The placement of this indication, defining two ways to perform the initial fragment of this tutti (in octaves or an octave higher), is not entirely clear. In A the entire inscription is in bar 283; however, it is written as if before the notes, which is possible, since this bar opens a new line. One can get the impression that Chopin initially wrote only 8va with dashes, starting over the 1st quaver, and then added 'con o in' before them, using the space over the clef and key signature. In GE (→EE) the discussed bars are inside the line, and the inscription begins over the last quaver in bar 282. According to us, it does not correspond to Chopin's intention:
- it seems that Chopin indicated the moment from which the inscription is to be valid with the position of 8va;
- the upbeat (the last f1 note in bar 282) is played in the score only by the first violins; the flutes do not double it in an octave;
- in A there is a visible erasure over this f1 note, with which Chopin probably erased an f2 note.
The change in FE1 (→FE2), introduced almost certainly by Chopin (cf. other authentic corrections near this place – the change of c2 to a1 in bar 282 and the addition of a mordent over b
2 in bar 283), restores the moment, intended by the composer, from which this octave sign should be valid. However, there are doubts whether this correction also means that the octave version should be abandoned (it was not included in the version of FE1). According to us, Chopin could have wanted to correct the two inaccuracies of the version of GE1 in a fairly simple way – the aforementioned moment in which the indication should begin and the missing indication that its meaning changes on the 3rd beat of bar 287, from which, due to the chordal texture, the only possible performance manner is to play the text an octave higher. Therefore, being uncertain whether Chopin decisively rejected the possibility to perform bars 283-286 and the first two beats of bar 287 in octaves, in the main text we keep the variant notation of A. The ungrammatical remark in EE – con 8ves in 8va – is actually bilingual (8ves is an abbreviation of an English or French term, whereas the remaining part is written in Italian) and, as a matter of fact, unreasonable, since it indicates that the phrase should be performed both in octaves and an octave higher. We reproduce it only in the graphic transcription (version "transcript"). The text of FESB being compliant with the notation of A seems to be a coincidence.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: EE revisions, Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in FE, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Pitch