mUltimate Chopin

Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 20

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Grace notes A-B and A-B in GE1 & EE2

Grace notes A-B and A-B in FE & GE2

Grace notes A-B and A-B in EE1
..

Out of the three source versions of the double grace notes present both before the 3rd trill and after it, it is only one that is correct – A-B before and A-B after. It results from a comparison of this bar with four repetitions thereof in b. 46, 72, 279 and 305:

  • this is the only version appearing – in b. 46 – in both editions based directly on the manuscripts, hence GE1 and FE1;
  • in GE1 this version is in all those places;
  • no musical reasons support the introduction of different versions of such details in the course of the Polonaise;
  • the different versions of FE can be explained by mistakes of the copyist or of the engraver.

In the discussed bar the missing  in GE2 is an oversight of the engraver, while the  instead of a  in EE1 – most probably a mistake, rectified in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 24-25

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

2 accents & staccato dot in GE1

2 accents & slur in FE (→EE)

Accent & dot in GE2

Our variant suggestion
..

In the main text we rely on the indications of FE (→EE) introduced into [FC] (the Stichvorlage) or in the proofreading stage of FE1, and certainly later than the markings of GE. Anyway, both sets differ very little and can be considered complementary, which we include as a variant possibility.
The omission of the 2nd accent in b. 24 is an oversight by the engraver of GE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 24-26

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

GE2 changed the layout of the text, placing the entire R.H. part on the top stave (in bass clef). This change is contrary to Chopin's habit, who would write the R.H. part in such a manner only in exceptional situations (e.g. in the Prelude in E major, Op. 28 No. 9). Similar changes were introduced in all analogous passages (bars 50-52, 76-78, 283-285, and 309-311), as well as in bars 79-83. We do not reproduce this inauthentic layout in our transcripts for these changes do not influence the meaning of the text.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions

b. 24-26

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No marks in GE1 & FE (→EE)

Accents & dots in GE2
..

GE2 arbitrarily repeated in the L.H. part the accents and dots placed below or above the R.H. part. However, the last accent in bar 24 was omitted (also overlooked in the R.H.) as well as the staccato dot under Fis1 on the 3rd beat of bar 26. The addition was related to the entire R.H. part having been placed on the upper staff. The authentic layout in this kind of homogenous texture clearly suggest applying marks put over the R.H. to all underlying notes.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 33

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Demisemiquaver in GE1, possible interpretation

Semiquaver in GE1, probable interpretation, FE (→EE) & GE2
..

GE1 features an erroneous R.H. rhythm on the 1st beat of the bar – a quaver, a semiquaver rest and a demisemiquaver. The mistake may be due to the value of the rest – addition of a dot results in a rhythm resembling the one present in GE in analog. b. 29 and in the same rhythm that can be found in b. 55. According to us, however, it is much more likely that it is the third beam that is a mistake – the e1-e2 octave should be a semiquaver (such a correction was performed in GE2). The engraver of GE1 could have generalised a beaming scheme containing additional, partial beams; such a scheme has already appeared twice in the preceding bars on this page. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions