The issue whether and how the e2 quaver at the end of bar 40 should be combined with the adjacent phrases is vague. Both phrases are complete without this note and they could be generally assembled without this link (although certainly to the detriment of smoothness of the connection). One can also reason more pragmatically: the quaver is a fact and by combining both phrases, it belongs to both. In the entire 1st movement of the Concerto, this place appears in a similar form six times:
-
in bars 40-41 the slurs of A do not include the discussed quaver into any of the adjacent phrases, although the slur reaching e
2 in bar 40 may possibly be considered to be inaccurate and reaching intentionally the end of the bar. Therefore, it is possible that such an extended slur, present in FE (→EE), is a result of Chopin's proofreading. However, it is not entirely certain, since one can see no traces of corrections performed in print; - in bars 48-49 there are no slurs;
- in bars 128-129 the e2 quaver is linked in A to the next phrase, which was not included in the majority of the editions anyway;
- in bars 136-137 the situation in A was initially similar to bars 40-41, Chopin, however, extended then the slur in bar 136 so the problematic note was embraced with it (the extended slur may be considered to be reaching f2 at the beginning of bar 137);
- in bars 276-277 there are no phrase marks in A, yet in GE (→FE→EE) a slur was added at the beginning of bar 277;
-
in bars 284-285 the visible in A correction of the slur closes the phrase on the e2 crotchet, leaving the e2 quaver without slur. However, the final effect of this correction is not entirely clear, since the poorly visible ending of the longer slur remained uncrossed. The notation was not reproduced in the editions anyway: two slurs coincide on the discussed note and a Chopin proofreading of slurring cannot be excluded here.
In the above list one can see that Chopin did not seek to unify these places; he even did not pay particular attention to the issue of their slurring. Therefore, in discussed bars 40-41, both source versions of the slurring can be considered to be equal. Taking into account a possibility of an authentic proofreading of FE and visible corrections of A in a similar situation in bars 136-137, in the main text we give the longer slur of FE.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: Inaccurate slurs in A, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Slurs