Page: 
Source: 
p. 17, b. 294-315
p. 1, b. 1-20
p. 2, b. 21-42
p. 3, b. 43-60
p. 4, b. 61-75
p. 5, b. 76-90
p. 6, b. 91-105
p. 7, b. 106-126
p. 8, b. 127-147
p. 9, b. 148-163
p. 10, b. 164-178
p. 11, b. 179-198
p. 12, b. 199-224
p. 13, b. 225-240
p. 14, b. 241-255
p. 15, b. 256-271
p. 16, b. 272-293
p. 17, b. 294-315
p. 18, b. 316-332
Main text
Main text
A - Autograph
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Corrected impression of FE1
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Revised impression of GE1
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Corrected 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
FE2 - Corrected impression of FE1
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Revised impression of GE1
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Corrected impression of EE1
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link Main text


  b. 311-315

Different L.H. accents &  in A

L.H. short accents &  in GE

Different R.H. accents & L.H.  in FE

Different R.H. accents & L.H.  in EE

In bar 311, 313 and 315 the A accents clearly differ in terms of their length and – despite certain inaccuracies – certainly concern the L.H. At the same time, the mark in the 2nd half of bar 311 reaches the quaver, hence, when interpreted literally, it looks like a  hairpin. It confused the engravers, who also reproduced the analogous marks in bar 313 and 315 in the same way. It is worth noting that the versions of A and FE are highly compliant, hence the difference in the position of the accents (short) at the beginning of these bars is particularly striking – contrary to the unambiguous A notation, they were assigned to the R.H., which suggests that [FC] was inaccurate in this respect. In EE it was also the second mark in bar 315 that was assigned to the R.H.

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents, Inaccuracies in FE, Scope of dynamic hairpins, GE revisions

notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

Missing markers on sources: A, FE1, FE2, FEJ, FES, GE1, GE2, EE1, EE2