EE2
Main text
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FED - Dubois copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE1a - Retouched impression of GE1
GE2 - Second German edition
GE3 - Corrected impression of GE2
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Changed impression of EE1
compare
  b. 164

tied in FE (→GE)

repeated in EE

The version of the L.H. part in EE may be considered a double mistake committed by the engraver of this edition, i.e. he omitted both the tie of f and the a quaver on the 3rd beat of the bar. According to us, however, another scenario is likely, namely a scenario in which it is a correctly reproduced earlier, erroneous version of FE, which was then corrected by Chopin in the last stage of proofreading. This hypothesis cannot be confirmed without access to [A], since the alleged corrections of FE consisted exclusively in adding certain elements of notation, which does not leave visible traces when implemented carefully. Nevertheless, it logically explains all the textual differences in four analogous b. 20, 58, 164 and 202:

  • [A] included the initial version in all places, in which f was held only until the end of the 2nd beat of the bar (the actual notation concerned only b. 20 and 58, since the reprise of the main section of the Polonaise could not have been written out in [A]). This version is preserved in the editions in b. 58 and 202;
  • in the copy of FE prior to the last stage of proofreading, this version was also in b. 20 and 164, yet a Terzverschreibung was committed in b. 164 by printing f on the 5th quaver of the bar instead of a. This version was preserved without changes in EE, based on this copy;
  • in the last stage of proofreading, Chopin prolonged f in b. 20 and 164, adjusting the notation in both places to the current situation in order to reduce the number of laborious changes – in b. 20, in which the 5th quaver was printed correctly, he added a dot extending the f crotchet, whereas in b. 164 he used the erroneous f note on the 5th quaver, adding a respective tie, and added the head of the overlooked a note.

In this scenario, leaving b. 58 and 202 unchanged could be considered an oversight of some of the analogous places while proofreading, which would sometimes happen to Chopin. 

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE, Authentic corrections of FE

notation: Rhythm

Go to the music

Original in: Bodleian Library, Oxford