The dynamic markings in bars 310-314 raise doubts, particularly in FE (→EE) – when interpreted literally, a crescendo lasting only two bars seems to be unnatural in this context, while the placement of the 
mark suggests inaccuracies (cf. analogous bars 82-86). However, it is impossible to determine the notation of [A], hence we suggest a few possible modifications of the notation based on the autograph of FE. One of them was introduced already in GE, the other are prolongation of the range of crescendo until 
in bar 314 or a minor shift of , relating that indication to the resumption of the semiquaver movement in the melody.
In the main text, we leave the version of FE (→EE). It may actually suggest nuances of uncertain authenticity, yet one can easily interpret the general dynamic image of that fragment on the basis thereof. After all, it cannot be excluded that it contains elements proofread by Chopin:
- if we omit in bar 314, it is clear that the remaining indications (cresc. - - - and ) correspond to the inaccurately reproduced indications of analogous bars 82-86 – the dashes marking the range of crescendo end too early, while was placed in a wrong bar (313 instead of 314). The inaccuracy could have been provoked by hasty notation of [A] or carelessness of the engraver (or perhaps both);
- while proofreading FE (→EE), Chopin could have added in bar 314 to define the climax in the correct place without excessively complicating the proofreading.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in FE, GE revisions
notation: Verbal indications
