|
No slurs in AI |
|
|
Continuous slur in AF |
|
|
2 slurs in FE, literal reading |
|
|
2 slurs in FE, contextual interpretation |
|
|
Slur in EE |
|
|
2 slurs in GE1, literal reading |
|
|
2 slurs in GE1, contextual interpretation |
|
|
2 slurs in GE2 |
There are major differences in the slurring of the entire L.H. phrase in b. 29-37 and analogous b. 121-129 between the particular sources. However, a great number of them can be attributed, with high probability, to mistakes or inaccuracies, partially resulting from graphic difficulties: leading long slurs over phrases whose range spans over two octaves posed a significant challenge to the engravers; moreover, it is likely that Chopin also did not opt for them straight away.
Consequently, it seems that there are four versions of the slurring, intended by Chopin at various stages of development of these two sections, which we give in an assumed chronological order:
- The earliest version of AI, in which these bars are practically devoid of slurring – Chopin encompassed with a slur only the last two notes, the d
-G fifth under b. 36-37. - The contextual interpretation of four slurs of GE1 in b. 29-37, out of which two – in b. 33-34 and 36-37 – may be fragments of one. The reconstruction of the version of [AG] we suggest is based on a comparison of the versions of both analogous places and identification of musically questionable elements. Therefore, we consider the following to be inauthentic:
- attaching the slur in b. 121to the previous, beginning in b. 119 – this detail must have been correctly written in b. 27-29;
- leading the slur in b. 32 only to a – this time, it is the notation in b. 124 that we consider to be correct;
- ending the slur on the f quaver in b. 34 and its resumption on d in b. 36. It seems to be a simplification of the continuous slur written perhaps in [AG], like the one in GE in b. 125-129 (a similar shortening of the division was applied in b. 33-37 in FE with respect to the slur of AF)*.
- Two slurs of GE1 in b. 121-124 and 125-129. The only doubt is the placement of the latter under the stave, probably forced by the inability to lead a slur between the two top voices in b. 128. The slur was probably added in the proofreading of GE1, which is indicated by the presence of the original slur in that edition, which encompassed only d-G in b. 128-129.
- Probably the latest, continuous, at least eight-bar slur of AF, written in both places. This is the version, completely unquestionable, that we give in the main text.
The missing slur in b. 30 must be a mistake of FE. Perhaps the ending of the slur from b. 29 (from the previous page) was initially led under the stave, e.g. due to the scarce space between the staves – such a slur is in EE. However, in the proofreading of FE Chopin moved it over the L.H. part and divided on the tied g1 note, which facilitated the drawing of the slur, influencing its meaning to a minimal extent. The missing ending of the slur in b. 35-37 is also a patent mistake – the slur breaks at the end of b. 34, which closes a line. In b. 121-129 FE reproduced the slur of AF flawlessly.
The slur of EE in b. 30-34, led under the stave, may be explained in several ways:
- in accordance with what was described above, it may be a repetition of the original slur of FE;
- one can also imagine an arbitrary transfer of the slur under the stave, which provoked an erroneous beginning of the slur, i.e. a bar earlier than in the Stichvorlage;
- eventually, everything can be a result of revision.
In b. 121-129 the slur is ambiguous – it ends at the end of the line, on the g crotchet in b. 124, yet the beginning of the slur in b. 125 suggests continuation from the previous bar. Graphically simplified and thus misleading, in terms of voice leading, is also the ending of the slur in b. 128-129, which encompasses a fragment of the alto voice, written on the bottom stave.
* It is also possible that the slurs of GE generally correspond to the slurs of [AG] – Chopin could have added the slur in b. 33-34 to the original one in b. 36-37 (or one-note longer from each side) to emphasise the imitationally repeated motif. Therefore, it would be an intermediary stage between the two-note slur of AI and the four-bar slur from the quavers in b. 33 to G in b. 37.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, Inaccuracies in GE, FE revisions, Uncertain slur continuation
notation: Slurs
