Three accents written in A are unambiguously long. At the same time, the marks seem to be similar to each other, particularly considered in the context of the entire two-bar phrase. Therefore, it is difficult to regard such a clear difference between them merely as a result of misunderstanding of A or of the engraver's carelessness. According to us, it suggests that the engraver, in order not to get lost in the manuscript, worked on each of the bars separately, without seeing the adjacent ones. Seeing only bar 415, he interpreted the accents as relatively short 
marks, whereas in bar 416 – he considered both signs to be accents (short). This mechanism explains also one of the most frequent distortions of slurring – predilection for whole-bar slurs, an example of which is the division of the slur in the R.H. in these bars.
FE restored the notation of A, perhaps as a result of Chopin's intervention. Both EE and GE2 reproduced the Chopinesque long accents as short ones.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Inaccuracies in GE, GE revisions, EE inaccuracies, FE revisions
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins