The two accents, absent in EE, are longer in FE than the seven remaining ones in b. 274-276 and, consequently, perfectly visible. Therefore, an oversight could not have been the reason for their absence in EE. The reason could have been the wish to avoid a situation in which an accent (or a dynamic hairpin) crosses note stems; however, this hypothesis is contradicted by b. 77-78, in which such a crossing is present in EE. In turn, it seems likely that the marks were added in the last stage of proofreading of FE, which was not included in EE. It would explain both their different form in FE and their absence in EE. On the basis of this scenario, we consider the difference in the length of the accents in FE to be resulting from their different origin, hence insignificant.
In GE1 the difference in the length was preserved in the first accent only, yet it was restored in GE2 (→GE3).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Inaccuracies in GE, GE revisions, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
