Page: 
Source: 
p. 1, b. 1-25
p. 1, b. 1-25
Main text
Main text
As - Autograph sketch
A - Autograph
FC - Fontana's copy
CGS - Copy by George Sand
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Corrected impression of FE1
FED - Dubois copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz Copy
FES - Stirling copy
FESch - Scherbatoff copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Revised impression of GE1
GE3 - Corrected impression of GE2
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE1a - Corrected impression of EE1
EE2 - Revised impression of EE1a
Select notes: 
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
Differences
No differences
As - Autograph sketch
A - Autograph
FC - Fontana's copy
CGS - Copy by George Sand
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Corrected impression of FE1
FED - Dubois copy
FEJ - Jędrzejewicz Copy
FES - Stirling copy
FESch - Scherbatoff copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Revised impression of GE1
GE3 - Corrected impression of GE2
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE1a - Corrected impression of EE1
EE2 - Revised impression of EE1a
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 17-18

No sign in As, FE (→EE1) & CGS

in A

in FC

 in GE, contextual interpretation

in EE2

The high position of the L.H. chords and the resulting lack of space between the staves contributed to inaccuracies and mistakes in the reproduction of the  hairpin – it was moved in FC (→GE, inaccurately) and overlooked in FE (→EE1). The mark in EE2 was added on the basis of GE1, overlooking its ending at the beginning of b. 18. In GE, there is a complete  mark at the end of the line (in b. 17), in spite of the fact that b. 18 contains its ending in the form of a new  mark – in times of Chopin, the contemporary, more accurate notation of such divided hairpins was not generally used yet. The absence of the mark in CGS is one of the arguments supporting the fact that the copy was prepared on the basis of FE.

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE, Scope of dynamic hairpins, Inaccuracies in FC, Hairpins denoting continuation

notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

Missing markers on sources: CGS, A, FC, As, FE1, FE2, FED, FEJ, FES, FESch, GE1, GE2, GE3, EE1, EE2, EE1a