mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors of GC

b. 223

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

 in FE

No mark in EE & GC (→GE)
..

The fact that  is missing both from EE and from GC (→GE) suggests that the asterisk was already omitted in the autograph. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors of GC

b. 226

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

..

In the last chord, GC has an f instead of e. The mistake was corrected in GE, the remaining editions also include the correct text. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 236

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt I

a1 in chord in GC (→GE1)

f1 in FE (→EE) & GE2
..

The version of GC (→GE1) is certainly erroneous – the double stroke of the same note (a1) by the L.H., unjustified by the voice leading, does not make any sense, as far as the piano technique is concerned. It is worth observing that the copyist initially wrote a chord within the correct, one octave, span, yet with a double Terzverschreibung error – a-c1-e1-a1. He then corrected it, yet only partially. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of GC , Alterations in GC

b. 242

composition: Op. 35, Sonata in B♭ minor, Mvt II

No sharps in GC (→GE) & FE1 (→FE2→EE1)

Sharps in FE3 (→FE4) & EE2
..

Same as in bar 54, we include in the main text the sharps raising the f1-f2 grace note to f1-f2, added – most probably by Chopin – in the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4). The change was introduced also in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of GC

b. 243-249

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Hairpins in EE

GC (→GE)

FE

FE, possible interpretation
..

Differences between the sources as far as the range of the hairpin mark is concerned, although pronounced, are most probably accidental. Somewhat delayed (bar 244) beginning of the  mark in GC (→GE) has no practical significance, while embracing bar 247 with the  is almost definitely Gutmann's mistake, as he made many such errors in his copies. Two  marks in FE are probably to be understood as one; in Chopin's times, the old convention was sometimes in use in which continuation of a dynamic change in a new line of text was marked with the same mark as a new dynamic change would be. In our main text we propose the marks of FE interpreted according to that convention. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of GC