Issues : EE revisions

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Slur reaching beyond bar 6 in AfragGE & contextual interpretation of A1

Slur to end of bar 6 in A1, literal reading

Slur to end of bar 5, interpretation 

Slur to minim in bar 6 in FE2 & EE

..

The slurs of Afrag and GE are unequivocal; since such a slur is featured in all analogous bars in GE, we give it – as present in [A2] – in the main text. The slur of FE is clearly erroneous, which was corrected in FE2 and EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with b. 1-2. The slur of A1 is problematic; just like the remaining slurs in the 1st line of the manuscript, it reaches the end of the bar, yet its shape suggests that it is supposed to be led to the beginning of the next bar. It is explicitly confirmed by the fact of ending the slur in b. 11 (on a new line) as well as by the unequivocal slur in b. 25-27, corrected by Chopin. In such a context, we interpret the slur of A1 as reaching the 1st quaver in b. 7.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs

b. 12

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

No slur in Afrag

Slur from bar 12 in A1 (→FE)

Slur from bar 15 in GE

2 slurs in EE

..

In the main text we adopt the undoubtedly authentic slur of A1, written in the same way in b. 36-37 (b. 68-69 are marked as repetition of b. 12-13). In turn, the authenticity of the slur of GE is not entirely certain, since the engraver could have misinterpreted the notation of [A2], e.g. due to the transition into a new line in the manuscript or other inaccuracy of notation. In a simple chordal texture, starting from the 3rd beat in b. 12, such a change – in relation to A1 – of phrasing in the L.H., contrary to the R.H. slur, seems to be inconceivable. In Afrag, which ends in b. 12, there are no L.H. slurs. In FE the beginning of the slur in b. 12, which closes the line of the text, is placed under the stave, whereas its continuation in the next bars – over. We interpret that illogical notation as a continuous slur, in accordance with A1. In turn, in EE each part of the slur was reproduced as a complete, separate slur.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 22

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

..

There is a cautionary  before f1 at the beginning of the bar in A1 (→FE). The unjustified mark was removed in EE; it is also absent in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Last key signature sign

b. 45

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

..

In A1 (→FE) there is no  lowering e1 to e1. It is a result of inattention at the time of performing corrections in this autograph: originally, it was a crotchet featuring e1 alongside the necessary  that was on the 1st beat in the R.H. bottom voice. Chopin did not control the notation of accidentals after he had replaced it with a rest. The sign was added in EE; it is also in GE, which could also be explained by an editorial revision.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors resulting from corrections , GE revisions , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE

b. 55

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

in A1

in FE1

No sign in GE & FE2

in EE

Our variant suggestion

..

In the main text we include the  hairpin written in A1 in a variant form. The mark seems to harmonise with the dynamic indications of GE; however, it cannot be ruled out that Chopin did not see the need to place that mark here. See also b. 56. The hairpin was not reproduced correctly in any of the three editions stemming from A1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins