The missing slur over the three-note motif is almost certainly an oversight – respective slurs are featured in three previous analogous places (b. 133-136); a possible reason for the oversight could have been the transition into a new line in FE, opening with b. 137. On the other hand, the accent on the 2nd quaver in b. 137 may suggest another articulation, in which the accent is prepared with a gesture by jumping from the preceding quaver, like, e.g. in b. 141 – cf. also b. 18 and 22 (as well as, e.g. the Ballade in G Minor, Op. 23, b. 34). This is probably what the reviser of GE was thinking while adding a staccato dot over the 1st quaver in this bar. The reviser of EE followed this idea even further, since he added a slur and a wedge. However, the authentic slur in b. 144-145, encompassing a very similar figure to the discussed one in its final part, along with the accent on the last sixth, is an argument against such an understanding of this motif.
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: EE revisions, GE revisions
notation: Slurs
Back to note