mUltimate Chopin

Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in EE

b. 31

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur in GE1, literal reading

Slur from tied grace note in FE, literal reading

No signs in EE & GE2

Arpeggio in GE1 & FE, probable contextual interpretation
..

The notation of GE, in which the slur runs from the grace note to the bottom note of the octave, is formally correct and means that the octave should be played simultaneously after the grace note. The same meaning is carried by the notation of EE and GE2, in which all slurs were overlooked (probably accidentally). It is also the notation of FE that could be considered correct, according to which the arpeggio should begin from the top note. However, a comparison with the notation of FE in analog. b. 57 and 290, in which the vertical slur placed directly before the octave certainly marks an arpeggio, makes us consider the similar slur in the discussed bar to be inaccurately reproduced and also marking an arpeggio of the octave according to Chopin. Then all three analogous places would be performed the same – a grace note and an arpeggiated octave. Therefore, we suggest this version (constituting a rhythmic analogy to b. 27) in the main text.
It is difficult to say why EE did not repeat slurs after FE. It could have been an oversight or an intentional omission of the marks of the correctness of which the engraver was not sure – vertical slurs of FE were overlooked/omitted in EE several more times in this and analog. phrases (b. 53-59, 103-109, 286-292). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Arpeggio – vertical slur

b. 31

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

FE1 overlooked a quaver flag to the 2nd R.H. octave, f-f1. The mistake was repeated in EE1, and also omitted were the dots prolonging the e-e1 octave. Despite the errors, the correct rhythm results univocally from the alignment of both octaves in relation to the L.H. part. All mistakes were corrected in FE2 and EE2 (→EE3).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , FE revisions , Errors repeated in EE

b. 35-40

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

As was the case with b. 13-15, the octaves at the beginning of b. 35-38 and on the 2nd beat of b. 39-40 are written in FE (→EE) in a way that an entire octave is encompassed with the stem of the bottom voice quaver, while it is only the top note that is provided with an additional crotchet stem. It must be a mistake, which is evidenced by the dots prolonging both notes of the octaves in b. 37-40. To the main text we adopt the undoubtedly correct notation of GE.
In EE the additional (top) stem in b. 36 was overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE

b. 40

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

f2-f3 in GE, FE & EE2 (→EE3)

f2-f3 in EE1
..

The EE1 version is most probably an oversight by the engraver. Nothing points to its authenticity.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE

b. 43-44

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

As was the case with b. 17-18, in FE (→EE) the L.H. part octaves (from the 2nd beat of b. 43 to the end of the 1st beat of b. 44) are written in a simplified manner with the use of con 8va.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Abbreviated notation of A