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 reviser of EE took the raising d
1 to d1 in the preceding bar (added in FE and repeated by EE) at face value, which made him add naturals raising d
2(3) to d2(3). Assuming that d1 is correct, it is naturally the right decision – the entire passage must be consistent and feature either d or d
. This is one of the arguments against the authenticity and correctness of this d1 – whoever (Chopin or reviser) added the
in bar 147 in the belief that it changed the text would have also added
in the discussed bar as well, at least at the pitch of d2. On the other hand, an accidental in bar 147 only makes sense when it is a cautionary accidental, which points to a mistake by the reviser, described in the note concerning that bar.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information
issues: EE revisions
notation: Pitch