Wiki ai-knowledge

Part 14: Appendix II - Annotated Scores II (pp. 307-333)

13 min read

Part 14 of chopin-pianist-and-teacher-as-seen-by-his-pupils (pp. 307-333).

Question this unit answers

Which further collections of annotated Chopin scores survive beyond Stirling, Dubois and Jędrzejewicz — Franchomme, Zaleska-Rosengardt, Fortescue’s op. 9, Scherbatoff, Orda — and how does one decide, source by source, which annotations are actually Chopin’s? The unit closes Appendix II by resolving the Stirling–Jędrzejewicz entanglement (who wrote into whose scores, and when), then ranks the remaining collections by evidential weight. The bulk of pp. 323-332 is the appendix’s endnote apparatus, which is where the concrete catalogue of annotations for the Stirling and Dubois collections actually lives.

Key terms

  • OFE / OGE — Original French Edition / Original German Edition; which edition a pupil owned dates the score and constrains who could have annotated it.
  • Collation (Stirling’s task of) — Jane Stirling’s systematic two-way copying of Chopin’s autograph annotations between her own collection and the Jędrzejewicz collection.
  • Terminus a quo — earliest possible date for a layer of manuscript intervention, established here from watermarks, publishers’ embossments and editorial biography (e.g. c. 1852 for Franchomme’s copyist work).
  • Crosses (single, double, triple) — Chopin’s pencilled marks whose meaning is positional: work to study, work finished, cut boundary, variant insertion point, simultaneous attack, or approval of performance.
  • Author’s correction vs printer’s error — a distinction Eigeldinger insists on: most “corrections” in pupils’ scores repair engraving mistakes and carry no authorial authority.
  • Continuous fingering — fingering written on practically every note, characteristic of the Zaleska scores and a marker of pedagogical rather than lesson use.
  • Facilitations (ad usum delphini) — simplified textures, deleted runs and redistributions written into scores for a particular pupil’s hands.
  • i due Ped. / les 2 péd. — instruction to depress both pedals simultaneously.
  • Bass doubling at the lower octave (8, 8va) — added octave reinforcement in the left hand, consistently placed at musical climaxes.
  • 5–5 (l.h.) — repeated fifth finger on successive notes, treated by Eigeldinger as a fingerprint of Chopin’s own fingering.

