(2) The second subject (in the relative major, with the lyrical characteristics of a cantilena) does not have the character of a subsidiary idea but plays a vital role in the form as a whole and is not of secondary importance when compared with the first subject. In respect to the first characteristics, Chopin’s expositions are longer than those appearing in the sonatas of, for example, Schubert and Schumann the ratio of Chopin’s expositions to second parts consisting of the development and the recapitulation is more or less 1:1, whereas the beginning of the recapitulation appears approximately at the golden section. In the later sonatas the Chopinesque model of the sonata-allegro was established with the following four groups of features: (1) a binary division into exposition and development with recapitulation, (2) a clear thematic conflict, (3) the opening of the recapitulation with the second theme, and (4) the unification of thematic material. The change in Chopin’s style around 1837-39 was determined not so much by his re-acceptance of the sonata-genre that had been neglected in his music of the previous years, as by changes in the internal formation of the sonata-allegro and changes in his musical language. In the Sonata in C minor, similarly to the Piano Trio, the exposition remained in a uniform tonality, while contrasts in the tonality of the subject were transferred to the recapitulation. Initially, Chopin had recourse to various sonata- allegro traditions, although he avoided the scheme that was most widely employed and accepted by the theoreticians. The first group encompasses pieces written up to 1830 (Sonata in C minor, Piano Trio in G minor), the second group includes three sonatas from the late period. The manner in which the internal form of Chopin’s sonata cycles is fashioned determines their division into two groups. Irrespective of the changes which occur in the treatment of the genre, Chopin’s sonata-form compositions generally preserve the four-movement cycle, with the consistent layout of movements obviously, he also adheres to the framework of the sonata-allegro form, with its classic division into a repeated exposition, development and recapitulation. Chopin did not revolutionize sonata form. The confrontation of actual compositional practice with the theory of sonata-form that prevailed at the turn of the 18th and the 19th centuries (Koch 1782- 93, Galeazzi 1796, Reicha 1834) is also of vital importance in this context.
In considering the question of changes in the sonata-genre in Chopin’s music, the author strives first and foremost to reveal the relationships and tensions which arise between a repertoire of norms inherited from the past and the modification and extension of such old principles. The compositions are treated as individual solutions to the range of problems posed by the genre itself. The present study eschews an appraisal of Chopin’s sonatas from the perspective of an academic model of the sonata-form. This aspect of Chopin’s style was seen as heralding the late romantic sonatas of Franck and Liszt. Consequently, early analyses of Chopin’s sonatas pointed out their departures from the classical norm subsequently the specific romantic features of the sonatas were stressed, in particular, the principle of deriving all the themes of a movement from one motivic substance. The research into the presence of sonata forms in Chopin’s music (Niecks 1890, Huneker 1900, Leichtentritt 1921-22, Opieński 1928-29, Chomiński 1960) shows a clear and pronounced dependency upon the theoretical paradigms of the sonata-form that prevailed during that period. T ranslated by Radosław Materka and Maja Trochimczyk