Issues : GE revisions

b. 35

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Short accent in EE

Long accent in GC

No mark in FE and GE

..

The accent visible in GC, if it reproduces the autograph notation faithfully, should be interpreted as a long one. EE has a short accent, which is probably an oversight, while FE and GE have none, which is probably a revision (cf. the note related to bar 377).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 37

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

Missing in GC are three augmenting dots for all the three minims in that bar. That obvious omission was corrected in GE.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 47

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

Rhythm in EE & GC (→GE1)

FE & GE2

..

Both versions of the rhythm in that bar are probably authentic. Identical rhythmic differences between those sources also occur in analogous bars 129 and 389. In the main text we give the version of FE, probably the latest one.
In GE2 the rhythm of that bar in the version of FE was introduced in all the analogous places. Such standardization has no justification in the sources.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Inserted rest

b. 59

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

As the lower note of the R. H. chord GC (→GE1) erroneously has b. Although the very fact of making a mistake is doubtless, it is not clear whether the copyist forgot to put in a  sign raising b to b sharp or whether he made the Terzverschreibung error. The g sharp that occurs in EE and FE is a strong argument for the latter possibility and this is how the error was corrected in GE2

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Errors of GC

b. 64

composition: Op. 39, Scherzo in C♯ minor

..

In GC this bar is partially empty, i.e. the 2nd and the 3rd beats are missing. As EE and FE give the full version of the bar that is the same for both those sources, it is obvious that GC should have that version as well. GE1 has two crotchet rests added instead, which was changed in GE2 to the correct text probably taken from FE. A similar situation occurs in bar 406.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC