The slur in bar 108 in A (the last bar on that page) clearly indicates that it is meant to be continued in the following bar, yet the slur from bar 109 fails to confirm that indication. This offers us three possibilities of interpretation, each of which may be considered well-grounded both musically and from the point of view of source notation:
- a single slur, as it was read in GE (→FE→EE); we adopt this notation in our main text as naturally resulting from A and the simplest one at the same time;
- two separated slurs, as in bars 110-111;
- two overlapping slurs, which perhaps renders most precisely the mutual relations of phrasing and articulation at that point (cf. bars 40-41).
A similar lack of clarity can be found in FE between bars 109 and110: in bar 109 (ending the line) the slur ends on the last quaver, yet the notation of bar 110 definitely indicates that the slur is carried over from the preceding bar. However, that obvious mistake on the part of the engraver does not cause any uncertainty about Chopin's intention there.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in FE, Inaccurate slurs in A
notation: Slurs
