data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
The e2 note, featured in GE instead of d2, could be a version prior to the last Chopinesque proofreading of FE (→EE). However, the presence of an accent over this note in GE, which, according to us, makes sense only above d
2, suggests that the FE copy serving as the basis for GE included d
2, hence e1 is rather a mistake by the GE engraver or even a revision. The accent is a strong argument for d
2, present in FE (→EE), while the accuracy of this note is also confirmed by the fingering digit entered into FEO (included in the main text).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: Annotations in teaching copies, Authentic corrections of FE, Annotations in FEO