Page: 
Source: 
p. 15, b. 282-295
p. 1, b. 1-16
p. 2, b. 17-34
p. 3, b. 35-48
p. 4, b. 49-64
p. 5, b. 65-82
p. 6, b. 83-97
p. 7, b. 98-112
p. 8, b. 113-126
p. 9, b. 127-157
p. 10, b. 158-185
p. 11, b. 186-214
p. 12, b. 215-243
p. 13, b. 244-267
p. 14, b. 268-281
p. 15, b. 282-295
p. 16, b. 296-309
p. 17, b. 310-326
Main text
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
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
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
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 290

Slur in GE, literal reading

Arpeggio sign in GE (contextual interpretation) & FE

No sign in EE

As was the case with analogous b. 31, the slur of GE, although formally correct, is most probably inaccurate and marks a grace note and an arpeggio (written down as a vertical slur), as was conveyed in FE. The absence of a slur (arpeggio) in EE, whatever the reason, cannot be authentic.

See b. 27

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

notation: Ornaments

Missing markers on sources: GE1, GE2, FE1, FE2, EE1, EE2, EE3, FES