Page: 
Source: 
p. 4, b. 41-52
p. 1, b. 1-18
p. 2, b. 19-28
p. 3, b. 29-40
p. 4, b. 41-52
p. 5, b. 53-63
p. 6, b. 64-74
p. 7, b. 75-80
p. 8, b. 81-97
Main text
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
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
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
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 47-48

Double slurs in A, contextual interpretation

Idem, R.H. only

Single slurs in GE1 (→FEEE)

R.H. only in FES

Double slurs in GE2

The interpretation of the slurring of A presents difficulties. The most important issue is the fact whether Chopin wanted to preserve double slurs or whether one of the versions (probably the long slur above the entire phrase) was supposed to replace the second one. The latter seems to be indicated by the absence of ending in bar 48 of two out of four slurs written at the end of bar 47 (corrections without erasing the eliminated version do happen in manuscripts, including in autographs, e.g. in the Etude in G major, Op. 10 No. 5, bar 83). In any case, this is how it was interpreted in GE1 (except for the slur in the L.H., which started inaccurately, too late) and then (after correcting this inaccuracy) in FE (→EE). GE2 included the double slurring of A.

In all editions, the crotchets in bar 48 are embraced with separate slurs, which rather does not correspond to the notation of A (the engraver may have been influenced by adjacent bars). However, when considering the portato articulation and the accent, the difference is of no practical meaning.

In the main text, we give an interpretation closest to the notation of A, with double slurs. The version of FE (→EE) may be considered a fully-fledged alternative interpretation.

If in bar 45 the version with the harmonic accompaniment was chosen, one of the versions for the R.H. is to be selected. 

Compare the passage in the sources »

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

issues: Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccurate slurs in A, GE revisions, FE revisions

notation: Slurs

Missing markers on sources: A, Morch, FE1, FE2, FED, FEJ, FES, GE1, GE1a, GE2, EE1, EE2, EE3