When interpreted literally, the 3rd crotchet in FE is an f1, which seems to be a typical inaccuracy consisting in the oversight of a 
before that note. However, even with f
1 this version could not have corresponded to Chopin's intention, according to us. Distorted regularity of this accompaniment, based on broken chords, does not enrich the figuration with an additional, clever contrapuntal sequence, which would be compliant with Chopin's style and could explain the derogation from the version of two analogous bars (72 and 204) and from the general scheme. Due to the same reasons, the version of EE1 is also completely unlikely. However, how did such a patent, double mistake occur? The traces of proofreading visible in FE suggest that it was initially the version of EE1 that was printed there, followed by attempts to correct the 3rd quaver. The aim of the change was most probably d1, yet a Terzverschreibung error was committed while implementing proofreading, i.e. the note was placed at the pitch of f1. The fifth, also erroneous quaver does not bear traces of corrections, which proves carelessness of the last proofreading, probably caused by haste (cf. b. 686).
The correct text was restored in EE2 (→EE3), most probably on the basis of a comparison with the previous two appearances of this phrase or with GE.
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, Terzverschreibung error, Errors repeated in EE
notation: Pitch
Back to note