Propositions

  1. At least part of the Jędrzejewicz collection physically passed through Jane Stirling’s hands; she imported annotations from her own scores into Chopin’s sister’s scores and carried others back in the opposite direction (p. 308).
  2. Because Stirling’s hand is present in the Jędrzejewicz scores, and she had been Chopin’s pupil for only a few months by summer 1844, the traditional provenance story — Ludwika carrying the scores to Poland in September 1844 — cannot be right; the scores most likely left Paris with Ludwika on 2 January 1850 or shortly after (pp. 308-309).
  3. Handwriting variation within a single work is itself evidence: quick running numerals indicate original annotation, carefully drawn numerals indicate copying (p. 307).
  4. A residue of annotations common to both collections lies outside Stirling’s collation work and is in Chopin’s hand in both sources, implying Chopin used scores from both collections in lessons — so some Jędrzejewicz scores may be his own working copies (p. 308).
  5. The Franchomme collection is a secondary source: scores are largely late reprints, Chopin’s hand is identifiable only in a few places, and performing indications other than fingering are scarce (pp. 312-314).
  6. Franchomme’s own hand is securely identifiable in the Trio op. 8 (across violin, cello and piano parts), which makes his score an important interpretative source for a work whose autograph and OFE are sparse in performing indications (pp. 312-313).
  7. Cross-source unanimity functions as an authenticity test: where Franchomme, Stirling, Dubois and Jędrzejewicz agree exactly on a fingering (opp. 9/2, 27/2, 29), the reading is effectively guaranteed (p. 314).
  8. Statistical corroboration patterns can trace transmission routes: Franchomme fingerings agree with Dubois twice as often as with Stirling, consistent with Cécile Franchomme studying with Mlle O’Meara from 1850 (pp. 313-314).
  9. The Zaleska-Rosengardt scores show three or four different numeral hands, little of it Chopin’s, so they document Zofia’s own practice and teaching rather than her lessons — hence their lower evidential value (p. 316).
  10. The Zaleska scores are nevertheless unique in their verbal annotation, with technical and expressive instructions written out in Polish and French (wrist position, pedal depth, evenness, touch) (p. 316).
  11. The pencilled Polish word Deszczowy at the head of op. 28/15 is probably in Chopin’s hand, which settles the “Raindrop” Prelude debate in favour of no. 15 (pp. 316-317).
  12. The Fortescue op. 9 score, detached from the Zaleska collection and rediscovered in 1981, is exceptional for the indisputable authenticity of its annotations and for an otherwise unknown embellished ending to the op. 9/2 cadenza (p. 318).
  13. The dedication formula de la part de suggests scores were sent rather than signed in person — a small philological cue Eigeldinger uses to weigh whether Scherbatoff actually studied with Chopin (p. 321).
  14. Lack of corroboration in other pupils’ scores does not disqualify an isolated source: the Scherbatoff fingerings are authenticated instead by their conformity to Chopin’s characteristic habits, e.g. l.h. 5–5 (p. 321).
  15. Added bass octave doublings in the Dubois scores fall consistently at musical climaxes, i.e. the device is expressive-structural, not merely sonorous (p. 328, note 36).
  16. The crosses form a genuine notational system, read by position: title page = to be studied (often with a study order number), end of piece = work completed, paired crosses = cut, mid-piece = variant, ornament or simultaneous attack (p. 326, note 21).
  17. Lenz supplies the affective meaning of some crosses — up to three per piece as marks of Chopin’s satisfaction, after which he refused to hear the piece again (p. 326, note 21).
  18. Rarely a cross means the thumb, per the old English fingering system +, 1, 2, 3, 4; Stirling even wrote the continental “translation” into op. 34/3 of the Jędrzejewicz score (p. 326, note 21).
  19. Chopin’s deletions of languido e rubato (op. 15/3), replacement of Allegro by Largo (op. 28/14) and of the misprinted Presto (op. 33/1, to Lento in Stirling/Jędrzejewicz but Mesto in Dubois) show tempo headings were live editorial matter, and that the collections diverge on them (pp. 325, 327-328, notes 15 and 32).
  20. Chopin regularly assigned Hummel’s A minor and B minor Concertos, opp. 85 and 89, in preference to Hummel’s others (p. 331, note 69).

Arguments

The unit’s method is triangulation plus biography. Authorship of an annotation is never settled by the mark alone: Eigeldinger cross-checks script morphology (the shapes of 3, 2 and 5 identify Stirling; firm f/p and rit., a tempo, cres., dol. identify Franchomme), pencil quality within one piece (different pencils imply different sittings), edition identity and publisher embossment (which set earliest possible purchase dates), and documented biography (Neukomm’s cataract and travel diary, Stirling’s letters to Ludwika, Delacroix’s Journal). Where two of these conflict with received tradition, tradition loses — the Jędrzejewicz provenance story is discarded on chronological grounds.

The second argument is a hierarchy of sources. Stirling, Dubois and Jędrzejewicz form the primary triad; Franchomme is secondary (late reprints, thin non-fingering annotation, mostly non-Chopin hands); Zaleska-Rosengardt is largely non-Chopin but uniquely verbose; Scherbatoff is small but authenticable by stylistic fingerprint; Orda is “by far the least rich” and only possibly a lesson source. Crucially, richness and authenticity are separated: Zaleska has abundant annotation and low authority, Scherbatoff has sparse annotation and high authority.

Third, the appendix argues that surviving pupils’ scores are not one kind of document. Some are Chopin’s own working copies, some are lesson scores, some are a pupil’s private practice material, some are a later editorial project (Stirling’s corrected-edition scheme), some are a professional colleague’s performing material (Franchomme’s op. 8). Each function implies a different kind of evidence, so annotations cannot be pooled uncritically — a warning aimed at editors who did exactly that.

