The performance markings in bars 93-100 clearly differ between A (→GE) and FE (→EE1) (in EE2 the EE1 markings were supplemented with some marks present in GE1):
- Dynamic marks.
In each of the two-bar phrases in bars 93-94 and 97-98 A includes a whole-bar
hairpin in the first bar and an accent over the syncopated minim in the second one. FE (→EE1) does not contain any of those marks, yet it has a 
hairpin at the beginning of bar 94 and 98, leading more or less to the syncopated minims, the same that are provided with accents in the A version. In spite of such differing markings, both sets of marks can be considered to be determining different aspects of an actually identical performance, which would allow us to regard them as complementary. However, are they really to be understood as such? According to us, indicating different aspects of a certain general concept may considerably change the picture of music – in the A version the emphasis is on the beginning of each of the phrases, the accent in the 2nd bar is only a complementary element, highlighting the syncopated long note; in the FE version the central point of the phrase is the first half of the second bar. Therefore, both sets of marks could be regarded as equal variants.
Interestingly, as the fragment reappears in bars 260-267, the opposition of both groups of sources is less pronounced, due to FE. In this edition, in bar 261, instead of the expected, there is an accent, as in A, while the in bar 265 is preceded by a in bar 264, which is also present in A. This shows that – as we suggested above – particular markings from both sets do not have to be considered separately. The second conclusion is a less elaborate development of the FE version in bars 260-261 and 264-265, which justifies both the adoption of the A version as the main one in all places and the suggestion of an alternative version of the mentioned bars, based on the FE version from bars 93-94 and 97-98. - The L.H. slurs.
In bars 93-94 and 260-261 A (→GE) includes regular half-bar slurs, whereas FE (→EE1) has a continuous, two-bar slur in bars 93-94, but in bars 260-261 there is none.
In bars 95-96 and 99-100 A also has shorter, 6-quaver slurs, whereas in FE there is one continuous slur, encompassing all quavers. In both cases the most plausible explanation for so many undoubtedly intentional differences is that both versions are coming from Chopin. If we were to assume that Chopin replaced one of these versions with the other one, the corrections would have had to be introduced into [FC] or FE1, since in A there are no visible traces of corrections. However, according to us, introducing such far-reaching changes into the thought-out and elaborate slurring of A is unlikely. Therefore, as in the case of dynamic marks, there is only one possibility left, which means that Chopin initially did not mark any slurs in these places and then added them – at a different time – to A and to [FC] or FE. The longer slurs of the second group of sources could have resulted from haste – seeing figurations without slurs, Chopin encompassed fragments using particular types of figuration with one slur, forgoing more accurate markings. The absence of slurs in FE in bars 260-261 could be considered a confirmation of the presented origin of the differences, which would correspond to the initial state, left by inattention.
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Back to note