Page: 
Source: 
p. 7, b. 271-306
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. 278-279

New slur in EE and GC

One slur in FE and GE

Both versions of the slurring may be authentic, and the version of FE is probably later. However, the fact that GE - the source that was, after all, based on GC - has a continuous slur shows how easy it was for the engraver of FE to misread the manuscript. Bearing that in mind, we take the slurs of EE and GC as our main text. The practical difference in performance is very slight anyway. 

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues:

notation: Pitch