|
Different slurs in sources |
|
|
Slur in sources in b. 109-112 |
|
|
This is the only more distinct difference between source bars 89-112 and 113-136. How did this difference come into existence if – as we assume – in [A] this fragment was written down only once? According to us, the cause of the discrepancy could have been the fact that in [A] a new line begins in bar 111. In such situations Chopinesque slurs are quite often inaccurate, in this case the slur over bars 109-110 could have been reaching the end of the bar, while the slur in bar 111 could have been starting after the 1st crotchet. The copyist preparing the basis for PE1 could have interpreted it the first time as a continuous slur, whereas the second time he could have accidentally omitted the slur over bars 109-110 (e.g. by looking at bars 85-86); last but not least, he could have considered the slur in bars 111-112 to concern only the five-note final figure. Another possibility could be the confusion of similar bars, hence writing the slurs of bars 85-88, which in [A] were probably situated 2 or 3 lines above.
In the main text we give a longer slur, since:
- an erroneous omission of a fragment of a slur seems more likely than extending it;
- it results in a new combination of a longer and a shorter slur in phrases ending the antecedent and the consequent of the period encompassing bars 57-72 and analog. The first time both phrases are provided with a longer slur, the second time (bars 73-88) – with a longer and a shorter slur, the third time (discussed bars 97-112) – with a shorter and a longer slur.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Editorial revisions
notation: Slurs