Evidence

  • Divergent readings mapped across four collections: op. 33/1 heading (Lento in Jędrzejewicz/Stirling vs Mesto in Dubois); op. 48/2 bar 57 (Molto più lento wholly deleted in Dubois, only Molto in the other two); op. 32/2 bar 1 arpeggio c added in Dubois/Franchomme but not the other two; op. 29 bar 64 fingering 4 vs 5; op. 48/1 bar 22 fingering 4–5 vs crossing 5–4 (p. 307).
  • Explicit opus lists of Stirling’s two-way collation into and out of the Jędrzejewicz scores: opp. 15/1-3, 25/7(?), 26/2, 27/1-2, 32/1, 33/4, 34/2, 48/1-2 inbound; opp. 27/2, 29, 33/4, 34/2, 34/3, 47, 48/2(?) outbound (p. 308).
  • Isolated annotations outside the collation (opp. 26/1, 26/2 dynamics, 28/4, 6, 9, 21), in Chopin’s hand in both sources, with pencils of differing quality (p. 308).
  • Franchomme provenance and content: three family collections (Couturier-André, Faure-André, Pénicaud), 52 opuses plus two works without opus number, full opus lists given per collection (pp. 310-311).
  • Autograph dedications in the Franchomme op. 10 and op. 9: “à mon Ami chéri Au. Franchomme” and the 1833 inscription; the Grand Duo Concertant and op. 9 title pages both signed by A. Forest (p. 311).
  • Jane Stirling’s letter of 13 June 1850 on Cécile Franchomme’s playing of a Nocturne under Mlle O’Meara (pp. 313-314).
  • Zaleska-Rosengardt: F.N. 15811-44 at the Bibliothèque Polonaise, 35 opuses, roughly two-thirds OFE and one-third OGE, the split explained by her May 1843 arrival in Paris; theory notes in Polish (intervals, scales) and a chromatic sequence of diminished sevenths on the covers of op. 25 (pp. 314-315).
  • The op. 57 verbal-annotation chain, bar by bar: 2e partie très douce, rall., doux, coulé, petite Péd., régulier, Rit., dolcissimo, les 2 péd., net, Léger, égal (p. 316); op. 28/20 titled Stabat Mater!
  • Fortescue op. 9: OFE imprint M.S. 1287, pencil dedication to “Pannie Rozengardt”, the date 2 January 1844 added in another hand, and Zofia’s diary record of a leçon orageuse that day; the final bar replaced by a large arpeggio identical to Stirling’s (pp. 318-319).
  • Scherbatoff: Harvard Houghton fMus. C 4555.B 846c, bequeathed 1933, bound with a table of contents headed Catalogue écrit l’année 1875, the op. 35 entry recording that Chopin played the Funeral March to her before publication; autograph dedications on opp. 35 and 36 with the dates cut out (pp. 319-321).
  • Scherbatoff authentication: l.h. 5–5 in the Funeral March trio (bars 31, 34, 36, 46) matching analogous passages in Stirling and Jędrzejewicz for opp. 27/1 and 32/1 (p. 321).
  • Orda: PL-Wtifc M/610, bought 1962 from Nicolas Rauch, Geneva; op. 10 in its first printing (dedication still misprinted “J. Liszt”), with a Vigneron lithograph portrait attached and an inked dedication in Chopin’s hand to Napoléon Orda; annotation limited to op. 19 plus crosses on mazurka openings (pp. 322-323).
  • The endnotes (pp. 324-332) catalogue by rubric the Stirling and Dubois annotations: cuts and insertions (note 14), tempo (notes 15, 32), phrasing and agogics (notes 16, 33), ornament execution (note 17), dynamics (notes 18, 34), pedalling (notes 19, 35), arpeggiation, simultaneous attack, redistribution between hands, facilitations and bass doublings (notes 20, 36, 47), crosses (notes 21, 37, 48).
  • Delacroix’s Journal, 1 July 1847, on a performance of the Trio at Chopin’s, with the probable misreading “Fauchon” for Franchomme (p. 331, note 65).

