It is difficult to determine whether Chopin wanted an accent in both bars or only in the first, since each of the versions may be erroneous:
- the engraver of GE could have, e.g. repeated the accent in the second bar, confused by the similarity between the first beats of those bars,
- the copyist or engraver of FE could have simply overlooked the second accent.
If we were to assume that both versions are authentic, it is their chronology that would be uncertain. If Chopin had entered the accent into [A] after [FC] had already been finished, it would be the version of GE that would be later. On the other hand, the version of FE could have also been later if Chopin had removed the accent, e.g. in the basis for FE.
In this situation, we adopt the version of our principal source, i.e. FE, as the main text. According to us, it is also slightly more suitable in terms of music – in the part which begins here, based on a distinct, 2-bar-long rhythmic pattern of a military nature, a single accent decisively underlines the beginning of a new section, whereas two accents could undermine the effect of the first two appearances of that pattern, suggesting a less emphatic accentuation of the latter (bars 85-86).
The version of EE1 is most probably an oversight of the engraver. In GE2 the 1st R.H. quaver in b. 83 was placed on the top stave, while the accent applying to both hands was replaced with two, one for each hand.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information
issues: Errors in EE, GE revisions
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins