In A the 
marks in bar 110, 112 and 114 are provided with the shape of long accents; therefore, according to us, they are supposed to be interpreted as such, in spite of them being longer than typical accents. It is the length that misled the engraver of GE, who considered them diminuendoes; moreover, they were extended so that they start already at the beginning of the bars (the mark in bar 112, overlooked by GE1, was added by GE2 in a form compliant with the A notation). In FE the marks are also longer than the ones in A, yet in this case they are extended on their right-hand side so that they reach the end of the bar (the first one) or even the beginning of the next bar (the second and the third ones). In this case, we cannot rule out their authenticity – Chopin could have added the marks to A after [FC] had been finished and also independently to the copy or while proofreading FE1 (in adjacent bar 109 and analog. this is how Chopin was adding 
hairpins to A). In the main text we provide in these places long accents as a contextual interpretation of the A marks; on the other hand, we consider the longer hairpins of FE, the meaning of which can be deemed almost identical to long accents, to be an acceptable variant. Such a solution is supported by the A notation in analogous bars 277-291 – in bar 277 and 291 we can see there typical long accents, which justifies the main text, while in bar 279 Chopin wrote a hairpin whose range is identical to the one of the FE hairpin in bar 110, which is an argument for possible authenticity of the FE marks.
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in FE, Errors in GE, GE revisions
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Back to note