Issues : Authentic corrections of FE
|
b. 9-33
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The entire second line of A is missing the octave signs – there is no ending of the sign in bar 9 and an entire one is missing in b. 14-17. There is a similar case in b. 31-33, in which the transition into a new line provoked a mistake in the form of an unfinished octave sign, which began in bar 30. Fontana noticed and corrected only the latter, yet in FC an octave sign was added in pencil also in b. 14-17, probably by the engraver of GE1 (we do not take into account that addition in the transcription of FC, since it belongs rather to GE1). In the editions all mistakes were corrected, in FE perhaps by Chopin's orders, who proofread that edition. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Foreign hand additions in manuscripts , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE , Fontana's revisions |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 9-41
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
It is unclear whether the staccato markings with which Chopin provided the R.H. chords in b. 9, 17 and 33 (the missing marking in bar 41 must be an oversight, since it is the first bar on a new page of A) should be interpreted as wedges or dots. The ambiguity is confirmed by the sources based directly on A: the copyist interpreted those markings as dots, whereas the engraver of FE – as wedges. According to us, there are more arguments in favour of wedges, which we thereby suggest in the main text. The dot added in FE in bar 41 may come from Chopin, yet in this case it is also unclear whether the engraver interpreted Chopin's proof entry correctly. An identical addition introduced in GE cannot be authentic. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , Wedges , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 48
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
It is not entirely certain whether Chopin wanted to keep the double bar line after this bar. In FE there are visible traces of possible corrections in print; however, it is difficult to state whether they were aimed at removing the second line. The repetitions of the D category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 65-76
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of FC |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor
..
The main text is a version introduced by Chopin in FC (→GE) and in the proofreading of FE (→EE). In the L.H. part in A one can see traces of numerous corrections in this bar; however, both a possible original version (like in the previous bar) and the final one were then changed by Chopin in FC and FE, respectively. According to us, the notation of A may also denote a version that we give as a possible interpretation should we assume that the restoration of c category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations , Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic corrections of FC |
major part are no longer separated with a double bar line, yet it must be the presence of an introductory bass motif that explains the difference in notation. Therefore, in the main text we keep the undoubtedly authentic notation of 
