In A the range of the slur does not raise doubts, hence it seems strange that it starts earlier both in GE and FE (→EE). Chopin's correction could be an option only in the case of FE (or its basis, [FC]), particularly since the starting point of the slur placed as such in analogous bars 112-113 could have resulted from Chopin's corrections. On the other hand, the inaccuracy of GE suggests that an extension of the slur could have resulted from a mistake also in the copy or FE. The geometry of the horizontal layout of notes in FE suggests a possibility of committing a 'mirror' mistake – the FE slur, ending on a semiquaver, is symmetrical in relation to the one that can be seen in A (the axis of symmetry is in the middle of the quaver beam). This scenario also explains the inaccurate ending of the FE slur (corrected in EE). Another possibility would be the proximity of the 
hairpin, the bottom arm of which could have been considered a beginning of the slur. The isolated nature of this difference is another argument against Chopin's possible intervention – unlike the first time (bars 110-115), in the adjacent, similar motifs (bars 277-278 and 281) the range of the slur is compliant in all sources. As the authenticity of the version of the editions is highly unlikely, in the main text we provide the A slur.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in FE
notation: Slurs
