Page: 
Source: 
p. 18, b. 410-449
p. 1, b. 1-32
p. 2, b. 33-58
p. 3, b. 59-89
p. 4, b. 90-122
p. 5, b. 123-144
p. 6, b. 145-162
p. 7, b. 163-193
p. 8, b. 194-221
p. 9, b. 222-239
p. 10, b. 240-260
p. 11, b. 261-279
p. 12, b. 280-315
p. 13, b. 316-342
p. 14, b. 343-360
p. 15, b. 361-375
p. 16, b. 376-391
p. 17, b. 392-409
p. 18, b. 410-449
p. 19, b. 450-475
p. 20, b. 476-495
p. 21, b. 496-520
Main text
Main text
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FED - Dubois copy
FEFo - Forest copy
FEH - Hartmann copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Corrected impression of GE1
GE2a - Altered impression of GE2
GE3 - Second German edition
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
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FED - Dubois copy
FEFo - Forest copy
FEH - Hartmann copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Corrected impression of GE1
GE2a - Altered impression of GE2
GE3 - Second German edition
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. 411

​​​​​​​ in first half of bar in FE (→EE,GE1GE2)

No ​​​​​​​ in GE3

Our alternative suggestion

The simultaneous presence of , under the L.H. part, and cresc. makes us assume an inaccuracy or mistake. The fact of GE3 having omitted this indication impairs the notation, yet it also clarifies it by eliminating an indication that is puzzling in this context. At the same time, since there are no arguments to reconstruct the notation intended by Chopin, in the main text we leave the notation of the majority of the sources, which presents the performer with an opportunity to guess the actual intention of the composer. Our alternative suggestion is based on an assumption that ​​​​​​​ was placed in the first half of the bar by mistake (it should have been placed in the second half).   

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

notation: Verbal indications

Missing markers on sources: FE1, FED, FEH, FEJ, FES, GE1, GE2, GE3, EE1, EE2, EE3, GE2a, FEFo