Page: 
Source: 
p. 7, b. 107-127
p. 1, b. 1-15
p. 2, b. 16-30
p. 3, b. 31-51
p. 4, b. 52-73
p. 5, b. 74-91
p. 6, b. 92-106
p. 7, b. 107-127
Main text
Main text
A - Autograph
FE - French Edition
FE1 - First French edition
FED - Dubois copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
GE - German Edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Second German edition
GE3 - Second, revised impression of GE2
GE4 - Third impression of GE2
EE - English Edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Later impression of EE1
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
A - Autograph
FE - French Edition
FE1 - First French edition
FED - Dubois copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
GE - German Edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Second German edition
GE3 - Second, revised impression of GE2
GE4 - Third impression of GE2
EE - English Edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Later impression of EE1
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 112

Differentiation in the manner of representation of staccato may stem from the ambiguous notation of the base texts and arbitrary editorial revisions in this respect. Chopin's wedges were much more often ignored by the editors and changed into dots; therefore, their presence in FE and EE may be a proof of the accurate notation of the lost manuscripts. It is very likely that the repetition of the wedge in the L.H. in EE is the engraver's error, introduced by analogy of rhythmic figures of both hands in that bar.

See b. 30

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues:

notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins