FC
compare
-G
The sources differ in the sound of the third and fifth quaver in the L.H., which is related to the third. Below there are all versions together with the evaluation of their authenticity and place in the process of shaping of the text.
-
In FE and EE both discussed quavers are F
, which almost certainly corresponds to the notation of [A], as one of these editions – most probably FE – was based on it. It is hard to state with all certainty whether this was the only version written in the base texts to FE and EE or whether Chopin performed some corrections there, yet it is the first option that seems to be more likely (see below). -
The version of FC is visibly deficient – on the 3rd quaver there is only a stem, so it is impossible to ascribe any pitch to it; it is also related to the sound of the 5th quaver, which, in face of lack of an accidental concerning it, must be interpreted as an F
. Deciphering how this situation occurred is crucial for the issue of presence and authenticity of possible alternative versions with respect to the 1st version.
The traces visible in FC show that the note on the 3rd quaver was written there, yet it was deleted, undoubtedly with an intention of introducing another one. The noticeable trace of deleted ink allows for a highly likely supposition that it was A or rather A, as in the place of the accidental there is another trace before this note, probably indicating a deletion of . It gives two possibilities:
— if it was A that was deleted, the originally written version could have been authentic – there is a similar figure in the L.H. two bars later. However, the lack of before the 5th quaver is an argument against this possibility – the version with F is clearly cumbersome when it comes to harmony, while the alleged version with the A-G-F progression would have had to be written with a hard to explain mistake.
— if it was A that was deleted, the situation is clear – the copyist committed the so-called Terzverschreibung error, writing A instead of F, and he wanted to correct it himself or it was Chopin that wanted to do it. According to us, it is the most plausible scenario, explaining in a satisfying way all features of the sources. -
The version of GE1 is an ad hoc attempt to get out of the trouble constituted by the lack of the necessary note in the base text. It is hard to state whether the decision to adopt A was a misinterpretation of the traces of its deletion or an analogy with bar 14.
- The aforementioned analogy was almost certainly taken into account at the time of the revision introduced into GE2 (→GE3), which contributed to the popularisation of this version in the next collective editions and concert practice.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in GE, Errors of FC
notation: Pitch