We do not know whether Chopin considered one of the performance indications at the beginning of the Scherzo – 
or an accent – to be final. There are even no grounds to state which one is later – admittedly, in GC (→GE) seems to be written with Chopin's hand, yet the accent, present in this place in FE (→EE), could have been added by Chopin in [A] already after the proofreading of GC (if we are to believe that both the copyist and the engraver reproduced the factual state of [A] faithfully, the accent must have been added later). One could suppose that each of these indications describes simply a different performance aspect – the accent applies to one note only, while generally refers to a certain section, in this case it could be valid until, e.g., 
in bar 12. In such a situation, there would be nothing wrong in combining them, which could be explained with an oversight in one of the sources. However, according to us, Chopin probably consciously resigned from , as it did not render the character of the beginning here theme correctly (and of the extreme sections of the Scherzo in general). Its essence seem to be very distinct accents and significant dynamic differences over short sections (marked with 
signs in bars 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9-10). Therefore, in spite of the fact that the upbeat and bars 2, 4, 8 and 11-12 are to be most probably performed in the dynamics, in the remaining bars, the dynamics is rather not valid. (An example of deletion of at the beginning of the piece in one of the Stichvorlage manuscripts is the autograph of the Mazurka in F
minor, Op. 59 No. 3.)
Before the 1st crotchet of the piece, in GC one can see a deleted indication, probably risoluto.
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information
issues: Alterations in GC, Authentic corrections in GC
notation: Verbal indications
Back to note