The issue of repeating or sustaining the bottom note of the 1st chord in bars 11 and 31 and their repetition in the reprise (bars 199 and 219) requires a more in-depth analysis. According to us, the following facts should be considered:
- in [A] (→GC) the reprise (bars 189-257) was not written out – Chopin only marked it as repetition of bars 1-69. It means that, in particular, he did not expect differences between bars 11 and 31 and 199 and 219;
- from the pianistic point of view both versions – with a tie and without it – seem to be equally comfortable, yet the use of varied grips in bars 11 and 31 should be considered to be less natural (although not impossible);
- the tie sustaining a2 in bars 30-31, conveyed by FE (→EE) both here and in the reprise (bars 218-219) had to be in [A], which means that it was either overlooked by the copyist or added later by Chopin (which seems to be less likely). In any case, it can be considered to be valid;
-
the tie sustaining b
2 in bars 198-199, introduced in the proofreading of FE4 (with a mistake), comes most probably from Chopin. The proofreading – in light of the above issues – allows to consider it to be almost certain that the composer's intention was the sustention of the notes played with the 1st finger in all four places. Moreover, the total absence of the slur in bars 10-11 and 198-199 (without including the described proofreading of FE4) is probably a consequence of the use of the octave sign in the sources in bar 11 (199). As a result, the tie sustaining b2 cannot have a typical form of a short, horizontal tie. The layout could have caused a misunderstanding of notation by the interpreters of [A] or even an oversight of the tie by Chopin.
Therefore, in the main text we suggest the version of FE4, completed with a tie in bars 10-11. The version of GC (→GE), equally justified from the pianistic and stylistic point of view, yet created in a possibly accidental manner, can be considered to be a variant.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions
issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place
notation: Rhythm