Rachmaninoff misprint? (Wohin transcription)

[extroitus]

On IMSLP, I find one edition of Rachmaninoff's transcription of "Wohin" from "Die Schöne Müllerin" by Franz Schubert.

I've been pondering upon bar 12, that is the last of the three bars provided, for a couple of months now. Look at the second eight in LH, playing b and e'.

I think this e' really should be an e#'. Does anybody have an opinion on this potential misprint? My motive for this is quite vague, apart from e# "sounding more convincing", it complies with the original.

So please, advice. I would love to read your views on this!

[visitor]

my opinion is w/ it as written based purely on a textural and harmonic analysis of the measure.
1. three note figure before includes RH B nat and f nat,
2. the figure you question doubles this.
3. the figure right after includes the  two of same notes, b nat and f nat
4. making the change for e sharp doesn't make harmonic sence, a raising that e to e sharp would imply a leading tone to f sharp.  the measure instead has f nat, doesn't make any sense.
5. putting e sharp in that spot would also create a strange 'stutter' with a 'repeated note, it would not only be super awkward, but would also neccessiate switching fingers, and the figures already falls into the hand, creating a repeat in there would be odd.
6. harmonic analysis would fall apart w e sharp, you'd create a weird e sharp minor on an altered 7th (the 7th would normally be d sharp (ie min 7th) but creating a natural in base essentially 'double flats' the 7th and you  haven't built a diminished interval on the basic triad yet. wouldn't be unheard on in a 20th century/jazz idiom but i don't see it fitting in this context at all.
just my thoughts. i could be way off because

[extroitus]

Great reply, visitor. Much appreciated!

[ahinton]

Visitor has said it all, really but, to me, his/her point 5. is arguably the most convincing of all the arguments for retaining it as is; a repeated note (which is what would result from E# being followed by F natural) would make no sense and be out of sequence with its contextual surroundings.

Best,

Alistair