Page: 
Source: 
p. 4, b. 49-64
p. 1, b. 1-16
p. 2, b. 17-34
p. 3, b. 35-48
p. 4, b. 49-64
p. 5, b. 65-82
p. 6, b. 83-97
p. 7, b. 98-112
p. 8, b. 113-126
p. 9, b. 127-157
p. 10, b. 158-185
p. 11, b. 186-214
p. 12, b. 215-243
p. 13, b. 244-267
p. 14, b. 268-281
p. 15, b. 282-295
p. 16, b. 296-309
p. 17, b. 310-326
Main text
Main text
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Second German edition
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Corrected impression of FE1
FES - Stirling copy
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Corrected impression of EE1
EE3 - Revised impression of EE2
Select notes: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Differences
No differences
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Second German edition
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Corrected impression of FE1
FES - Stirling copy
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Corrected impression of EE1
EE3 - Revised impression of EE2
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 55

Demisemiquaver in GE

Semiquaver in FE (→EE)

In the main text we give the rhythm of FE (→EE), written down flawlessly. The version of GE, in spite of correct rhythmic values, raises various doubts:

  • the alignment of the R.H. part with respect to the L.H. one corresponds to the rhythmic values of FE and not GE;
  • Chopin, in accordance with a traditional rule, would not use dots when writing rests;
  • in analogous b. 288 there is a different rhythm in GE, i.e. the same that can be found in FE in both bars. Such a situation could not have taken place in [A], in which the reprise of the main part of the Polonaise was almost certainly marked in an abridged manner as a repetition of a respective fragment of the first part.

The easiest explanation would be that in GE corrections were being added in print; since nothing indicates that Chopin could have participated in the proofreading of GE1, the authenticity of the version of that edition is questionable here.

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues:

notation: Rhythm

Missing markers on sources: GE1, GE2, FE1, FE2, EE1, EE2, EE3, FES