The slurs of A in these bars are inaccurate – the slur in bar 6 abruptly ends over the 3rd or 4th quaver in the bar and then it begins not earlier than on the 6th quaver. The slurring of similar fragments, generally of the almost entire Etude, does not imply that leaving one or a few quavers without a slur in this context could correspond to Chopin's intention. FE (→GE1) does not dissipate the doubts; although the slur in bar 6 is led to the last quaver, there are no visible traces of correction (such traces are perfectly visible in FE in, e.g., bar 5), so it is uncertain whether it was Chopin who gave it such a range. On the other hand, the editions reproduce the slur in bar 7 with ambiguities of A. As a result, the second undoubtedly authentic source (FE) also does not reassure us which slurring Chopin had in mind here. The slurring of EE and – a different one – in subsequent GE,s is unambiguous, yet Chopin certainly did not have any influence on them.
The interpretation of ambiguous sources we propose preserves the maximal compliance with their graphic shape. In turn, in the main text we suggest a continuous slur from the 2nd quaver in bar 6 to the middle of bar 8, based on two later repetitions of this phrase in which Chopin's intention is expressed in an unequivocal way. In bars 38-39 there is a continuous slur in A; moreover, it can be observed that Chopin combined shorter slurs that were originally written there. It also gives credibility to the slur of FE (→GE,EE) in bars 14-15, in which it could have been corrected by Chopin.
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: EE revisions, Inaccurate slurs in A, GE revisions, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Slurs
Back to note