Select: 
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
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 416

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

No mark in FE

Wedge in GE & EE

..

In bar 416, opening a new line, FE overlooked the ending of the slur and, most probably, a wedge in the L.H. part. In EE, both marks were added, whereas in GE1 (GE2), only the wedge (the slur was corrected in GE3, in which there is a different division into lines and pages).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 416-422

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

No marks in FE (→EE,GE1GE2)

Staccato dots in GE3

..

As in bars 408-409 and analog., GE3 arbitrarily added staccato dots to the first two repeated semiquavers in bars 416, 418, 420 and 422.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 416-423

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

In FE, there are no sharps before the second semiquaver, placed an octave lower than the first one, of the majority of the figures in the L.H. – marks are necessary in 10 out of 15 figures, whereas an appropriate  is present only before c​​​​​​​1 in bar 418. All the remaining marks were added both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions

b. 416

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

..

We add a cautionary  before f​​​​​​​in the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 416-423

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt I

No L.H. slurs in FE (→EE,GE1GE2)

L.H. slurs in GE3

..

In GE3, slurs in the L.H. were added in this fragment, most probably under the influence of analogous bars 440-444. It could be considered justified, if not for the fact that the range of the slurs was adjusted to the slurs in the R.H. not in an authentic version, but in an arbitrarily changed one – cf. a corresponding note to bars 417-424. Moreover, Chopin probably consciously rejected slurs in the L.H. in the discussed bars. It is proved by the traces of removal of the slur in the L.H. in bar 418 visible in FE; it was probably in [A] ​​​​​​​that the slurs in this section were so fragmentary that the composer preferred removing the inaccurate and misleading slurs rather than correcting them, given that the correct phrasing is indicated by the slurs in the R.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE