Page: 
Source: 
p. 1, b. 1-30
p. 1, b. 1-30
p. 2, b. 31-64
Main text
Main text
FC - Fontana's copy
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FED - Dubois copy
FES - Stirling copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Revised impression of GE1
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
Select notes: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Differences
No differences
FC - Fontana's copy
FE - French edition
FE1 - First French edition
FED - Dubois copy
FES - Stirling copy
GE - German edition
GE1 - First German edition
GE2 - Revised impression of GE1
EE - English edition
EE1 - First English edition
Importance
All
Important
Main
Prezentacja
Select 
copy link PDF Main text


  b. 24

Accent in FC (→GE)

No mark in FE (→EE)

Our variant suggestion

The FC accent was most probably written by Fontana, which suggests that it was overlooked in FE. The version without an accent could be however considered equal due to the dynamics of this bar, which was not specified – after the 7-bar cresc. seems natural; in this situation, a dynamic accent is actually superfluous, as the next bar begins in  dynamics. Nevertheless, even then this accent could be regarded as a typical mazurka feature, which is related to adequate, dance rubato (delay of the 3rd beat of the bar). Taking into account the above, in the main text we suggest a variant solution, leaving the choice of adequate dynamic relations (and perhaps agogic) in this bar to the performer.
There is a similar situation in analogous bar 56 and in bar 32 as well.

Compare the passage in the sources»

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

Missing markers on sources: FC, FE1, FED, FES, GE1, GE2, EE1