Page: 
Source: 
p. 1, b. 1-22
p. 1, b. 1-22
p. 2, b. 23-38
p. 3, b. 39-54
p. 4, b. 55-74
p. 5, b. 75-91
Main text
Main text
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Second French edition
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Second 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
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Second French edition
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Second impression of EE1
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 2

Grace note in FE

No grace note in GE

Grace note with slur in EE

Our suggestion

The lack of the grace note in GE may result from the inattention of the engraver. A sligtly bigger gap between the two first crotchets of the bar may be interpreted as the space planned to accommodate that ornament. However, this is not at all certain, as uniform spacing between the notes is not strictly adhered to in GE. Therefore we offer a variant solution. The tiny slur in EE is certainly a routine addition of the editor. 

A similar situation occurs in the Etude in F minor Op. 10 no. 9, bar 64.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

notation: Pitch