Page: 
Source: 
p. 1, b. 1-24
p. 1, b. 1-24
p. 2, b. 25-48
p. 3, b. 49-72
p. 4, b. 73-92
p. 5, b. 93-120
p. 6, b. 121-140
p. 7, b. 141-160
p. 8, b. 161-192
p. 9, b. 193-214
p. 10, b. 215-241
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 reprint 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 reprint 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. 1

in GC & GE2

No marking in FE (→EE) & GE1

The absence of  in FE (→EE) must be considered an inaccuracy of notation. Most likely, it is a non-corrected oversight of the engraver, although one cannot entirely exclude the possibility that the sign was added by Chopin in GC. In turn, no  in GE1 is a patent oversight. See also bars 5 and 18-19.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: No initial dynamic marking, Errors in GE, GE revisions, Authentic corrections in GC

notation: Verbal indications

Missing markers on sources: FESch, FED, FES