mUltimate Chopin

Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of A

b. 37

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

..

A has no accidentals before the first quaver. Sharps necessary to indicate notes c, c1, c2 were not written by Chopin until the last semiquaver, and only in the R.H. (the same pertains to bar 141, which is a repetition of bar 37). The editions filled in the essential signs (some or all):

  • FE added naturals next to the first R.H. octave;
  • GE and EE added all three essential naturals;
  • GE2 (→GE3→GE4) and EE2 added an extra  before c at the end of bar.

In the main text we leave only naturals at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 38

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

..

A has no accidentals next to the first quaver on the 3rd beat. However, Chopin put  before the upper note (c) of the last L.H. semiquaver. As in the previous bar this is a mistake, corrected partly or completely in all the editions:

  • FE moved  from the last L.H. semiquaver to the quaver on the 3rd beat;
  • GE and EE also added naturals to the R.H. octave.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 49

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

A, literal reading

A (contextual interpretation), GE2 (→GE3→GE4) & EE2

FE (→GE1,EE1)
..

Bars 49-68 were marked in A with numbers 1-20 as repetition of the initial fragment of the piece. However, the 'one' in bar 49 seems to be deleted, whereas the 1st half of the bar is written with notes, which, allegedly, was supposed to facilitate the engraver's orientation in the abbreviated notation and prevent a too literal repetition of the beginning of the Polonaise (e.g., together with the tempo indication). Unfortunately, due to the fact that Chopin erroneously completed this bar with rests, FE initially printed the truncated version, without the last two chords (the traces of correction of this error are clearly visible). See the next note on slurs in this bar, and also the previous one. Similarly in bar 153.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors of A , Abbreviated notation of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 68

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

Repeat sign in A

No sign in FE (→GE,EE)

Our variant suggestion
..

The visible in A repetition sign probably means that while writing the Polonaise Chopin anticipated repetition of bars 21-68 (the doubt raises, i.a., due to the absence of its corresponding sign in bar 21). The absence of this sign in FE (→GE,EE), which can be a result of Chopin's proofreading, indicates a change of decision and this is the version we give in the main text. One cannot also exclude an erroneous introduction of the repetition sign due to the absence of note text in the preceding bars, conducive to confusion, which was related to the abbreviated notation of bars 49-68.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 89

composition: Op. 26 No 2, Polonaise in E♭ minor

..

At the end of the bar A has two semiquavers in the L.H., which is undoubtedly a mistake, corrected already in FE1 in all remaining editions.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Rhythmic errors , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE