![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Errors in FE
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
A comparison with analogous b. 69, and particularly with b. 175, which was almost certainly marked in [A] as a repetition of b. 31, proves the mistake of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE1). The mistake was corrected in EE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing tie of b category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE |
|||||
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
FE (→GE1→GE2) are lacking in the accidental before the 5th semiquaver from the end, which results in g category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||
b. 51-52
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing slurs must be a mistake of FE, in which these bars are separated by the transition into a new line. When repeated a bar later, this motif is already provided with slurs, which proves the mistake, as a result of which corresponding additions were already introduced in GE and EE. See also the note above. A similar situation can be found in b. 195-196. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |