One can doubt whether Chopin actually wanted to tie the a1 demisemiquaver, which is suggested by the tie, visible in the sources, combining it with the crotchet in the next bar. In a similar melodic and rhythmic context, appearing in Chopin's pieces on a number of occasions, a note falling on a strong beat of bar is always played (repeated) – cf. e.g. bars 220-221 and 571-572 or 606-609 as well as in the 2nd movement, bars 23-26 and 39-42, and in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, 2nd mov., bars 37-39, 41-42, 46-47 or 52-53. Therefore, it seems highly likely that in this case Chopin also wanted to repeat a1 at the beginning of bar 619. Therefore, how come that a tie of that note was printed? An analysis of the traces of proofreading visible in FE provides valuable insight, since it reveals the original version of that fragment: 
. One can see that in the original version, in spite of the tied a1, the melody was not deprived of a note played on a strong beat of bar (to avoid misunderstandings, in the example presented below we omit the tied a1, which, although it begins the split of the melodic line in the ending of the phrase, does not belong to the main course of the melody, consisting of the presently played notes): 
. The proofreading was most probably aimed at enhancing the expression using a dramatic appoggiatura: 
(cf. bar 607). In this situation, it seems almost certain that the tie of the original version was left here by inadvertence (such an unfinished proofreading, in which the elements that were supposed to be removed were left, can be frequently encountered in Chopin's pieces, e.g. shorter slurs in the R.H. in the 3rd mov., bars 180-181 or erroneous notes in the Scherzo in B Minor, Op. 20, bar 135 and 292).
In EE, the notation of bar 619 was completed with rests. At the same time, the layout of the voices was arbitrarily changed, since a1 and e1 were assigned to various voices.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Editorial revisions
issues: Partial corrections
notation: Rhythm
