The version of EE, most probably introduced on the basis of comparison with analogous bars 296-297, may be an accurate guess of Chopin's intention. Both pairs of bars, just like the entire previous fragment, are practically identical from the pianistic point of view (except for minor differences in performance markings). Therefore, differentiating this detail does not seem to be justified, which implies a mistake – the slur in bar 313 could have been placed on the wrong side of the c
2 crotchet in this bar. Such mistakes, consisting in reversing or mirroring a mark, would happen on a number of occasions at that time, e.g. in the Concerto in F minor, op. 21, the 3rd mov., bars 172-173, the Scherzo in B
minor, op. 31, bars 265-266 or the Scherzo in E major, op. 54, bars 480-481.
However, the evaluation of differentiation in these places changes if we take into account the orchestral part. In bars 296-297, the tied c2 crotchet is doubled in flute I, which makes it perfectly audible in spite of it not being played in the piano part. In bars 312-313, c2 is not performed by any orchestral instrument; the fact of the pianist holding the note significantly reduces its audibility in bar 313. According to us, it could have been the reason it was repeated in this place, hence in the main text we give the version of FE (→GE) with the motivic slur.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, Sign reversal
notation: Rhythm
