Issues : Authentic corrections in GC

b. 45

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

 in GC (literal reading→GE1)

 in GC (probable interpretation) & GE2 (→GE3)

 & accent in FE

 & accent in EE

..

It is hard to state how the difference in the placement of  occurred and, which is more important, which note it is supposed to concern – the C grace note or the eminim. The compatibility of GC and EE ( is almost certainly a result of a misinterpretation of ) allows to assume that in the manuscripts the sign was under the stave, which would rather indicate the mnim. The version with minim is also supported by deletion of the concerning it accent in GC, considered by Chopin as superfluous, perhaps due to . We give this version in the main text, present in the base source and including the Chopin correction.
On the other hand, the indications of FE –  under C and accent over e1 – have a musical sense, particularly in the context of corrections of the dynamics in the previous bar. Therefore, we recommend this version as alternative with respect to the main text. At the same time, we interpret the accent as long, taking into account the sign that the copyist rewrote in this place from GC, as well as the one Chopin added in FES in bar 1.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 45-47

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

 in GC

No sign in FE

 in EE

 in GE1

 in GE2 (→GE3)

..

The  hairpins were added by Chopin in GC and most probably in the base text to EE. In the main text we reproduce the range of the sign in GC, the versions of the remaining sources are probably (EE) or certainly (GE) inaccurate.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 47

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Probable mordent in GC

No mark in FE, GE & EE

Our variant suggestion

..

The  sign, visible in GC, yet absent in the remaining sources, could have been added by Chopin as one of the elements varying the return of this theme (the other ones are the F1 grace note in bar 50 and, above all, the chromatic scale in bar 52). However, its absence in GE is puzzling, as it seems to be highly unlikely for it to be unnoticed by both the engraver of GE1 and editors preparing GE2. According to us, the sign was considered to be a deletion of the end of the extended (combined) slur. A few such deletions are indeed in GC – in bars 20, 26, 38, 39, 56 and 65 – however, all of them are clearly longer (shorter fragments, e.g., in bars 6-7 remained non-deleted). Taking into account the missing sign in FE and EE and possible doubts concerning its content, in the main text we suggest a mordent in a variant form, in brackets.   

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Main-line changes , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 50

composition: Op. 25 No 7, Etude in C♯ minor

Grace note in GC

Grace note in FE

Slashed grace note in GE & EE3

No grace note in EE1 (→EE2)

..

The F1 grace note in GC was added in pencil, which means that Chopin added it in the last phase of preparations of base texts for three editions of Opus 25 (the main goal of these additions was probably the fact of introducing metronome tempos, which are in the form of pencil additions in the manuscripts of 11 etudes). The missing quaver flag in FE is most probably an inaccuracy resulting from haste at the time of performing numerous Chopin corrections. In turn, the notation with the slashed quaver is certainly a result of routine revision of GE (the notation undoubtedly corresponds to the correct performance of this ornament, as only a few Chopin slashed grace notes are to be interpreted as appoggiaturas).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Accompaniment changes , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections in GC