In FE this bar is identical to b. 56, and, just like there, the version of EE is most probably an earlier version of this place, changed by Chopin in the last stage of proofreading of FE. In turn, it is necessary to clarify why in the discussed bar – unlike in b. 56 – this change was not included in GE. One possible explanation is to assume that the Stichvorlage for GE1 was a proof copy of FE including Chopin's proofreading, generally such as the one that became the basis for the finished FE, yet without as many details introduced by Chopin – see the description of FE1. As an alternative, without reference to the concept of parallel proofreading of FE and GE, one may imagine a misunderstanding related to FE using one plate to produce both the page containing b. 56 and the one including b. 200. Chopin could have, e.g. decided to introduce a change in b. 56/200 (as well as in the ending of b. 57/201) after the copy featuring the remaining changes resulting from the 2nd stage of proofreading of FE had already been printed. It resulted in the need to reprint the corrected page 9/17, which was replaced in the already printed copy. Had it been performed only in the first out of two places, due to haste, the German publisher would have received a copy in which p. 9 (including b. 56-57) was corrected, whereas p. 17 (including b. 200-201) – was not. Moreover, such a mistake could also have been committed by the German publisher, as long as the discussed corrections were introduced by Chopin after the copy had been sent to Leipzig. The French publisher could have sent the corrected page to his German partner afterwards, yet it was then used only in one of the two places.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Ornaments