Quotes

  • “To consider these various coincidences as fortuitous is asking rather much of chance!” (p. 307)
  • “The inescapable conclusion even then was that Jane Stirling had deposited annotations at various points in the Jędrzejewicz collection.” (p. 307)
  • “That finding leads one to believe that some scores from both collections were equally used by Chopin in his lessons.” (p. 308)
  • “Besides, apart from fingering, performing indications here are rarer than in the Stirling, Dubois or Jędrzejewicz collections.” (p. 312)
  • “these corrections show the hand of an experienced musician who has mastered problems of notation” (p. 313)
  • “Whatever the connection linking these four sources, such unanimity constitutes a guarantee of authenticity for many of the annotations in the Franchomme scores.” (p. 314)
  • “Among the characteristics peculiar to the Zaleska scores, we find an abundance of continuous fingerings” (p. 316)
  • “tenir le poignet bas [keep the wrist low]” (p. 316)
  • “The fact that most of the annotations in the Scherbatoff scores are not corroborated literally in other students’ scores does not in fact undermine the authenticity of this new source.” (p. 321)
  • “the l.h. fingering 5–5 (so characteristic of Chopin!)” (p. 321)
  • “Among the annotated scores listed in this Appendix, those of Orda are by far the least rich in indications.” (p. 323)
  • “When Chopin was satisfied with a pupil[s performance], he marked a cross under the spot concerned with his finely sharpened pencil.” (p. 326)
  • “In each case this bass reinforcement coincides with a musical climax.” (p. 328)
  • “It is known that Chopin regularly assigned his students Hummel’s Concertos in A minor and B minor, opp. 85 and 89, in preference to Hummel’s other concertos.” (p. 331)
  • Provenance tradition vs handwriting evidence. The family tradition dating the Jędrzejewicz scores to September 1844 is defeated by Stirling’s script and by the absence of opp. 55-56, which had just appeared. Eigeldinger prefers material evidence over inherited narrative — the same move he makes throughout the book against the pupils’ memoirs.
  • Richness vs authority. Zaleska is the most verbally informative collection and among the least authoritative; Scherbatoff the reverse. Anyone mining these scores for “Chopin’s fingering” must weight by authorship, not by density.
  • Collation as contamination. Stirling’s well-meant two-way copying is exactly what makes cross-source agreement between her collection and Jędrzejewicz’s weak evidence — while agreement across four independent collections remains strong. The very act of preserving the tradition partly destroyed its independence.
  • Continues the Stirling / Dubois / Jędrzejewicz descriptions of Appendix II part I (part 13) and feeds directly into Appendix III, which prints the fingerings themselves.
  • Links back to the main text on both pedals used simultaneously (pp. 57-58), on the op. 38 introduction played alone (pp. 65-66), on the op. 9/2 cadenza variants reported by Lenz and Gutmann (p. 78), and on the Raindrop Prelude.
  • The op. 57 verbal chain (coulé, régulier, égal, net, Léger, petite Péd.) reads as a compact record of Chopin’s touch-and-pedal vocabulary and should be read against the technique chapters.
  • Editorial-reception tension: the Franchomme collection was ignored by the CW editors and by later critical editions, and Ganche’s OXF is the sole conduit for Stirling readings — so the printed tradition rests on a narrower and more distorted evidence base than the surviving sources allow.

Open questions

  • Appendix III begins on PDF page 333 (extracted text): “Appendix III: Fingerings and annotations in the scores of pupils and associates”. Pages 323-332 of this range are the endnotes to Appendix II (notes 1-79); the last prose section, “The Orda scores”, ends on p. 323.
  • Eigeldinger explicitly leaves the Franchomme collection unexplored (“remains to be explored”, p. 312) and declines to untangle the Zaleska hands (p. 316). What would a systematic study of either change about the accepted fingering tradition?
  • Could Stirling’s collation have begun while Chopin was alive? Eigeldinger judges it less plausible on grounds of her deference to the family, but the argument is characterological, not documentary.
  • The second, “bigger and less characterized” fingering hand in the Franchomme scores (opp. 42, 58 scherzo) is unidentified.
  • Two Stirling volumes (note 7) are unaccounted for, possibly destroyed; the dates cut from the Scherbatoff dedications are likewise lost — both would have dated the annotation layers.
  • Was Marie de Scherbatoff genuinely a pupil, and if the op. 47 annotations are Chopin’s, was she studying with him in 1841-2?
  • Where in the fingering-vs-editorial hierarchy do the crosses belong? Their meaning is inferred from position plus one Lenz anecdote; no source states the system.

Graph View