Issues : Placement of markings

b. 184

composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete

 in AsI

 & grace notes in A (→GEFE,EE,FESB)

 with  & grace notes suggested by the editors

..

In AsI the ornament, added probably later, is provided with a draft and not entirely clear form; however, it is most probably . Chopin would often use this mark in the sense of  (at times they are even difficult to tell apart). Therefore, the use of a different mark does not have to mean that Chopin envisaged a longer ornament.
Placing a  under the third in FE, which, formally speaking, changes its meaning, is a routine manner of the engravers, who would often move marks (concerning particular notes, but also slurs) to the side of noteheads (in the editions the stems of the notes in the 2nd half of the bar point upwards). Cf., e.g. the Polonaise in F minor, Op. 44, b. 10. The absence of this  in FESB is most probably an oversight.

None of the sources includes a mark that would specify the sound of the ornament's top note. The prevailing key in b. 184-190, F major, requires the use of e2, which in the main text we indicate with naturals. Omissions of accidentals in similar situations is a rule rather than an exception in Chopin's pieces – apparently, the composer believed that the sense of key would suggest the right note to the performer.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Placement of markings , FE revisions , ,

b. 200-203

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE

No slur in GC (→GE)

Slur in FE

..

EE is the only source in which the slur for this phrase is in line with its musical sense and with slurring in numerous similar phrases. In FE the slur only reaches the chord in bar 202 and runs under the chords, which is a routine change of the graphic layout employed by engravers. In GC (→GE) the slur was omitted.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings , FE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 216-219

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE

..

As the main text we give the definitely correct slur of EE. The slur of GC is not accurate and, when read literally, it only embraces three bars, which is what we can see in GE.  Moreover, GE - just like FE - has the slur moved to the bottom and placed under the note heads. That revision, typically introduced by engravers, is not without influence on the meaning of that articulation mark. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 220

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Repeated octave in A

Repeated f in GE

Tied octave in FE (→EE)

..

In A, the slur over the F-f octave has undoubtedly a motivic meaning, same as the slur in the previous bar. With the change of direction of the stems, in GE the slur was moved under the notes and placed in such a way that it became a tie sustaining the bottom note of the octaves, F. The erroneous version was corrected in FE (→EE) – probably by Chopin – to another version, which, being the latest, we adopt to the main text. One can ponder whether Chopin would change it if GE1 would not have distorted the notation of A (apart from the change of the nature of the slur, the  sign was overlooked). Anyway, the version of A, certainly authentic, can be taken into consideration when performing the Concerto.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Placement of markings , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 224-227

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

End of the slur in EE & GC (→GE)

..

The consistency of the slurring in EE and GC (→GE) suggests that the slur notation was  imprecise in the autograph. For our main text we take the slur of FE as undoubtedly correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC