Page: 
Source: 
p. 6, b. 239-270
p. 1, b. 1-47
p. 2, b. 48-98
p. 3, b. 99-158
p. 4, b. 159-198
p. 5, b. 199-238
p. 6, b. 239-270
p. 7, b. 271-306
p. 8, b. 307-347
p. 9, b. 348-398
p. 10, b. 399-446
p. 11, b. 447-484
p. 12, b. 485-528
p. 13, b. 529-565
p. 14, b. 566-604
p. 15, b. 605-649
Main text
Main text
GC - Gutmann's copy
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
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 - Second German edition
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
GC - Gutmann's copy
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
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 - Second German edition
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 259

D1 in EE & GC (→GE)

E1-D in FE1

Octave as a supposed FE1 version

D1-D in FE2

The seventh E1-D, written in two-part notation, is definitely an error of FE1 probably resulting from carelessly done proofing. We give the octave D1-D as the intended version of that edition, which results in a version analogous to bar 243. It is not entirely unlikely that the correction was only meant to be done for the D1 note alone, just like in the remaining sources. In FE2E1 was changed to D1.

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE, FE revisions

notation: Pitch