Page: 
Source: 
p. 9, b. 193-214
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. 198-200

Separate slurs in GC & FE (→EE)

Continuous slur in GE

The slurs in GC were corrected, almost certainly by Chopin, who added a clear ending of the slur in b. 198 and a beginning in b. 199; however, he did not delete the fragment of the original, continuous slur (which became superfluous). It is difficult to say whether this was the reason why this correction was not included in GE – according to us, the intention to separate the slurs is unquestionable here. The notation of FE (→EE) is ambiguous – the slur in b. 198 (at the end of the line) suggests continuation; however, there is no doubt that a new slur starts in b. 199. We interpret it literally as separated slurs, yet it is likely that the engraver meant a continuous slur, which, judging from the original version of GC, was probably in [A].

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

notation: Slurs

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