The b3 note present in FE (→EE,GE1→GE2) as the 4th semiquaver raises doubts, since a corresponding note in analogous bar 304 is an a3. Such minor discrepancies in the virtuoso figurational fragments are rare in Chopin's works, hence this difference implies a possibility of a mistake in one of these places. However, a conclusive resolution of the issue whether and which of the versions is erroneous is impossible, since both do not raise any sound or pianistic doubts.
The source argument, analysis of the notation of FE, supports rather the version with b3. In bar 288, this note, together with the previous one and four next ones, is written with the use of an octave sign, thanks to which the intervals between the given notes, e.g. the b2-b3 octave, are legible, and there is no reason to assume that the engraver could have mistaken an a3 for b3. In turn, in bar 304, the topmost note is written over the 4th ledger line, which favours mistakes. Moreover, the note is not placed on the 5th ledger line, but it is printed higher than it should be as an a3, at the pitch of b3.
On the other hand, the stylistic issues clearly support the version with a3, thanks to which the otherwise clear relation to the previous bar becomes almost evident, somewhat organic – it is the entire three-note motif, a3-g
3-f3, that is repeated, and not only a part of it.
According to us, the last argument is the most significant, hence in the main text we suggest an a3, modelled after bar 304. In turn, taking into account both compared bars, we are presented with three versions, potentially compliant with Chopin's intention:
- a3 in both bars; this most likely, according to us, version was introduced already in GE3;
- b3 in bar 288 and a3 in bar 304, like it is in FE;
- b3 in both bars, assuming a mistake in bar 304.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: GE revisions
notation: Pitch
