FE1
Main text
½A - Semi-autograph
A - Autograph of the piano part
Morch - Manuscript of the orchestra part
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE1a - Retouched impression of GE1
GE2 - Second German edition
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Corrected impression of FE1
FED - Dubois copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz copy
FES - Stirling copy
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Revised impression of EE1
EE3 - Corrected impression of EE2
compare
  b. 229

Accent on 2nd semiquaver in A, literal reading

Accents on 2nd & 3rd semiquaver in GE1 & EE2 (→EE3)

No marks in FE (→EE1)

Short accent on 1st semiquaver in GE2

Long accent on 1st semiquaver suggested by the editors

The interpretation of the notation of A in which the accent is placed over the 2nd semiquaver of the last group (b) is difficult. According to us, it is highly unlikely that such an accentuation would be compliant with Chopin's intention. It is possible that we are dealing with a relic from the times of shaping of the notation of long accents in Chopin's notation, when some of them had the form of short signs placed exactly after the accented note (cf. the Etude in A minor, Op. 10 No. 2,  bar 22 or 46). Over the accent there is also a short slur, which could be considered a slur over the group of semiquavers, if it were not for the fact that Chopin did have a possibility to write this sign under the notes in a more legible manner. In turn, the slur could indicate that the accent applies to the 1st note in the group, over which there was no place to write a sign under the phrase mark. Anyway, in GE1 the accent was printed in accordance with the literal interpretation of A (except for the short slur); moreover, over the next semiquaver (f), another accent was added. This musically incomprehensible notation perhaps proves attempts to correct the erroneous notation. Both erroneous accents were overlooked (removed?) in FE (→EE1) and restored in EE2 (→EE3).

GE2 has an accent over the 1st note, which most probably is a result of unifying the notation of similar bars (bars 226, 234, 236, 238 and 240).

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE, GE revisions, Authentic corrections of FE, Inaccuracies in A

notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

Go to the music

.