Issues : Inaccuracies in FC

b. 51

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Minim in FC

Dotted minim in FE & EE1 (→EE2)

Minim with rest in GE & EE3

..

In this bar, due to the change of harmony on the 3rd beat of the bar, the issue of sustaining the d minim to the end of the bar has a crucial practical meaning. Therefore, the version of FC is probably a mistake, additionally confirmed by the rest, added arbitrarily in GE (and EE3). 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 92

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

..

In FC and FE there is no  raising b to b in the 2nd half of the bar. This patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE and most probably in EE, as the defect was present probably in all Stichvorlage manuscripts. The sharp added in FE2 before the 11th semiquaver was probably an attempt to correct this inaccuracy, a doubly failed attempt – the sign was added three semiquavers too late and at a wrong pitch.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 109

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Lombard rhythm in FC (→GE) & EE

Quavers in FE

..

No traces of corrections do not allow to indicate which rhythm is later, while from the stylistic point of view, both versions seem to be equal. In the main text, we give the version of the base source, i.e. FE.
In FC, there is no dot extending the last note in the R.H., which was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 122

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Slur in FC, probable interpretation

Slur in FC (possible reading), FE & GE

No slur in EE

..

The moment of starting the slur in FC is unclear, which most probably corresponds to the notation of [A] and which would explain both the slur of FE and of GE (the seemingly shortened slur in GE3 is most probably a print fault). However, according to us, in this type of context, the written with panache beginning of the slur could concern only the 2nd crotchet in Chopin's intention – cf., e.g., the Mazurka in G minor, Op. 24 No. 1, bar 21. An additional argument for such an interpretation of this slur can be the slur of EE in bars 121-122. The total absence of the discussed slur in EE is most probably accidental.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 123-124

composition: Op. 25 No 5, Etude in E minor

Probable interpretation of slur in FC

Slurs in FE (contextual interpretation) & GE2 (→GE3)

Grace-note slur in EE & GE1

..

Interpretation of the slurs of the L.H. in FC poses a significant challenge due to the  sign written over the slurs. According to us, it is more likely that the slurs are supposed to create one sign. The slurs of FE and GE2 (→GE3) can be considered an alternative interpretation of the notation of FC. The version of GE1 is certainly erroneous; the one of EE probably too.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in FC