mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Polonaise

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 93

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

No slur in FE (→GE1)

Slur from 2nd semiquaver in EE

Slur from first semiquaver in GE2 (→GE3)

Slur from quaver suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the slur in FE (→GE1) – irrespective of the reason – must be considered a mistake. In the main text we give the same slur as the one featured in FE in the next bar. The slur was also added in EE and GE2 (→GE3); however, none of them took into account the authentic slur from analogous b. 94.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 93-94

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

No R.H. marks in FE (→EE,GE1)

Staccato dots in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The staccato dots added in GE2 (→GE3) cannot come from Chopin, although standardising articulation between the left and right hands in such a passage, led in parallel in both hands, may seem rational. However, the Polonaise contains a greater number of similar situations, e.g. in b. 26, 101, 229, 277, hence we try to limit such editorial additions to the situations in which there is an indication to assume that such actions are compliant with Chopin's intention (e.g. in b. 78).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 94

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

b repeated in FE (→EE)

b tied in GE

b tied, our suggestion
..

A comparison with the previous bar, in which b is tied, makes it likely that the tie was accidentally overlooked. The tie was added in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 94

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Slur from quaver in FE (→EE)

Slur from first semiquaver in GE
..

The fact that the slur in GE starts later may be a mistake of the engraver or a revision, related to the addition of the tie of b. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 95

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Semiquaver in FE, possible interpretation

Quaver in GE & EE

Quaver suggested by the editors
..

In FE the bar opens with a semiquaver in the R.H. and a quaver in the L.H. It is a mistake, yet it is unclear which value is correct:

  • a quaver requires the following 3 semiquavers to be considered a triplet. Such a rhythm naturally develops the scheme used in the previous bars – both the starting point of the new motif on the 2nd quaver of the bar and the homogeneous semiquaver triplet movement are preserved. We give this version in the main text (we also mark the triplets), adopted in EE and GE, also due to association with the polonaise rhythm;
  • a semiquaver is less obvious in this context, yet one cannot rule it out – such a rhythmic diversification of a recently heard model absolutely corresponds to the Chopinesque style. Such an understanding of this rhythm is supported by the layout of the notes in FE, which proves that the engraver was convinced that he was dealing with four regular semiquavers.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors