Select: 
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
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 196

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

Arpeggio sign in A (→FE,GCGE)

No sign in EE

..

The lack of an arpeggio sign in EE is most probably an oversight by the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE

b. 196

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

No sign in A (→FE,GCGE)

Arpeggio sign in EE

..

The arpeggio sign added in EE may be regarded as a revision, although one cannot exclude a mistake – the engraver might have mistaken for an arpeggio sign one of the lines that form the treble clef.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE

b. 196-197

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No marks in GE & EE

Staccato dot in FE

Dots suggested by the editors

..

The single staccato dot at the beginning of b. 196 in FE could have resulted from a mistake; however, it could have been added to remind us of the different articulation between the parts of both hands in a situation in which Chopin moved the majority of the R.H. part to the bottom stave (we do not reproduce this layout in our transcriptions, since it hampers the reading of the text). According to us, it is also the absence of staccato dots in GE that could have been associated with a concern – of Chopin or of the engraver – that the notation could become illegible. To avoid any doubts, in the main text we mark these bars the same as the preceding ones.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

b. 196-197

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No markings in GE

Pedalling in FE (→EE)

..

The absence of pedal markings in these bars does not have to result from an oversight (by the engraver or by Chopin in [A]). The R.H. descends the lowest here, and Chopin could have considered that mixing melodic notes would be too perceptible (and striking). On the other hand, there is no particular reason to question the authenticity of the markings of FE (→EE), which could have been added in the stage of proofreading or to [FC]. Therefore, in the main text we give the indications of the principal source, while the version of GE may be considered a variant or a suggestion for a more discreet pedalling, shorter or shallower.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 196-197

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

Slur to g1 in A (contextual interpretation) & GE2 (→GE3GE4)

Slur to a1 in A (literal reading→FEEE,GE1GE1a)

..

The slur in b. 196, which ends the page in A, indicates that it should be continued; however, there is no continuation thereof on a new page (its beginning is also inaccurate but it does not hamper its interpretation). Due to the reasons discussed in b. 194-195, we believe that Chopin could have meant a longer slur already here (to the gminim); however, in the main text we give the version of FE (→EE,GE1GE1a) due to the Chopinesque intervention at the beginning of b. 197 (an accent added over g1).
The longer slur of GE2 (→GE3GE4) resulted from retouches to the top right-hand corner of the page, which required re-engraving a certain fragment of the text, which was not always reproduced accurately (cf. b. 197-198). Compliance of this version with A is of an accidental nature. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation