In bars 197 and 199, the continuous slurs of FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) seem to be contrary to the rhythmic notation, indicating the need to separate the first two notes from the following semiquavers. According to us, it is a remaining part of the original version of these bars, in which the figuration used semiquavers only (without rests) – cf. bar 195 and bars 550, 552 and 554. The fact that the rhythm in the discussed places was changed by Chopin is proved by the traces, visible in FE, of moving the demisemiquaver beams from the 3rd to the 2nd note in bars 197, 199 and 201. A similar situation in bar 65 of the Etude in G
major, op. 10, no. 5 shows that the corrections could have started already in [A], precisely from the version with the regular sequence. The need to separate the first two notes from the following semiquavers was confirmed by Chopin with additional marks written in pencil in FED – the slashed lines, underlining the significance of the rest, are visible in bars 197 and 201; moreover, in bar 197, Chopin wrote a slur over the first two semiquavers. In this situation, the fact of leaving continuous slurs may be considered an inadvertence of Chopin who was busy looking for the aptest manner of writing the rhythm of the "parenthetic rest" (cf. the Scherzo in C
minor, op. 39, bar 47). Taking into account the above circumstances, in the main text, we separate the slurs, adjusting the phrasing to the rhythmic notation. A similar conjecture was introduced into GE3.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Annotations in teaching copies, Annotations in FED, GE revisions, Authentic post-publication changes and variants, Inserted rest
notation: Slurs