mUltimate Chopin

Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Arpeggio – vertical slur

b. 27

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Arpeggio sign & grace note in GE

Grace note & arpeggio sign in FE (→EE)
..

In FE (→EE) the arpeggio is written down as a vertical curved line before the f-f1 octave, which we replace with a common wavy line – cf. General Editorial Principles, p. 5a. To the main text we adopt the order of marks of FE, which is more natural in this context.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Arpeggio – vertical slur

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. 30

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Arpeggio and slur in GE

Slur in FE

No mark in EE
..

The version of GE could have resulted from a double interpretation of the mark resembling a vertical curved line (with which Chopin most probably marked the arpeggio in [A]). Engravers would often work in stages, i.e. an entire page of noteheads, then beams, slurs, ornaments, etc., hence it is likely that the slur was engraved at the stage of slurs, while the arpeggio at the stage of ornaments.
The missing slur in EE must be an oversight of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

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. 33

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No sign in GE & EE2 (→EE3)

Arpeggio in FE1, contextual interpretation

2 slurs in FE2 & EE1, possible interpretation
..

In FE1 the arpeggio mark (vertical slur) was placed after the octave (on its right-hand side). Such mistakes are not frequent, yet they can be seen in Chopin's first editions, cf., e.g. the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, III mov., b. 172-173. In FE2 and EE1 a small tie combining the grace note with the bottom note of the following octave was added, which was almost certainly performed by the reviser. Both the slur and tie, forming an incomprehensible combination, were removed in EE2. The missing arpeggio in GE suggests that Chopin added it in the basis for FE or only just at the stage of proofreading that edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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