Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 1

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

Wedge in Afrag & A1

Staccato dot in FE (→EE) & GE

..

In the main text we give a wedge as the staccato mark over the 1st quaver in the R.H. Wedge is present in both preserved autographs, i.e. Afrag and A1. We do so because the engraver of GE1 reproducing the notation of [A2] inaccurately seems to be more likely than a change of this detail while writing [A2] (an example of such an inaccuracy is FE1, in which dots are present wherever A1 clearly features wedges).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges

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. 9

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

Staccato dot in Afrag, FE1 (→EE) & GE

Wedge in A1 & FE2

..

Taking into account a possibility of an erroneous, simplified interpretation of GE of possible wedges of [A2], in the main text we give a wedge, written here in A1. We consider the staccato dot of Afrag to be a non-final stage of the search for a coherent concept of articulation markings of this and the analogous quavers; in turn, we consider the version of FE1 to be an example of the engraver having misunderstood the Chopinesque wedge. The wedge in FE2 could have been introduced on the basis of a new comparison with A1, although a significant number of oversights and other defects in that edition points to its hasty preparation rather than to careful edition using the manuscript. However, it may be a result of Chopin's sketchy proofreading, particularly if the mark was initially not there at all – see b. 17. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges

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. 12-13

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

No sign in Afrag

 in A1 (literal reading→FE1)

 in A1, contextual interpretation

in GE & EE

..

According to us, the  hairpin written in A1 is to be interpreted as ending before the  indication in b. 13. It is most likely that Chopin first wrote the top arm (perhaps before entering ) and then indicated the end of the mark with the ending of the bottom arm. Such an interpretation is confirmed by the mark of A1 in b. 36 and the notation of GE based on [A2] (in GE2 the mark was shortened with respect to GE1, which does not influence its meaning). In FE the mark was interpreted according to the length of the top arm; moreover, FE2 reproduced it inaccurately. It remains unclear how come that the mark was shortened in EE – perhaps by analogy with b. 36. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Corrections in A , EE inaccuracies , Hairpins denoting continuation , Inaccuracies in A