CC'A''] where...
[A] ends with any alternative among a23a/b/c;
[A'] starts with the variant a1b/6b, and ends with a23a;
[A''] is unvaried with respect to [A] but necessarily ends with a23a.
If otherwise «3ci» meant “third ending”, we should consider a23b and b16b as repetition’s endings too. Then we would get the form
[ABA'CC'A''B'A'''], where...
[A] ends with a23b;
[B] ends with b16a;
[A'] probably starts from the variant a1b/6b, and ends with a23a;
[C] ends with c16a;
[C'] ends with c16b;
[A''] ends with a23c;
[B'] ends with b16b;
[A'''] surely starts from a1b/6b, and ends with a23a.
In a1a', an evident deletion almost completely hides the chords on the second and third beats, but they are still visible just enough to show
their similarity to those in a1b (fig. 9). Chopin probably erased a1a' to rewrite correctly the same idea in a1b. It means that almost surely every
return of [A] after [B] begins with a1b and must include the variant a1b/6b. However, the conclusive feeling of the dominant pedal added to
the theme (cf. Mazurka Op. 63 No. 1, bar 69) is more coherent in [A'''] rather than in [A'], although it would imply three literal returns of
the same section. In The problem of repetition and return in Chopin’s mazurkas14, Jeffrey Kallberg notices that on one hand the device of the
literal repetition is a peculiar characteristic of the popular genre to which Chopin refers, but on the other hand – comparing handwritten and
printed versions of his mazurkas – this is also a formal aspect that often drives the author into second thoughts, from the simple correction to
the planning of more and more effective composing tricks. The present reconstruction inserts the variant a1b/6b in both [A'] and [A'''] on the
main staff, but the “ossia” in [A'] gives an alternative without the variant.

Conclusions

Regarding Op. 68 No. 4, the paradox of a mature style stuck in an early form reveals what this sketch really is: nothing more than a sketch, that
is only a step – among various others – of a much more extended composing process that Chopin never ended. Was it because he couldn’t or
he didn’t want to? It doesn’t really matter since this mazurka remains the “last mazurka” by (un)definition. We can only reconstruct a snap-
shot of this step, as the composer left it, that could be the long sequence [ABA'CC'A''B'A'''], or the slim [ABA'CC'A''], maybe reintegrating
the deleted variant in a1a and a5a, and so creating an anticipation of the pathetic f'-e' that thickens between the last beat in a6a and the second
one in a7, with the same drawing – clearer by one octave – between a4a and a5a. What matters is to understand that if a reconstruction is
possible, that will be only about a sketch, and not about the F mol Maz that remains “without end”, behind “the sign”.15

January 30, 2012

(English translation by Claudia Barolo)

14 J. Kallberg, The problem of repetition and return in Chopin’s mazurkas, Chopin Studies, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
15 Fontana added «D.C. al segno senza fine» at the end of his printed edition.

Dal segno (once again) senza fine VI

 PLATE_1

fig. 1 fig. 2 fig. 3

fig. 4 fig. 5 fig. 6

fig. 7 fig. 8 fig. 9

 PLATE_2

Autograph sketch (Chopin Society, M/235)

 PLATE_3

Semi-diplomatic transcription
 PLATE_4

Franchomme's version (Chopin Society, M/236)

 F. Chopin
MAZURKA IN F MINOR
Op. 68 No. 4
revised version
reconstruction based on the autograph sketch by Adriano Castaldini

(*)

Ossia:

* This variant, originally annotated by the author and later cut, probably refers to the return of the theme with the dominant pedal (bars 40-44 and 95-99).

Mazurka in F minor Op. 68 No. 4, revised version 1 Copyright © 2012 by Adriano Castaldini
 r.h.

Ossia:

Ossia:

Mazurka in F minor Op. 68 No. 4, revised version 2

 Ossia: *)

(**)

(***)

* This ossia is almost certainly incorrect

**Variant as in bar 11.
*** On the second beat, it's not definitively clear whether the autograph contains d' or e'.

Mazurka in F minor Op. 68 No. 4, revised version 3

 Ossia:

(*)

( **)

(***)

* See note on bar 63.

** In the autograph, f' is on the last quaver, but it could just be a stain. However it is more likely that f' is in synch with the chord on the third beat.
*** Variant as in bar 73.

Mazurka in F minor Op. 68 No. 4, revised version 4

 (*)

Ossia:

(**)

* Variant as in bar 11.

** Variant as in bar 33.

Mazurka in F minor Op. 68 No. 4, revised version 5

 (*)

ISBN 978-1-4710-8195-8
90000
* Variant as in bar 11.

Mazurka in F minor Op. 68 No. 4, revised version 6 9 781471 081958