Determining Chopin's intention concerning the slurring of bars 14-15 and analog. (bars 22-23, 68-69 and 76-77; we discuss seperately the ending of slur in bar 16, 24 and analog.) encounters serious difficulties, as:
- there are differences between the sources based directly on [A], i.a. GC and FE1, whereas the notation of GC is ambiguous;
- it is not certain whether and which of these sources reproduced the notation of the autograph correctly;
- there are differences between the slurs added by Chopin in the proofreading of FE3 in bars 69 and 77;
- it is not entirely certain whether all slurs added in EE in bars 22-23, 68-69 and 76-77 come from Chopin.
The above issues pose the following challenges to the editors:
- interpretation of GC both in bars 14-15 and 68-69 and in bars 22-23 and 76-77;
- separation of the elements of notation of particular sources whose authenticity seems to be most likely;
- creation of a suggestion of the main text out of these elements, devoid of mistakes and inaccuracies present probably in particular sources.
The slur of GC, started on the last beat of bar 14, is not continued in bar 15 (on a new line), which could be interpreted in three and even four ways:
- the slur in bars 15-16 is a continuation of the slur started in bar 14. We consider the solution, requiring only a small correction of one of the actually written slurs (without adding new slurs or omitting the existing ones), to be the text of GC. This is how GC was interpreted in GE for the first time, in bars 14-16; for the second time, in bars 68-70, such a slur is included in both subsequent GE;
- the slur in bar 14 is written erroneously. According to us, such an interpretation is the least likely, however, it appears in GE1 for the second time, in bars 68-70;
- in bar 15 the ending of the slur from bar 14 was overlooked, which was supposed to reach only the 1st crotchet in bar 15. At the same time we can assume the slur in bar 15 to be written correctly, which results in overlapping slurs over the 1st crotchet in bar 15 or to be inaccurate, which leads to the version we eventually suggest in the main text.
In bars 22-24 the abbreviated notation raises doubts whether the slur from bar 15 is to be transferred to bar 23 without changes, embracing the crotchet written in this bar without slur (as it is in GE1) or whether it is to start only from the 2nd beat, honouring the absence of the slur on the 1st beat (as it is in the subsequent GE). As in this fragment GC does not include slurs already from bar 21, which is certainly a mistake, we consider the first of the interpretations to be more accurate.
We start approaching the second task by eliminating the clearly erroneous ending of the slur in FE (→EE) in bar 14 – the same place was interpreted differently for the second time (in bar 68), in accordance with GC. The absence of slurs in FE1 (→FE2) in bars 69-70 and 77-78 and in FE5 in bars 23-24 is also a patent error.
The beginning of the slur in bar 15 and analog. is most probably inaccurate in each place where it falls on the beginning of the bar – in GC in bars 15 and 69 (perhaps also in bars 23 and 77), in GE1 in bars 23 and 77 and in FE3 (→FE4→FE5) in bar 69. It is supported by:
- the beginning of the slurs in FE in bars 15, 23 and 77 and in EE in all four places, out of which two could have been based on Chopin annotations in the base text to this edition;
- patent carelessness of the copyist in the notation of the slurs – cf. the note to bars 15-16;
- a possibility of misinterpretation of Chopin's annotation in the proofreading of FE3 in bar 69 by the engraver.
The authenticity of the slurs at the transition between bars 14 and 15 and analog. seems to be highly likely – the slurs, which in bars 22-23, 68-69 and 76-77 could have been added by Chopin in the base text to EE, could be considered to be at least partially confirmed by the slur of GC at the end of bars 14 and 68.
On the basis of the above analysis, in the main text we suggest a unified slurring, compatible with the natural divisions resulting from rhythm, dynamics and texture, based mainly on EE. Due to a possibility of a unifying revision, we suggest the slurs present only in EE in a variant form (bars 22-23 and 76-77). In bars 14-15 and 68-69, the slurs of GE2mar (→GE2), resulting from the simplest interpretation of the notation of GC, can be considered an equal variant.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in FE, Corrections in A, GE revisions, Inaccuracies in GC, Authentic corrections in GC
notation: Slurs