Just like in the first section of the piece, in b. 22-32 the range of the dynamic hairpins, as well as telling the difference between 
accents (long or short), poses a major problem, since the copies that are closest to [A2] are either fairly inaccurate (CJ) or very densely written (CK). If, which seems likely, [A2] had been equally densely written as CK, the difficulties in the interpretation of these marks must have had appeared already at the time of its interpretation. The versions of CB and EL are visibly contaminated with interventions performed by Balakirev or Kolberg, going beyond an attempt to interpret the notation faithfully. The version suggested in the main text is a result of our analysis of these marks, taking into account the notation of CJ and CK confronted with the Chopinesque practices in this respect, known from other works. In the entire fragment, the absence of such marks in A1 is particularly noteworthy.
In the discussed bar the clear accent of CK allows us to consider the longer mark in CJ a long accent. CB and EL provided the mark with the form of a diminuendo hairpin, adjusting its length to the 1st beat of the bar.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Revisions in EL
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
