Page: 
Source: 
p. 6, b. 161-193
p. 1, b. 1-30
p. 2, b. 31-58
p. 3, b. 59-94
p. 4, b. 95-129
p. 5, b. 130-160
p. 6, b. 161-193
p. 7, b. 194-224
p. 8, b. 225-252
p. 9, b. 253-287
Main text
Main text
GC - Gutmann's Copy
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Second impression of FE
FE3 - Third impression of FE
FE4 - Fourth impression of FE
FESch - Scherbatoff Copy
FES - Stirling copy
FED - Dubois copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Corrected impression of GE
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Revised impression of EE
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
GC - Gutmann's Copy
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Second impression of FE
FE3 - Third impression of FE
FE4 - Fourth impression of FE
FESch - Scherbatoff Copy
FES - Stirling copy
FED - Dubois copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Corrected impression of GE
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Revised impression of EE
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 168

c-a & B-g in the sources

A-a & G-b suggested by the editors

The version of the sources is probably a left by inaccuracy original version of this bar. Chopin's possible mistake is indicated by the mistake in analogous bar 108. One can assume that initially bars 108, 128 and 168 were repetitions of bars 107, 127 and 167, as bar 92 is a repetition of bar 91. Chopin then changed in [A] bars 108 and 128 (leaving the part of the R.H. in bar 108 without correction – see the commentary to this bar). The fact of unintentionally leaving bar 168 in the original form seems to be highly likely in this situation, as there is no reason to suppose that the link with the next phrase was different in bar 168 than in bar 128, whereas overlooking one out of a few similar places at the time of proofreading was quite frequent for Chopin. The possibility is even more likely due to a possible haplography of the composer in this place – the need of correcting a more serious error could have distracted Chopin from the less significant improvement. Therefore, although both versions seem to be musically possible, in the main text we prioritise the version of analogous bar 128.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Omitted correction of an analogous place

notation: Pitch

Missing markers on sources: FE1, FE2, FES, FED, FESch, FE3, FE4, GE1, GE2, EE1, EE2