|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the main text we preserve the notation of A, in which staccato signs in the R.H. clearly differ from dots in the L.H. The dots in the R.H. added – probably by Chopin - in the proofing of FE may not be considered as the ultimate change of the composer's decision regarding the type of used signs for two reasons:
- Chopin did not actually replace wedges with dots, as there were no wedges in the text he was correcting; his correction consisted in supplementing the signs mistakenly omitted in GE1;
- when going through the proof copy of FE, in the entire Opus 24 Chopin only saw dots as staccato signs. Returning to the dual system of staccato markings would have required tedious and difficult work on the part of the composer, not to mention the engravers of FE, who would have had to correct the text reproduced correctly by them on the basis of the base text received from Leipzig. It is easy to understand that, given the circumstances, Chopin decided against such a step. On the other hand, introduction of a few wedges locally, e.g. in the discussed bars, would have given them another meaning than the one they had in A, in which they occurred as frequently as dots in the R.H..
The puzzling thing is the absence in EE of the dots added in FE. This could indicate that the proofing of FE was done in two stages, of which the second stage took place after copies had been sent to London for the preparation of EE1. Still, an argument against this theory is the generally high number of omitted signs in EE1, also in situations where there were no corrections made in FE.
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: Authentic corrections of FE, Wedges
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Back to note