mUltimate Chopin

Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in GE

b. 61-64

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slurs from E to g in GE1 (contextual interpretation) & FE (→EE)

Slurs from F1 to a in GE2

Slurs from E to a, our alternative suggestion
..

In the main text we give the unquestionable slurs of FE (→EE). The fact that the slurs of GE1 begin earlier can reflect the inaccurate notation of [A], which most probably marked slurs of the same range. The version of GE2 must be arbitrary. Our alternative suggestion is based on an assumption that the endings of the slurs could have been routinely revised by the engravers.
The same applies to b. 294-297.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions

b. 62-64

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

The issue whether the accidentals to the small notes apply to the normal-sized notes was not clearly stated in Chopin's time, as it turns out. In GE and FE there is no accidental before the bottom note of the L.H. chord on the 3rd beat in b. 62 and 63, d, which, at least theoretically, can be misleading. Naturals were only added in EE – in EE1 in b. 63 and in EE2 in b. 62.

FE2 added a not so justified cautionary  before d2 in b. 63. The accidental is also present in EE which added yet other cautionary naturals – before d2 in b. 62 and 64 as well as d1 in b. 63-64.

In the main text we include only the naturals before d in b. 62-63.
Naturals in those places were also being added in the analogous b. 295-297.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions

b. 107

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur in GE1, literal reading

No sign in FE (→EE) & GE2

Arpeggio sign, contextual interpretation of GE1
..

As was the case with analogous b. 31 and 57, the slur of GE, although formally correct, is most probably inaccurate and marks a grace note and an arpeggio (written down as a vertical slur). The missing slur (arpeggio) in FE (→EE) is most probably an oversight by the copyist in [FC] or by the engraver.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Arpeggio – vertical slur

b. 119-121

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Short accents in GE

Different accents in FE

Short accents in EE
..

In the main text we suggest accents as written down in EE. This solution combines the most certain elements of the versions of GE1 and FE:

  • short accents after GE, since in FE each mark is of a different length – short, short/long, long, respectively – which cannot correspond to Chopin's intention;
  • accents under the R.H. octaves as in FE, for reasons of consistency – in GE the remaining bars in this section (b. 111-124) do not contain any accents at all. The position of the accents in GE could have resulted from a routine revision of the engraver – in one-part notation, the marks are generally placed on the side of noteheads.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings

b. 131-139

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

7 staccato dots in GE1

1 dot in FE (→EE)

4 dots in GE2

9 dots suggested by the editors
..

We give the staccato dots under the bass notes after GE1, in which they are absent only in b. 135-136. According to us, it makes it possible for us to consider (with as high probability as possible) that Chopin's intention was to mark all those notes with dots. The clearly defective version of FE (→EE) probably resulted from the accumulation of the oversights by the engraver of FE1 with the earlier ones, in the handwritten basis for that edition. The omission of the marks in b. 137-139 in GE2 seems to be a revision. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions