Issues : Errors of FC

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

Slur from semiquaver in FCI & A (→FEEE)

Slur from mid-bar in FC (→GE)

..

The longer slur of FC (→GE) resulted from a mistake of the copyist, most probably confused by the contour of a fragment of the slur written on the back of this page (over b. 22) blending into the slur of A

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors of FC

b. 7-10

composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

..

FCI does not contain any accidentals in the R.H. part in these bars. The missing sharps in b. 7 and 9 are a patent inaccuracy (formally speaking, a cautionary  in b. 10 is not indispensable due to the presence of corresponding sharps in the L.H., i.e. raising c1 to c1). Such an incomplete notation was probably present already in the lost autograph that served as the basis for this copy, since it seems unlikely that the copyist would selectively omit marks on the top stave (see also b. 16-17).
There is no  in bar 7 in FC, too – the visible accidental was pencilled in by H. Scholtz, the later owner of FC. The obvious oversight was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors of FC

b. 7-10

composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

..

An earlier version of slurring linked to the initial rhythm – see the note on rhythm. It is also there that we discuss the mistakes in the reproduction of the slurs of A, committed both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC

b. 17

composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

Rhythm in #CFI & A (→FEEE), & also FC (source interpretation)

Rhythm in FC (contextual interpretation→GE)

..

In FC the rhythm in the 2nd half of the bar was written down as , which is a mistake. In GE it was changed to , which is understandable if we take into account the rhythm in the remaining similar situations. However, the reviser did not respect the position of that d2 in relation to the L.H. semiquavers – it is written right above the penultimate semiquaver, which suggests that it is the semiquaver flag that is a mistake, and not the missing second dot prolonging the e2 crotchet.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of FC

b. 17-18

composition: Op. 28 No. 3, Prelude in G major

2 long accents in FCI

in A

No sign in FC (→GE) & FE (→EE)

..

The omission of the  hairpin both in FC (→GE) and FE (→EE) is probably a result of the mark overlapping with the ending of the L.H. slur – each of the arms of the hairpin looks like an attempt to prolong/finish that slur.
Two accents in FCI emphasize the importance of both d2 and the C major chord, but the sense of this transition is revealed only just when they are combined, which Chopin expressed in A by uniting them with one  mark. A comparison of those two marking methods allows us to better understand the sense of  hairpins in similar contexts (Cf. e.g. Prelude in A minor no. 2, bars 15-16). One can also see this change as an analogy to the merged slurs in b. 4-6.  

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Errors of FC