Op. 10 No 8, Etude in F major

First French edition, based on A. The comparison with the autograph, as well as visible traces of corrections reveal a number of more or less possible changes performed in print. At the same time, some of them were included in GE1 and some not, which indicates the existence of at least two stages of proofreading of FE1 (probably even three – see the Etude in C major, No. 1). Chopin's participation in all proofreadings and their broad range is revealed by the preserved correspondence between Schlesinger and Kistner and their palpable proof is constituted by FEcor (in the Etude in A minor, No. 2). Examples of changes performed in particular stages of proofreading:

• 1.  Changes included in GE1 – all corrections of the original versions enumerated in the characteristics of A, moreover, adding veloce in bar 1, sempre legatissimo in bars 81 and 85, dynamic marks, e.g., in bars 8-9 and 40, staccato dots in bars 20 and 22, arpeggios in bars 51 and 89. In this stage of proofreading, the fingering (in 43 bars in total, see bars 4-8) and almost entire pedalling was also completed (in A there are only 3 indications).
• 2.  Changes not included in GE1 – e.g., deleting the wedge over d in bar 2, moving the  at the end of bar 43, adding a  before b¹ at the beginning of bar 48, removing the  before e¹ in bar 74.

Apart from the changes and additions illustrated above, which are undoubtedly a result of Chopin's intervention, in FE1 there is a number of differences in relation to A, whose qualification as authentic corrections is uncertain or even dubious. Above all, they concern the omitted performance indications, e.g.:

• slurs, e.g., in bars 3-5, 10-12, 74;
• accents, staccato marks (e.g. in bar 79), fingering (e.g., in bars 89-90);
• other indications, as con forza in bar 91.

According to us, the majority of these situations follows from the engraver's haste. It may be even supposed that it was a more or less conscious strategy, as omitting a mark did not increase the workload (even if Chopin wrote the sign later in a proofreading, its addition was not related to any additional effort), engraving an erroneous mark required its burdensome removal. However, in certain fragments, in which next to the aforementioned omissions there are other marks or changes added in a proofreading of FE, one can consider the entire text as controlled and accepted by Chopin. Therefore, we analyse each of this kind of places individually in order to, on the one hand, respect the possible latest intention of Chopin and, on the other hand, not to deny the performer valuable authentic indications, which could have been omitted only by accident.

In spite of a multi-level proofreading, FE1 is also not free from obvious errors, e.g., c³ instead of b² in bar 59, G instead of F in bar 61, D instead of E in bar 74, 1. finger on e² in bar 75, e instead of f in bar 79, crotchet instead of f³ quaver in bar 89.