Issues : Inaccuracies in GC

b. 224-227

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

End of the slur in EE & GC (→GE)

..

The consistency of the slurring in EE and GC (→GE) suggests that the slur notation was  imprecise in the autograph. For our main text we take the slur of FE as undoubtedly correct.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Placement of markings , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 231-235

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slurs in EE and GC

Slur in FE

Our alternative suggestion

Slurs in GE

..

Both versions of the slurring found in the sources give rise to certain doubts. The slurs of EE and GC are inconsistent with the slurring in analogous bars 187 and – despite the differences – 481. Also the continuous slur of FE, more justified from the musical point of view, may be a simplified (inaccurate) rendition of the manuscript, as is testified by the slur in GE, which is after all based on GC. As our main text we adopt the slur of FE, but taking into account all the possible notation inaccuracies and misunderstandings, we also propose slurring consistent with the version of bar 187.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC

b. 239-240

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

in bar 239 in EE & GC (→GE)

8 in bars 239-240 in FE

Version of FE, unabbreviated notation 

..

In EE and GC (→GE) the lower note of the L.H. octave, D, is written – as – only in bar 239. That notation, when read literally, means the absence of both the tie and the tied note in bar 240. In FE, sustaining of the entire octave is written, also by means of an abbreviation, is a doubtless manner.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in GC , Abbreviated octaves' notation

b. 239-243

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Slur in EE

Slur in GC (→GE)

Slur in FE

..

In GC, the slur ending in bar 239 – the last bar on the page of that manuscript – allows for several possible interpretations. As the version of that source we give the one that is the closest to the literal reading of the text, i.e. slur reaching the end of that bar. This is how it was reproduced in GE. Other possible interpretations include: slur continuation into bar 240 (version of FE) and closing the slur on f in bar 239 (version of EE). For our main text we adopt the slur of FE, in line with the slurring of analogous phrases in bars 192-199 and 486-493.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GC

b. 243

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Beginning of the slur in EE

Slur in GC, contextual interpretation, and FE & GE

..

The slur is surely inaccurate in GC and most probably inaccurate in EE. Written with a bold strike of the pen, that slur had probably been present in the autograph. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GC