The analysis of Chopin correction in FC leads to the conclusion that it was carried out in two phases:
-
first a f
note was added and the note head of the E note was deleted. The stem going from f reached until the stem of E, which, in spite of deletion of the note head, connected f with the original horizontal beam; - Chopin then considered this notation to be inaccurate (unclear?) and corrected the beam too, replacing it with a horizontally diagonal.
It confirms the natural supposition that it was the change of E to f that was the aim of the correction. The presence of the version with f also in EE1 – in two places, in bars 9 and 37 – proves that Chopin most probably introduced similar corrections in both bars in the base text to EE. Therefore, at the stage of correcting the Stichvorlage manuscripts, the composer would change the original version of FE (with E) to the version with f given by FC (→GE) and EE1.
However, one can doubt whether Chopin considered this change to be final, as the last moment of reflection on the notation of the Etude was the proofreading of FE, in which the version with E was not changed neither in bar 9 nor in bar 37. Although in many other situations in Op. 25 we consider the corrections in the manuscripts to be valid in spite of the absence of a relevant correction of FE, in this case there is an additional strong argument justifying the fact that the absence of correction is not a mere oversight or negligence. Chopin corrected the previous chord in FE (the last one in bar 8), so if he still considered the change of the subsequent note to be necessary and important, he would have certainly marked it.
Perhaps the key to understand the changeability of the versions of bars 8-9, 36-37 and 105-106 is considering them jointly. One can safely assume that the compatible state from before the correction of FC in bar 9 and corrections of FE in bars 8 and 105 is the original version, which was initially also in the base text to EE. The comparison of the original version and all current source versions is as follows (we give the middle note of the last chord in bar 8 and analog. and first in bar 9 and analog.; the corrected elements are written in bold):
| bars 8-9 | bars 36-37 | bars 105-106 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| originally | a-E |
f-E |
a-E |
| FC |
a-f |
f-E |
a-E |
| EE1 |
a-f |
f-f |
a-E |
| FE |
f-E |
f-E |
f-E |
One can notice here a few principles:
- Chopin was not satisfied with the original version, as he changed it three times – in FC, in the base text to EE and in the proofreading of FE;
- at the stage of manuscripts, the corrections concerned the figure opening the return of the theme in bars 9 and 37;
- at the last stage, it was the chord ending the previous eight-bar section that was corrected;
- the result of corrections of the first stage was a significant diversity of the versions – both in FC and in EE1 each of these three places feature a different version of accompaniment, despite the identical melodic structure and generally the same harmony;
- at the last stage, Chopin homogenised all places.
According to us, instability of the versions of FC and EE1 proves the still ongoing quest for the best solution. In turn, the homogeneous version of FE can be considered a signal of terminating the works by Chopin, who, after changing the way of thinking (moving corrections one crotchet earlier), reached a satisfactory sound effect. Another example of the notation's evolution from FC and EE to FE – see bar 35.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: EE revisions, Chopin's hesitations, Accompaniment changes, Authentic corrections of FC
notation: Pitch
