mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Arpeggio – vertical slur

b. 33

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No sign in GE & EE2 (→EE3)

Arpeggio in FE1, contextual interpretation

2 slurs in FE2 & EE1, possible interpretation
..

In FE1 the arpeggio mark (vertical slur) was placed after the octave (on its right-hand side). Such mistakes are not frequent, yet they can be seen in Chopin's first editions, cf., e.g. the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, III mov., b. 172-173. In FE2 and EE1 a small tie combining the grace note with the bottom note of the following octave was added, which was almost certainly performed by the reviser. Both the slur and tie, forming an incomprehensible combination, were removed in EE2. The missing arpeggio in GE suggests that Chopin added it in the basis for FE or only just at the stage of proofreading that edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE , Arpeggio – vertical slur

b. 53

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Arpeggio in GE1 & FE (→EE)

No mark in GE2
..

The absence of arpeggio sign in GE2 results presumably from an oversight by the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Arpeggio – vertical slur

b. 57

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur in GE, literal reading

Arpeggio sign in GE (contextual interpretation) & FE

No mark in EE
..

As was the case with analogous b. 31, the slur of GE, although formally correct, is most probably inaccurate and marks a grace note and an arpeggio (written down as a vertical slur), as was conveyed in FE. The absence of a slur (arpeggio) in EE, whatever the reason, cannot be authentic.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Arpeggio – vertical slur

b. 107

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur in GE1, literal reading

No sign in FE (→EE) & GE2

Arpeggio sign, contextual interpretation of GE1
..

As was the case with analogous b. 31 and 57, the slur of GE, although formally correct, is most probably inaccurate and marks a grace note and an arpeggio (written down as a vertical slur). The missing slur (arpeggio) in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight by the copyist in [FC] or by the engraver.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Arpeggio – vertical slur