mUltimate Chopin

Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 52

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

in GE

 in FE (→EE)
..

To the main text we adopt the notation of GE, based on [A]. Chopin would use both symbols interchangeably to mark a mordent; however, the version of FE may be regarded as a variant.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues:

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. 55

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Arpeggio sign in GE, contextual interpretation

No mark in FE (→EE)
..

In GE the arpeggio mark is placed before the grace note, while in b. 288 (which in [A] is a not written-out repetition of the discussed bar) – before the d3-d4 octave. One of those versions of notation is therefore most probably inaccurate; we assume the more natural position of the mark in b. 288 to be correct. The missing arpeggio in FE seems to be an oversight of the engraver; however, it cannot be ruled out that Chopin entered it into [A] after Fontana had already finished [FC] (→FE). The least likely possibility is Chopin omitting the arpeggio on purpose (in any way). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

b. 55

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Demisemiquaver in GE

Semiquaver in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the rhythm of FE (→EE), written down flawlessly. The version of GE, in spite of correct rhythmic values, raises various doubts:

  • the alignment of the R.H. part with respect to the L.H. one corresponds to the rhythmic values of FE and not GE;
  • Chopin, in accordance with a traditional rule, would not use dots when writing rests;
  • in analogous b. 288 there is a different rhythm in GE, i.e. the same that can be found in FE in both bars. Such a situation could not have taken place in [A], in which the reprise of the main part of the Polonaise was almost certainly marked in an abridged manner as a repetition of a respective fragment of the first part.

The easiest explanation would be that in GE corrections were being added in print; since nothing indicates that Chopin could have participated in the proofreading of GE1, the authenticity of the version of that edition is questionable here.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 55-56

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Longer slur in GE

Shorter slur in FE

No slur in EE
..

In the main text we give the slur from GE, in accordance with slurs in analogous bars 29-30 and 288-289. In the latter passage such slur also occurs in FE (→EE) what proves the shorter FE's slur in bars in question inaccurate. The missing slur in EE is certainly an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE