Issues : FE revisions

b. 8

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

In FE1 the last two R.H. dyads are c3-a3 sixths. This patent mistake was corrected in FE2 and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , FE revisions

b. 13-15

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

In FE (→EE) the crotchet stems reach only the top notes of the R.H. octaves on the 2nd beat of b. 13 and 14; similarly, in b. 15 it is only the top notes of the octaves that are separated as the top voice on the 3rd beat (in turn, both notes of each of those octaves belong to the bottom voice). It must have resulted from a misunder­standing: Chopin's notation was misunderstood by the copyist or, which is more likely, by the engraver of FE. Chopin would always write stems on the right-hand side of noteheads, which would result in an ambiguous notation in such a situa­tion, e.g. in b. 15: . The fact that Chopin meant to prolong both notes of the octaves is evidenced by the dots prolonging both notes in GE in b. 15 as well as by the dots in all sources in a similar situation in b. 36-40.
In GE the stems were assigned correctly, except bar 15. The sources also differ in the presence of dots prolonging the e2-e3 octave at the beginning of the 3rd beat of b. 15 in FE1 both are ab­sent, in FE2 and EE1 there is only the top one, while GE and EE2 contain both.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

b. 15

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

In FE1 the top notes of the 7th and 8th R.H. semiquavers were printed a second higher (by mistake). Consequently, the 4 last octaves in this bar sound as follows when interpreted literally: d2-e3, e2-f3, e2-e3 and d2-d3. The patent mistake was corrected in FE2 and EE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 29

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur over grace note in GE, literal reading

Arpeggio sign in GE, contextual interpretation

Slur under grace note (= tie) in FE, interpretation

No sign in EE

..

The reason for the differences in the notation of the ornament preceding the d2-d3 octave is most probably the Chopinesque manner of writing down arpeggios, which would often lose their wavy nature in his manuscripts, thus resembling vertical curved lines. In GE that notation was reproduced quasi-literally, while in FE it was considered a conventional mark combining the grace note with the main note, in this case with the one closest to the grace note, i.e. the bottom note of the octave (the absence of the mark in EE must be an oversight). Consequently, when interpreted literally, the notation of GE means a grace note without an arpeggio, whereas in FE a grace note attached to the bottom note of the octave, which results in an arpeggio without a grace note. In the main text we give the most likely notation, featured in the sources several more times in analogous places, i.e. a grace note and an arpeggio. Such a solution is also supported by the 3rd finger indicated for the grace note in GE – this fingering is natural and comfortable only if we include the arpeggio.   

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 29

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Dotted quaver & demisemiquaver in GE

Quaver & semiquaver in FE (→EE)

..

We give the rhythm of the 1st crotchet in the bar after the rhythmically correct version of GE, conveying almost certainly the text of [A]. FE1 contains an erroneous rhythm missing one demisemiquaver –  (the scheme preserves the alignment of the R.H. part with respect to the L.H. part). According to us, it is most probably an unfinished notation of the rhythm we can see in GE. The correction of FE2 and EE was aimed at removing the insufficiency of the values and was performed by the revisers. This is also the version we adopt as the text of FE1, since it seems that this is how (on the basis of the notes' rhythmic values) this place would be interpreted by the majority of the readers. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions