The sources have several versions of dynamic markings appearing at the beginning of bars 159, 167, 175 and 183. The placement of 
marks under the L.H. part in GC and EE deserves special attention. It is almost certain that this complies with the notation of the autograph. As in further repetitions of analogous phrases the indicators are always placed between the staves, a question arises whether a different notation of bars 155-191 was intended to signal a certain dynamic nuance related to the proportion of both hands and, as such, was deliberately left in that form by the composer, or whether such placement of the piano marks resulted from some trivial reasons, perhaps non-musical, and was subsequently replaced with a more natural and - in Chopin's intention – final notation. In our opinion, there are more arguments in support of the latter possibility, as:
-
the questioned manner of notation is unclear – is the R.H. to be played
? This is at odds with leggierissimo. Chopin could therefore be unhappy about that notation, even if it had initially been intended; -
the placement of in bar 159 of the autograph could result from lack of free space between the staves, and Chopin repeated it in the following bars to keep the notation uniform. One can also imagine the initial, roughly outlined graphic layout of quaver passages in which the parts of both hands are placed on the upper staff, which would naturally enforce the placement of the under the L.H. part.
The notation of EE in bar 159 and GE in bars 159, 175 and 183 probably results from editorial revisions.
The version of FE is clearly less accurate (no markings in bars 159 and 183), and 
in bar 167 may result from a misunderstanding: if the manuscript that served as the base text for FE had the notation similar to that visible in GC in bar 211 or 219, the engraver of FE could have easily mistaken 8 from the octave sign for the second .
category imprint: Differences between sources
notation: Verbal indications
Back to note