The issue concerning the range of this slur is related to two further problematic indications – the accent in b. 197 and the e1-f
1 slur in b. 197-198. Due to the above, we discuss here in detail their mutual relationships in the authentic sources, i.e. above all A and FE.
The slur in b. 196, which ends the page in A, was entered inaccurately. It seems obvious that it is supposed to begin from the 1st note of the motif, c1 (as it was reproduced by FE); however, the ending of the slur is problematic, since it indicates that it should be continued, yet it was not finished on a new page. Due to the reasons discussed in b. 194-195, we believe that Chopin could have meant a longer slur already here, to the g1 minim. Nevertheless, FE considered it an inaccuracy, and the shorter slur was indirectly confirmed by an accent added over that g1 by FE.
The accent must have been added on purpose, since there are no reasons why it could have been printed by mistake, e.g. due to confusion of similar places. However, it seems likely that Chopin, while proofreading FE, added a mark over the e1 minim, and the engraver misplaced it by putting it over the adjacent note. Such an assumption is based on the unnatural character of an accent on a note ending a motif based on a dominant/tonic sequence, which is suggested by the slurring of the vast majority of similar motifs. Consequently, a possible accent on e1 is related to the e1-f1 slur between b. 197-198, entered into A and overlooked by FE. There are no traces of removal of this slur, hence the engraver most probably overlooked it inadvertently (in FE b. 197 ends a line, which is conducive to oversights). By contrast, it seems highly unlikely that Chopin could have considered the absence of this slur to be favourable; at best, he could have come to terms with its absence, hence in the main text we suggest a variant solution – a slur in brackets. According to us, it is likely that it was the absence of the slur that prompted Chopin to add an accent (over e1), which the composer could have considered an equivalent of the slur – after all, a long accent means both emphasis and tenuto, which quite closely corresponds to the significance of a two-note slur.
To sum up, we consider two basic scenarios to be likely:
- Upon seeing b. 197 without any slur in the top voice while proofreading FE, Chopin noticed an atypical possibility to interpret it and added an accent over the g1 minim. According to this scenario, the version of FE represents the latest Chopinesque concept of markings; we adopt it as the main one for the slur starting in b. 196 and the accent in b. 197. For the slur in b. 197-198, we suggest a more flexible variant solution.
- Having realised that the e1-f1 slur had been overlooked, Chopin added an accent over e1 while proofreading FE; he could have considered it easier to write down and implement than a slur between the lines. By an unfortunate coincidence, the engraver misplaced the mark. A version corresponding to this scenario can be built of alternative variants with respect to the main text.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccurate slurs in A, Uncertain slur continuation
notation: Slurs