mUltimate Chopin

Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in GE

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. 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. 28

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

f-f1 on the last quaver in GE

f-c1-e1-f1 in FE (→EE)
..

The empty octave on the last L.H. quaver in GE is probably a mistake of the engraver (cf. analog. b. 54 and 287). It could also be the initial version, analogous to b. 32, 58, 104, 108 and 291, and perhaps overlooked in [A] at the time of entering corrections into b. 54 and 287 and supplemented in the basis for FE. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Omitted correction of an analogous place

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