Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

  b. 15-16

In FCs these bars are written in shorthand as empty bars marked with digits 1 and 2, whereby in bar 16 digit 2 is followed by a C-c minim (each note provided with a separate stem). However, as no other bars were marked with these digits, it is unclear which bars they should be referred to. There are 3 possibilities:

1. The digits simply mean bars 1-2. It results in a reasonable continuation if we accept the imprecise notation at the beginning of bar 15 – the preceding two-bar phrase, marked in shorthand with digits 3 and 4, which is clear in this case, since these digits are also written above bars 3-4, must end with a chord, as in bar 5.
2. The digits refer to bars 5-6. It is a perfect content match, while the seeming discrepancy in the numbers of bars could be explained by the fact that the notation of bars 5-6 is incomplete, assuming that it should be supplemented after more accurately written down bars 1-2.
3. Chopin wanted to repeat here – changing the last minim – the version of bars 11-12. As in point 1, the version of the 1st crotchet in bar 15 should be sought in bar 5. In this case, digits 1-2 written in bars 15-16 should be understood as "bars preceding the bars marked a moment ago with digits 3-4". According to us, it is likely that Fontana, while copying this fragment, imagined bars 15-16 as a variant of bars 11-12, hence with octaves in the L.H. It would be indicated by the poorly visible mark written in FCs under the C-c octave, which we interpret as a deleted digit 8, marking the C₁-C octave. This would suggest that Fontana wrote here an 8, which he saw in bar 12, and only later did he realise that in bar 16 it was absent in the Chopinesque sketch. One can even imagine a scenario in which this 8 was also in Chopin's original sketch, written down and perhaps deleted, yet not clearly enough for Fontana to know how to interpret it. Consequently, he first copied the digit and then deleted it.

The first two possibilities give the same result, compliant with the published version, in which the L.H. part is devoid of octave doublings. On the other hand, the third interpretation leads to a version featuring octaves, which we suggest in the main text – see the note below.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information

notation: Pitch

Go to the music