EE1
Main text
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Second German edition
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FE2 - Corrected impression of FE1
FES - Stirling copy
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
EE2 - Corrected impression of EE1
EE3 - Revised impression of EE2
compare
  b. 31

Slur in GE1, literal reading

Slur from tied grace note in FE, literal reading

No signs in EE & GE2

Arpeggio in GE1 & FE, probable contextual interpretation

The notation of GE, in which the slur runs from the grace note to the bottom note of the octave, is formally correct and means that the octave should be played simultaneously after the grace note. The same meaning is carried by the notation of EE and GE2, in which all slurs were overlooked (probably accidentally). It is also the notation of FE that could be considered correct, according to which the arpeggio should begin from the top note. However, a comparison with the notation of FE in analog. b. 57 and 290, in which the vertical slur placed directly before the octave certainly marks an arpeggio, makes us consider the similar slur in the discussed bar to be inaccurately reproduced and also marking an arpeggio of the octave according to Chopin. Then all three analogous places would be performed the same – a grace note and an arpeggiated octave. Therefore, we suggest this version (constituting a rhythmic analogy to b. 27) in the main text.
It is difficult to say why EE did not repeat slurs after FE. It could have been an oversight or an intentional omission of the marks of the correctness of which the engraver was not sure – vertical slurs of FE were overlooked/omitted in EE several more times in this and analog. phrases (b. 53-59, 103-109, 286-292). 

Compare the passage in the sources »

See b. 27

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE, Errors in EE, Errors in GE, Arpeggio – vertical slur

notation: Ornaments

Go to the music

.