No. 1 bar 26: the natural on the C is editorial.

No. 1 bar 31: the Brandus edition had "3me [position]", but the Schott edition has "4e [position]". Logically, Schott appears to be correct because the first finger is indeed at the fourth fret. However, it is quite possible to say that Brandus was right, because the first finger is positioned as it were at the third fret but is then "temporarily" moved up to play the F sharp at the fourth fret. In other words, I don't think that the 3 in Brandus was a mistake for 4. In this edition I have kept the Schott reading because it's simplest.

No. 3 bar 16 the Brandus edition has 8th position which is also in the Schott. But in fact it is 9th position. 8th position is an error. One wonders who was responsible for such an elementary mistake. Was it the person who added the fingering? Or the engraver? In handwriting of that time, 8 and 9 are not very similar, so it wasn't that someone just misread a 9 for an 8.

No. 3 bar 22 bass D: Brandus has a whole note but Schott puts a dotted minim (and no rest) which must be wrong. Here Brandus was right and Schott has got it wrong. Very odd.

No. 4 bar 22, sixth note: this is D in both Brandus and Schott but it should obviously be B and has been corrected in this edition. Again the D is an error. Who put it?

No. 5 bars 9-12 this fingering is not at all good. There are many better ways in which this passage could be played. In bar 11, the fingering 44 from the A to the D is simply clumsy. One is hard to put to it to think that Carcassi wrote this fingering. Rather, it seems to me that it was done by someone who was very familiar with the system of fingering in Carcassi's method but who wasn't very good, quite possibly after Carcassi's death in January 1853 and quite possibly in some haste. However, in this edition I have confined myself to putting 423 in bar 12 where the original has 412 which is not possible to play because no first finger is available to play the high B. I think that players should feel free to play this passage with whatever fingering they prefer.

No. 8 bar 2 Brandus has 3134 which is obviously wrong and Schott corrects it to 3104 which is possible. (How did the Brandus error happen in the first place? Just bad fingering, or a mistake by the Brandus engraver?) Or was it originally perhaps 3143 with a slur, giving the same slur effect as in the rest of this passage and without the touch of campanelas given by the open E? In this edition I have left the Schott reading.

No. 8 bar 4 second group, Brandus and Schott both have no slur here, and I have added one since there seems no reason for its omission.

No. 8 bar 15 first group Brandus and Schott both have 1142 which is just possible but very awkward and hard to play. I have put 1121.

No. 8 bar 23 Brandus has 114 (with the slur) which is a possible but very awkward fingering, and Schott corrects it to 1240 which is much better. Again the question arises: how was such an awkward fingering put there in the first place?

No. 9 bars 3 and 5, the Brandus edition omits the necessary sharps on the Ds but the Schott edition adds them.

No. 9 bars 2 and 4 Brandus has "3e pos", but it can't possibly be. It must be 9th position in both places. The Schott corrects it in bar 4 but not in bar 2. Again how did that bad fingering get there? It isn't likely that it was a misreading, because a 3 and a 9 in writing of that time are not similar to each other.

No. 9 bar 6, first group: Brandus has "8me pos" but again it isn't, it's 6th position. Schott corrects it (in the engraving it looks like a last-minute correction).

No. 10 In the second part of this piece (bars 17-40) Brandus has no position markings. Schott added some, but it has not been thought necessary to add them in this edition.

No. 12 bar 3, third group, Brandus and Schott both have 211 which cannot be played. It is a mistake. In this edition I have put 231.

No. 12 bar 9 fourth note, Brandus has the wrong fingering 1 but Schott corrects this by deleting the 1.

No. 12 bar 5, third group, there is a question whether the C should be sharp or not. It is sharp in the Brandus (that is to say, Brandus gives no accidental) and also very clearly the Schott edition originally had no accidental, but in the Schott edition it can be seen that the engraver has added a natural as an afterthought, small and squeezed into a place where no space had been left for it, probably added by the engraver at the last minute (it isn't full size like the one in the next group). My own opinion is that this original reading of C sharp (without the natural) is correct, that is to say it is what Carcassi probably intended. It echoes exactly the two Bs in bar 3 and the two Ds in bar 6 (play the top notes only as a single melodic line, and you will see what I mean).

No. 12 bar 11 second group, the natural on the G is editorial (not there in Brandus or Schott).

No. 12 bar 13, there is another question about a sharp or natural, on the C in the second group. The Brandus edition clearly has a natural. So does the Schott edition, but in the Schott you can see that the natural is again an afterthought as at bar 5, that the engraver at first didn't put it in. Did the engraver think that it should be C sharp? C sharp would make good musical sense, but then so does C natural, and C natural is probably the original reading and has been left in this edition.

No. 13 bar 19 eighth and ninth notes: Brandus has fingering 34 which is not possible, it is a mistake. Schott corrects it to 32 which is fine.

No. 15 bar 6 second half, the original fingering (in both Brandus and Schott) is 1142, but that involves a kind of awkward part-barré peculiar to the time. I have preferred 1113 and have altered it accordingly.

No. 15 bar 15 first half: the fingering is original in both Brandus and Schott and shows a momentary campanelas effect and has been left in this edition. However, this left hand fingering does mean that the right hand fingering is then different at this point from that in all the rest of the piece. It creates a difficulty for the right hand and a difference in technique, just for the sake of one tiny and momentary impression. Maybe Carcassi intended that, but I personally rather doubt it. If the player doesn't want that change in right hand fingering, he or she could play 24143 and thus have the same right hand fingering as in the rest of the piece and no momentary campanelas. Because the fingering as we saw has dubious authority, there isn't any certainty, however pretty the campanelas effect, that it was intended by Carcassi.

No. 17 bar 22 Brandus and Schott both have 7th position, but in fact it is 6th position and 6th position has been put in this present edition.

No. 20 bar 24 the glissando mark is missing in both Brandus and Schott and has here been added.

No. 23 bar 17 first chord, Brandus and Schott both have 13 but that is an error. In this edition I have put 23.

No. 24 bar 4, slurs added on the analogy of bar 23.

No. 25 bar 9 Brandus and Schott both give repeat dots at the beginning of this bar. But that must be an error because of the big climax at the end of this piece (indeed, at the end of this whole work), which it is hard to imagine could have been intended to be played twice. In this edition the repeat dots have been removed.