Op. 10 No 1, Etude in C major

The first French edition, based on an autograph, perhaps the same which had served as the base text for CLI (see below). Visible traces of corrections performed in print, out of which some were included in GE1 and some not, indicate the existence of at least two stages of proofreading of FE1. In turn, the analysis of the Etude in A minor, No. 2, taking into account FEcor, reveals that numerous additions and corrections written there by Chopin are even earlier, which results in at least three stages of proofreadings. Similar three stages of proofreadings most probably concerned also the remaining Etudes, although differentiating between the first two – the stage including FEcor and the stage of the changes which were not included therein, yet considered in GE1 – is possible only in the Etude in A minor. Chopin's participation in all proofreadings and their wide range is proved by the conserved correspondence between Schlesinger and Kistner; the tangible proof is the aforementioned FEcor. However, it should be emphasised that most probably the composer did not compare the print with the manuscript to check the correctness of the base text's reproduction; his proofreadings were rather a new edition of the piece's notation. Examples of changes performed at particular stages of proofreadings:

• 1. i 2.  Changes considered in GE1 – changes of e¹ to f¹ in bar 7, e² to d² in bar 13, d to e in bar 26, f² to g² in bar 71;
• 3.  Changes not considered in GE1 – adding a  before f in bar 7 and change of f to g in bar 38. Also the octaves in bars 7-8 were initially written in an abbreviated form, which was adopted in GE1.

In spite of such a number of proofreadings, it was impossible to delete all mistakes, which led to the creation of a corrected impression, i.e. FE2.

The base text for FE1 could have been [AI], which is indicated by high compliance between the text of the edition and CLI, based on this autograph, particularly the traces of deleting the version of the manuscript in a few places in which the sources differ (the aforementioned bars 26 and 71). If it was so, Chopin had corrected and completed the manuscript before giving it to the editor, as some of the changes, if they had been performed in print, would have had to leave traces, which are however nowhere to be seen (e.g. changes in the L.H. in bars 33 and 37 or changes in the 2nd half of bar 64). An alternative possibility is to perform a new autograph, including the aforementioned corrections. We discuss this issue in more detail in the Etude in A minor, No. 2, in which the conservation of FEcor offers more material for comparison and analysis.